The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20120264.tiff Ili II N oR�x I-25 , , �ii � ID North EIS information. cooperation. transportation ID SI _ 25 .., • . RECORD III III of• • • DEC S ON • • .....................,„ _ _ , . . _ ._ _ . • ..........„..,-ASP 4.. '.. 4."31- ir.- ` v ea ` leF ♦ 1. . Z -!l yam- .no V9 }. , , • r 14. • IInit f - • • c!� •y • _ t ' ? • -a I. -�' -211- , \ it . , v.. • . _ . • i .... , ._ ,, . ,, ,, . , .., .w. \ 1 ki � i� 1 FIr e _ • I -" 1 it • _6. /IN) • . " II l 1•; ' ► ngty (ei-Viki,fe t4.,it t ' , ; .7,,rrr w :it="_C'T ..11.`..7%.:. . .).M.: t v,' .7,�i jam t a • . ' • . .ti a 05: t. .. _y- -d t s.. r.1� i�..--•t t,v i j • Ill • I I • D C)T • ice_ • U S Depo•tmen'of han;po-tot:on Deceffiber III This Page Left Intentionally Blank. N oRM 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01 -F Federal Highway Administration December 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS This Record of Decision (ROD) will be published in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code §139(l), indicating that the Federal Highway Administration has taken the final action to approve Phase 1 of this transportation project; and future RODs may be published for future phases of the transportation project. Claims seeking judicial review of this Federal action must be filed within 180 days after the date of the notice. INFORMATION AVAILABILITY The following individuals may be contacted for further information regarding the North 1-25 ROD: Carol Parr Colorado Department of Transportation 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80632 (970) 350-2170 Monica Pavlik Project Manager, Senior Operations Engineer Federal Highway Administration 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 180 Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3012 NORTH I-25 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AVAILABILITY The North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (CDOT, August 2011) is available electronically at http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis or on CD-ROM. Please contact either of the individuals listed above to obtain a CD. REVISED SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION A Revised Section 4(t) Evaluation was completed in October 2011, and is incorporated into this ROD by reference. Please contact either of the above individuals to obtain a copy. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AM morning ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACM asbestos-containing material APCD Air Pollution Control Division APE Area of Potential Effect APEN Air Pollution Emissions Notice BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway BRT bus rapid transit CAA Clean Air Act CBC concrete box culvert CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System CER Cost Estimate Review CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CR County Road DIA Denver International Airport DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments E-470 Extended 470 (E-470 is an extension of C-470) EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOC Executive Oversight Committee EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GWRR Great Western Rail Road HOT high-occupancy toll HOV high-occupancy vehicle North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONT'D) 1-# Interstate # (e.g., 1-25) ISA Initial site assessment LCR Larimer County Road LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative LOS level of service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMP Materials Management Plan MOU memorandum of understanding MPO metropolitan planning organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NB northbound NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFRMPO North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization NRHP National Register of Historic Places OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation OPS Division of Oil and Public Safety (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment) PA Programmatic Agreement PBO Programmatic Biological Opinion PM evening PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter RAQC Regional Air Quality Council RCC Regional Coordination Committee ROD Record of Decision RTD Regional Transportation District RTP Regional Transportation Plan SB Colorado Senate Bill SB southbound SH State Highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONT'D) SIP State Implementation Plan STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program SWMP Stormwater Management Plan TAC Technical Advisory Committee TEL tolled express lane THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TIP Transportation Improvement Program UFRRPC Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission UPRR Union Pacific Railroad US # United States Highway number (e.g., US 36) USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VMT vehicle miles traveled WCR Weld County Road North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations This Page Left Intentionally Blank. NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. BACKGROUND 1 B. BASIS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 B.1 Description of Process 2 B.2 Alternatives Considered and Not Selected 3 B.2.1 Range of Alternatives Initially Considered 4 B.2.2 No-Action Alternative 11 B.2.3 Package A 11 B.2.4 Package B 14 B.3 Basis for Identification of the Preferred Alternative 16 B.3.1 Purpose and Need 16 B.3.2 Other Supporting Factors 18 B.3.3 Environmental Impacts 21 C. PHASE 1 OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 37 C.1 Decision-Making Process 37 C.2 Project Prioritization Process 37 C.3 Reasons for Selecting Specific Elements 39 C.4 Description of Elements 41 C.5 Estimated Cost 45 C.6 Responsiveness to Purpose and Need 45 C.7 Traffic Analysis 46 C.8 Environmental Impacts 49 C.9 Timing of Additional Phases 53 D. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 53 E. LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA) 55 F. RE-ANALYSIS OF NOISE IMPACTS 55 G. SECTION 4(F) 56 H. STATUS OF FEDERAL AND STATE APPROVALS 59 H.1 Air Quality 59 H.1.1 Project Level Air Quality Conformity for the Proposed Action (Phase 1) 59 H.1.2 Regional Air Quality Evaluation for the Preferred Alternative 59 H.1.3 Regional Air Quality Conformity for Phase 1 60 H.2 Section 106 Consultation 61 H.3 CDOT 1601 Process 62 H.4 Section 404 Permit 62 H.5 Biological Opinion 63 I. APPROVALS FOR INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS 63 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Table of Contents-i NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page J. CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS FROM FINAL EIS 63 J.1 Clarifications related to the description of the DRCOG 2035 RTP 63 J.2 Clarifications regarding the Mason Corridor and specific details related to it 64 J.3 Clarifications regarding Flex bus route from Fort Collins to RTD's transit syste in Longmont 65 J.4 Clarification regarding access control plans 65 J.5 Description of the northern terminus of the commuter rail line 65 J.6 Revisions to Municipal Plans 65 J.7 Correction to location of PM 2.5 monitoring station 66 J.8 Corrections to the figures showing the location of the end of line for the NW Rail station in Longmont 66 J.9 Location of an express bus station along US 34 66 J.10 Corrections and clarifications to the numbers of historic properties affected 66 J.11 Corrections and clarifications to the number of Section 4(f) properties used by the project 67 J.12 Clarifications to text describing the historic impact to the Little Thompson River Bridge 67 J.13 Location of Commuter Bus Station on Figure 67 J.14 Designation of Long View Open Space 68 J.15 Corrections to the Number of Displacements 68 J.16 Clarification of Use of the Acronyms GP and GPL 68 J.17 Clarification of the Role of the Federal Transit Administration 68 K. MITIGATION MEASURES 77 L. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 90 L.1 Water Quality/Water Resources 90 L.1.1 Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) 90 L.1.2 Section 404 Permit 90 L.1.3 Section 402 Permit 90 L.1.4 Section 401 Water Quality Certification 91 L.1.5 Floodplain Permits 91 L.2 Air Quality 91 L.2.1 Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) Requirements 91 L.2.2 Other Air Quality Permits 91 L.3 Biological Resources 92 L.3.1 Senate Bill (SB) 40 Certification 92 L.3.2 Prairie Dog Relocation Permit 92 L.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 92 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Table of Contents-II NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page L.4 Access 92 L.4.1 State Access Permit 92 L.4.2 Construction Access Permit 92 L.4.3 Other Local Permits 93 M. COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS 93 N. DECISION 94 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures of Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 Appendix B: Responses to Final EIS Comments Appendix C: Agency Correspondence Appendix D: Section 106 Effect Determinations Appendix E: Biological Opinion Appendix F: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Appendix G: Section 106 Programmatic Agreement Appendix H: Final EIS Public Review Documentation North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Table of Contents-iii NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. No-Action Alternative 12 Figure 2. Package A 13 Figure 3. Package B 15 Figure 4. Phase 1 43 Figure 5. Phase 1-1-25 Mainline Level of Service (LOS) 48 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Level Three Screening Summary 7 Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 22 Table 3. Phase 1 —Structures 44 Table 4. Phase 1 — Estimated Cost by Element 45 Table 5. Miles of 1-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) 47 Table 6. 2035 Phase 1 Travel Time 49 Table 7. 2035 Weekday Transit Ridership—Phase 1 49 Table 8. Resources Impacted by Phase 1 50 Table 9. Summary and Comparison of Phase 1 Area Traffic Noise Impacts 56 Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component 69 Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary 78 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 List of Figures and Tables-iv NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. RECORD OF DECISION A. BACKGROUND The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) (the lead agencies) published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2003, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality and FHWA regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. This Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared in compliance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771 and 774, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 40 CFR 1500-1508, and the requirements of NEPA, as amended. In 2008, the lead agencies released a Draft EIS. After a comment period and consideration of public and agency comments received on the 2008 Draft EIS, CDOT engaged the two stakeholder committees [the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Regional Coordination Committee (RCC)], in 2009 to participate in a collaborative decision-making process with the lead agencies to identify a Preferred Alternative. In August 2011, the lead agencies released a Final EIS. The Final EIS presents the final evaluation of improvements and associated environmental and social impacts of the alternatives evaluated including the Preferred Alternative and a fundable Phase 1 for the NEPA process. The Final EIS is incorporated into this ROD by reference. Information about its availability is included in this ROD on the back of the title page. The Final EIS describes, in detail, the decision-making process and summarizes the analysis of considerations for identifying the alternatives that were fully evaluated in the Final EIS, their impacts, and ability to meet the Purpose and Need. In addition, the Final EIS includes an evaluation of the potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The Section 4(f) Evaluation was subsequently revised (October 27, 2011) as described in Section G of this document and is incorporated herein by reference. Information about its availability is included in this ROD on the back of the title page. Appendix A and Appendix B of the Final EIS also include a full accounting of all comments received on the Draft EIS and the lead agencies' responses to those comments. As described in the Final EIS, the lead agencies intend to work toward implementing the Preferred Alternative in its entirety. Due to current funding limitations and federal requirements that require the project to be in the fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) prepared by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DROCG), the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC) before a decision document can be approved, only a portion of the Preferred Alternative, Phase 1, can be selected for implementation in this ROD. Subsequent phases or portions of phases can be implemented as additional funding is identified and included in the fiscally constrained RTP(s), enabling the lead agencies to work toward implementation of the entire Preferred Alternative. For each subsequent phase or portion of a phase, a ROD will be issued detailing the phase to be implemented. A phase may or may not be consistent with the phasing presented in the Final EIS. However, any portion of the Preferred Alternative approved in a ROD must be consistent with the fiscally constrained RTP(s).The lead agencies will review the information North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 1 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. provided in the Final EIS, current conditions, any changes that have occurred over time, this ROD and any other RODs associated with the Preferred Alternative in preparing each subsequent ROD. This ROD is the final step in the NEPA process for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. B. BASIS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative was developed through a collaborative process among the lead agencies and stakeholders to develop an effective transportation solution with long-term broad support. A collaborative decision-making process was used to help the lead agencies shape a Preferred Alternative that met the Purpose and Need and was acceptable to stakeholders. A collaborative decision-making process was used because of the benefits of broad community support and limited financial resources available for transportation improvements in the region. Broad community support sets the stage for local agency participation, partnerships, and commitment to implementation through policies, zoning, adoption of complementary land use and transportation plans. Broad community support is also more likely to attract funding. B.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS A wide range of alternatives was initially developed that included multiple transit technologies on various feasible alignments and highway improvements on both existing and new alignments. The process of developing and screening alternatives took into account the following: ► State and federal requirements ► The Purpose and Need for the project ► The reasonableness of an alternative ► Ability to avoid or minimize environmental impacts ► The regional planning context ► Public input A substantial proactive public and local agency involvement program was conducted to gather input to the alternatives development and evaluation process. This program included: ► Executive Oversight Committee (EOC). An EOC was established, consisting of representatives from the lead agencies (FHWA and CDOT) that met to determine policy decisions relating to the project. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was a part of the EOC until after the Draft EIS was released. At that point in time, their role on the project changed to a Cooperating Agency, so they no longer participated on the EOC. The EOC met at key project milestones. ► RCC. The RCC was established at the beginning of the project. It consisted of elected officials from the 45 municipalities and counties that chose to participate as well as Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the North 1-25 regional study area. The RCC met about every other month North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 2 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. throughout the study. Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, the RCC meetings were combined with the TAC meetings and were held on an as-needed basis. ► TAC. The TAC was established at the beginning of the project. It included staff representatives from the 45 municipalities and counties in the regional study area that chose to participate, as well as representatives from RTD, EPA, MPOs, and a number of state and federal resource agencies as described in Section 9.2.2, Technical Coordination of the Final EIS. The TAC met approximately monthly throughout the early part of the study and every other month beginning in 2007 until the Draft EIS was released. Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, TAC meetings were combined with the RCC meetings and held on an as-needed basis. ► Project Website. A project website was established in 2004 and has been updated throughout the project. ► Newsletters. Seven issues of the NorthLink (prepared for this project) newsletter were prepared and distributed to a mailing list of 5,007 people. In addition, six issues of an electronic newsletter, E-Link, were e-mailed to an electronic mailing list of 1,632 people. ► Public Meetings and Working Groups. To date, 33 public meetings or working group meetings have been held; 11 in 2004, four in 2005, 12 in 2006, three public hearings after the release of the Draft EIS, and three public hearings after the release of the Final EIS, in addition to the TAC and RCC meetings. In addition, 45 interchange working group meetings were held with adjacent property owners between spring and fall 2006 to solicit input regarding interchange layout options. Eight transit station working group meetings were held to solicit input regarding locations for bus and rail transit stations. In 2008, during the Draft EIS process, three public hearings were held to solicit comments from the community. During development of the Final EIS, in 2009 and 2010, other meetings were held to solicit input from the public, including targeted populations and various city council meetings. The three Final EIS public hearings were held in September 2011. ► Other Community Meetings. A total of 47 small group meetings were held to gather input from civic organizations, such as Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions clubs, and other community groups. A total of 11 meetings were held specifically to solicit input about the EIS process from low income and minority groups. ► Community Events. Project representatives had booths or participated in a total of 17 community events, such as the Taste of Fort Collins and the Milliken Beef and Bean Festival. B.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND NOT SELECTED An extensive process was undertaken to identify a range of alternatives that could be developed to meet the Purpose and Need of the project. A summary of the range of alternatives that was initially developed is included in Section B.2.1 of this document. These alternatives were then screened and combined to produce two build packages, Package A and Package B, which were evaluated in the Draft EIS. The evaluation of these two packages, as well as input from the project's advisory committees and the public, was used to develop the Preferred Alternative. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 3 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, together with the No-Action Alternative, are considered to represent the full range of all reasonable alternatives. All of these alternatives were fully evaluated in the Final EIS. B.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED A range of alternatives was initially developed, from input received from the scoping process as well as input from previous studies. The range of alternatives included numerous different highway alignments, rail transit alignments, bus transit alignments, different transit modes (such as light rail, high speed rail, personal rapid transit) and different types of highway facilities (such as a robust frontage road system or double decking 1-25). Each of these was subject to a screening process. Some were advanced to future levels of development and screening, as discussed in the next sections and some were screened out, primarily because they did not respond to the Purpose and Need of the project. Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered, of the Final EIS contains more information about these initial alternatives. A summary of that information is provided below. Alternative Development Initially more than 50 potential transportation improvements were considered. These included a variety of bus and rail technologies, highway capacity improvements such as widening 1-25 or constructing a new facility parallel to 1-25, congestion management measures as well as bike and pedestrian improvements. Each improvement alternative was initially subjected to a qualitative screening process then evaluated on a progressively more detailed quantitative analysis. Alternative Screening Most alternatives were retained through the Level One screening. Alternatives were eliminated from further consideration that were not practicable for implementation based on substantial faults related to cost, logistics, technology reliability or other characteristics that made them unreasonable in the study area, for example, not meeting the project's Purpose and Need. Alternatives retained during Level One screening were subject to a more rigorous screening process in Level Two. This analysis was based on separating alternatives into categories by improvement type (highway general purpose lanes, truck lanes, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV), toll or HOT(high-occupancy toll) lanes, light rail, commuter rail, bus etc).This level of analysis concluded the following: ► Freeway alternatives along 1-25 would provide the most potential to improve safety, accommodate growth in freight traffic, address aging infrastructure, and address mobility needs and therefore have the best potential to address the project's Purpose and Need. Freeway alternatives along 1-25 were retained for additional evaluation. ► Variation in travel demand along the corridor indicated that some sections of 1-25 might be adequately served by six lanes while others may require a wider, eight-lane cross section to address the mobility piece of the project's Purpose and Need. However, congestion on six or eight-lane freeway alternatives would eventually occur as a result of the population growth anticipated in northern Colorado. Managed lanes would provide the ability to mitigate congestion and maintain travel time reliability along the corridor. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 4 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. They would provide long-term reliability as tolls and/or management policies can be adjusted over time and relative to congestion to maintain reliable travel times. ► New highways had the greatest potential to adversely affect natural resources such as water quality, wetlands, wildlife and vegetation, especially those between US 85 and 1-25. New arterials did not serve existing populations as well or comply with future land use plans. Express lanes had the least potential to adversely impact social and natural resources and would provide long term, reliable travel times. New highway alignments were dropped from further consideration because of their potential to adversely affect natural resources. Express lanes were retained for additional evaluation. ► Robust improvement on the highway alone would not meet the Purpose and Need. The Purpose and Need identifies the deficiency of transportation choices in northern Colorado and the need to provide a multimodal solution. ► Transit improvements alone would not address the safety, aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure, and mobility needs identified in the project's Purpose and Need. These needs contribute to the need for improvements on 1-25. Even with the large increases in population anticipated, the total number of trips between the North Front Range and downtown Denver is small; therefore, although transit attracts a high percentage of the trips, total ridership is relatively small. As a result, none of the transit alternatives were recommended as stand-alone alternatives for implementation. However, several of them were recommended for further consideration when packaged with highway improvements. ► Both bus and passenger rail transit service would be more feasible where there are a greater number of large and dense communities that will benefit from the service; the land use patterns favor either a western or central alignment over an eastern alignment for that reason. ► Connections to FasTracks corridors increase mobility while decreasing capital costs and aid with mandatory coordination with the railroads. ► Commuter rail, which is typically used to serve medium to long distance intra-city trips, was found to have the most positive effect on economic and social resources when it was placed along a western alignment (the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe [BNSF] rail alignment generally paralleling US 287). For this reason, it was retained for additional evaluation. ► High-speed rail, which typically serves long distance intraregional trips, would not serve population centers in northern Colorado well and had the most potential to adversely impact natural resources. For these reasons, it was not retained for additional evaluation. ► Light rail, which typically serves short to medium distance intercity travel, had the least potential to impact environmental resources but did not meet the mobility needs identified in the project's Purpose and Need statement due to the long travel times. In addition, it would cost substantially more than other comparable technologies. For these reasons, it was not retained for additional evaluation. ► Although the congestion management strategies did not provide sufficient capacity either independently or as a group to meet the mobility needs identified in the project's Purpose and Need statement, several strategies were retained for future consideration to complement build alternatives. These include carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, ramp metering, and real-time transportation information. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 5 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Ultimately, the Level Two Screening determined that neither transit nor highway improvements alone could be implemented as the sole improvement in the North 1-25 regional study area to meet the project's Purpose and Need. As a result, transit and highway improvements were packaged in Level Three Screening to evaluate how the different transit and highway improvements would work together and to determine which improvements would best address the project's Purpose and Need. Eight improvement packages were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening and are described below in Table 1. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 6 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 1. Level Three Screening Summary E Highway Improvements Transit Improvements Pros Cons Improvements Retained for Detailed Evaluation in EIS 6 Z 1 8 general purpose lanes SH Commuter bus service • Least impact to resources., • Highest increase in vehicle • 8 general purpose lanes for a 14 to E-470 • Fort Collins to Denver via because much of the miles of travel portion of the corridor Harmony and 1-25 improvement could occur on • Second lowest increase in existing right-of-way accessibility to economic • Fastest private auto travel time and employment centers from Fort Collins to downtown • Fewest transit users Denver • Lowest capital cost 2 Add two toll lanes in each Commuter bus service • Second least increase vehicle • Second highest hours of • Commuter bus Greeley to direction between SH 14 and • Fort Collins to Denver via miles of travel congestion in general Denver and DIA via US 85 E-470 Harmony and 1-25 purpose lanes and E-470 • Fort Collins to Longmont via US • Not as well utilized at HOT 287 lanes • Greeley to Denver and DIA via US 85 and E-470 3 Add two HOT lanes in each Bus rapid transit(BRT) • Fastest transit travel time from • Second highest capital cost • HOT lanes between SH 14 direction between SH 14 and • Fort Collins to Denver via Fort Collins to downtown and US 36 US 36 Harmony and 1-25 HOT lanes Denver • BRT Fort Collins to Denver Commuter bus service • Better utilized than Toll lanes via Harmony and 1-25 • Fort Collins to Longmont via or HOV lanes • Commuter bus Greeley to US 287 Denver via US 85 • Greeley to Denver via US 85 4 Two limited access lanes and Commuter bus service • Largest decrease in vehicle • Second fewest transit users two general purpose lanes in • Fort Collins to Denver and DIA via hours of travel • Comparable to eight general each direction between SH 14 Harmony.,1-25 and E-470 purpose lanes but higher and E-470 capital cost 5 Three general purpose lanes BRT service • Fastest transit travel time from • Second highest annual • Three general purpose lanes and one express lane in each • Fort Collins to Denver via Fort Collins to downtown transit operating cost and one express lane in each direction between SH 14 and Harmony and 1-25 managed lanes Denver direction between US 36 Commuter bus service • Relatively high increase in SH 14 and US 36 • Fort Collins to Longmont via accessibility to economic and • BRT service Fort Collins to US 287 employment centers Denver via Harmony and 1-25 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 7 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 1. Level Three Screening Summary(cont'd) 15.a Improvements Retained for E Highway Improvements Transit Improvements Pros Cons Detailed Evaluation in EIS 6 Z 5 • Greeley to Denver via US 85 • Commuter bus Greeley to (cont'd) Denver via US 85 6 Three general purpose lanes Central commuter rail • Relatively high percentage of • Relatively high private auto • Three general purpose lanes in each direction SH 14 to • Fort Collins to Longmont and transit market share captured travel time in each direction SH 14 to E-470 Thornton generally along • Second highest annual E-470 1-25 and SH 119 transit operating cost • Relatively high miles of congestion than the first five alternatives • Lowest increase in accessibility to economic and employment centers 7 Three general purpose lanes Western commuter rail • Most increase in accessibility • Second highest cost per • Three general purpose lanes in each direction SH 14 to • Fort Collins to Longmont along the to economic and employment new trip in each direction SH 14 to E-470 BNSF centers E-470 Commuter bus service • Captures largest share of work • Western commuter rail • Greeley to Denver and DIA via trips on transit • Commuter bus Greeley to US 85 and E-470 • Second lowest capital cost Denver and DIA via US 85 and E-470 8 Add one HOV lane in each Western commuter rail • Fastest transit travel time from • Most miles of congestion • Western commuter rail direction between SH 14 and • Fort Collins to Longmont and Fort Collins to downtown and hours of congestion • Bus rapid transit Fort Collins US 36 Thornton along the BNSF,SH Denver between SH 14 and E-470 to Denver via harmony and 119,and 1-25 • Most increase in accessibility • Most hours of congestion in 1-25 Bus rapid transit to economic and employment general purpose lanes • Commuter bus Greeley to • Fort Collins to Denver via centers in the study area • Smallest decrease in vehicle Denver and DIA via US 85 Harmony and 1-25 HOT lanes • Least increase in vehicle miles hours of travel and E-470 Commuter bus service of travel • Highest capital and annual • Greeley to Denver and DIA via • Most NFR transit users operating cost US 85 and E-470 • Highest cost per new trip • Most potential impacts to resources North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 8 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Package Evaluation Each package was evaluated on its ability to address the project's Purpose and Need and its potential to impact environmental resources. The results of the package evaluation are summarized below. ► Limited access lanes would provide capacity comparable to eight general purpose lanes but would not be as well utilized and would cost more than general purpose lanes. Capital cost for the limited-access lanes was $1.44 billion. The comparable eight general purpose lanes were $1.10 billion. Limited access lanes were dropped from further consideration because they would not be utilized as well and would cost more than the comparable eight-lane cross section. Where needed to provide acceptable operation, eight general purpose lanes was retained in Package A. ► For managed-lanes, two barrier-separated lanes may be necessary along sections of the corridor but a single buffer-separated lane in each direction provides adequate capacity along much of the corridor and costs less than a barrier-separated section. Managed lanes were retained for further evaluation in Package B because they could reduce future congestion, improve mobility, address aging infrastructure and safety needs identified in the project's Purpose and Need. ► Of the managed-lane alternatives, the tolled express lanes (TELs; also known as HOT lanes) would provide the most congestion relief and would have the highest utilization. Other managed lane alternatives that were considered, but eliminated, were HOV lanes and toll lanes. HOV lanes would experience seven to 14 miles of congestion in the PM peak hour northbound and southbound, respectively in 2035. A comparable six general purpose lane cross section would have about half as much congestion. TELs provide the ability to manage demand and travel time reliability along the corridor for the 1-25 express bus service, HOV, and toll paying users. TELs would provide long-term reliability as tolls can be adjusted over time and relative to congestion to maintain reliable travel times within the TELs. HOV only and Toll only lanes were dropped from further consideration because they did not address the mobility needs as well as the comparable HOT lane alternative. HOT lanes were retained for further evaluation in Package B and the Preferred Alternative. ► Western commuter rail attracted similar ridership as well as transit market share to Denver when compared to central commuter rail, but the transit elements cost less and attracted more riders to Boulder. For these reasons, Western commuter rail was retained as part of Package A and included in the Preferred Alternative; the central commuter rail alignment was dropped from further consideration because it did not address the largest northern Colorado travel patterns, was more expensive than the comparable western rail alignment and was not as compatible with northern Colorado communities' land use plans. ► 1-25 bus rapid transit (BRT) attracted 30 percent fewer riders than rail alternatives but also cost about 80 percent less and therefore BRT along 1-25 was retained for evaluation in the EIS as part of Package B. A reduced BRT transit service, called express bus, was included as part of the Preferred Alternative. The service was reduced slightly because it was paired with a reduced commuter rail service on the western alignment. ► Of the three commuter bus alignments considered (US 287, 1-25 and US 85), the 1-25 alignment attracted the least ridership. Commuter bus on US 85 attracted the highest ridership of the alignments evaluated. Commuter bus service on US 287 attracted the North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 9 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. least of all the transit components. Therefore, the US 287 and 1-25 commuter bus alignments were dropped from further consideration, but commuter bus service along US 85 was retained for evaluation in Package A and the Preferred Alternative. ► When transit elements along 1-25 are combined with transit service along US 85 or US 287, each service attracts fewer riders. Though overall ridership could increase, it was determined that to maintain maximum ridership and efficiency on any one transit line, transit service should be offered on 1-25 only or on the BNSF and US 85 corridors only. In summary, the following improvements were retained for additional evaluation in the EIS: ► General purpose lanes on 1-25 ► TELs on 1-25 (high occupancy/toll lanes) ► Commuter rail —western alignment ► BRT on 1-25 ► Commuter bus on US 85 Packaging Alternatives for Evaluation in EIS Packaging alternatives together began by ensuring that highway capacity needs would be met because any combination of transit services was found to not reduce 1-25 volumes enough to meet 2035 demand without additional highway improvements. Similarly, highway improvements alone would not address the project's multi-modal Purpose and Need. Based on the evaluation of modes and alignments, commuter rail service along the BNSF rail line performed well and was paired with general purpose highway improvements. For equity throughout the regional study area, commuter bus service along US 85 with end points of both downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA) was added to this package of improvements. 1-25 transit improvements were not included in this package of improvements because the proximity of the three services would reduce ridership on each line and therefore reduce the overall cost effectiveness. This combination of improvements is Package A. BRT was optimized by utilizing TELs on 1-25. The use of these semi-exclusive lanes, that have less congestion, result in more reliable travel and faster travel times for the BRT service. In order to directly serve the communities which are offset from the interstate, BRT service on mixed-use lanes to Fort Collins and Greeley was provided. BRT destinations include both DIA and downtown Denver. This combination of improvements is Package B. A third alternative was developed through a collaborative decision making process with the project's two advisory committees. The process considered input received from the public and the results of the Draft EIS evaluation of Packages A and B. The third combination is referred to as the Preferred Alternative and was evaluated in the Final EIS. It combines commuter rail service along the BNSF with tolled express lanes along 1-25. Express Bus would travel on 1-25 in the TELs and commuter bus would operate on US 85. To minimize the impact of competition between transit lines on the three parallel corridors (1-25, BNSF and US 85) the service provided along each line was reduced somewhat or included less capital improvement than the services included in North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 10 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Packages A and B. These reductions helped to maintain a comparable level of cost effectiveness. This package of improvements is the Preferred Alternative. These three build alternatives along with the No-Action Alternative package represent the full range of all reasonable alternatives and were fully evaluated in the EIS. B.2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative (see Figure 1) would include those transportation projects that have not been built, but for which funding has been committed, including the two FasTracks corridors. The bridge over 1-25 at 84th Avenue is currently being reconstructed as part of a separate project expected to be completed in 2012. The 1-25/SH 392 interchange will also be reconstructed as part of a separate project. Construction on this interchange has started and is expected to be completed in 2012. In addition, CDOT will be replacing the 1-25 frontage road bridge over the Little Thompson River as separate project, for safety reasons. This separate project was initiated because an inspection conducted in 2008 found advance deterioration of the bridge superstructure, floor beams, and stringers, resulting in a structure sufficiency rating of 45.3 (in the "poor" category). A separate action request for replacement of this bridge was submitted by CDOT, and FHWA concurred on November 21, 2011. The No-Action Alternative also would include replacement of pavement on 1-25, installation of signals at five interchange ramp termini, and widening of 1-25 off-ramps at the Prospect/I-25 interchange. B.2.3 PACKAGE A Package A (see Figure 2) would include adding one additional general purpose lane on 1-25 in each direction, for a total of six lanes from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60) and a total of eight lanes from E-470 to SH 52. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus adding one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and also adjacent to a historic residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. In these two locations, this would result in bi-directional service along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to the residential property in Longmont. Also included in Package A would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that would connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Because Package A commuter rail includes a double-tracked system, a parallel maintenance road would not be needed. Maintenance access would be provided by the second track. Package A also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility, a commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes, and commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470 from US 85 to DIA. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 11 4 NORTH 1-25 4 EIS 4 information. cooperation. transportation. 4 Figure 1. No-Action Alternative 4 4 ClI `. SH 4 . • ., FI4rr Ci,,ck 4 LEGEND --•, �� CWellington • Minor Structure Rehab by 2035 _ `F I 4 nr x CR 521 der Clerk HR 125 Drainage • Major Structure Rehab by 2035 v5ra. Mounlainl¢srep s -I I ,CR50 Rif O Structure Replacement by 2035 ( . SH"`"R °" 4 LakeCant iimnal Ditch Fez El reek • Minor Safety Modifications by 2035Pnrll n: oRR ' F • air • ' tin = CS RR a 85i Replace / Rehab Pavement by 2035 SH i to US 34 4 Harmon Carrie lair Il Ili! t. 4 IMIll FasTracks Rail Linea I Ma PlrfilthL5 V4 4 RTD Boundary aiirt '-� Lucerne 8 �, ali nee 392; H!8 I I Windsor , r Cu '. oads rossroads 4 , /►, � MD. - - - i 4 34I 11-, _`S F . �[� �. 34 ' -iiir - .Z 20E . I d ' r• load(Halsbo s it nt ) r l_ L ;402• . . 'r� i5'1'� I 2571 r �• Lc c: nsons r vrir ca ..'s Corner J am• on 8 r $H 60 -�"T"' r n Nil La Sal:L A R I M E R �1 r ��rrt:nii►_ ' SH. ggi I SH 56 . CR 46 4 2.a 58 $H 5519111 Fr 4 US34toSH66 •_ __ • CR38 4 \ Ma'!� CR34 WELD !a ' 3t CR 34 14 CR 32 Piattovl ai _ , to t 1 66 CR28 -.,,lingit 5l.V ain River I L r lb4`119 r 1 , 85 , ' BOULDER O )1Iros no 119 8itk Mrot `L ,outdo p.rilliall ' s36 i, 5-- . --- .� i Al v i'� r o 52 r , L S .,• dCpn is: on I R d NO ' 1 {•fir lifrwIJ� L Are•ehoe I .• ` ;119, ■ 4 wri ) r i(93'i 38 , kindNui L t \� t■ , ip „lilt/ • • - I le Su• ri. /Me 1361 . \� RO®!9I . rn on _• .N �� E47Ui me. r. egass. , 1 1. Rd TRIM •Ve CO .•i . i ir, , 4 �` `°• 4 Northwest . ' :- . 2 Rail Corridor 4 _ I eq7,, North MetroCorridorDi ...0,04a- FN .di.. f ,� 70 r QDenv r r ' o g u; Unio Station 'A'ij', North DENVER 4 4 4 North I-25 EIS Record of Decision 4 December 2011 Page 12 ' 4 a • NORTH 1-25 • EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 2. Package A 0 1 LEGEND >il„ Ill 1 New General Purpose Lane ken • (GPL) in Each Direction 1Mount*vista • rr - ct • - • m •tric • - fici - nci - s • El 1 New General Purpose Lane , • . n • r - • I . c - . it in • (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each 2137, infr . structur - • Direction Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center - BNSF and Maple St ' M Ad! U • Commuter Rail (CR) csu - MasonSt. between University Ave. and W. Rtkin st. Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort F IIIn 'taws ! '85 • U S 85 South Fort Collins Transit Center - Haman • . . Mason St. and W Fairway Lane Monthh sw...... E.!•. X57 III Feeder Bus Service • I Lucerne • * Interchange Upgrades 87 • Winds Greeley -U585 34 Love nd , CroCrosstalk,*Blvd and D St • © Number of Lanes North eland BNSF and 29th St. South Greeley - . O Commuter Bus Station / Stop Downtown Loveland BNSF and 34 Greele 8� nd 2Ave4th St appr�imately 6th St ♦ 6 Garden City • O Commuter Rail Station 02 .e Eva Evans - us 85 CR,6 ♦ �.'R 50and 42nd St. Ca on Johnstown La Sall* • FasTracks Rail Line ! *RIMER 60 Berthoud-BNSF and S l . lliken • O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station 56 • oar° • • Potential Commuter Rail Operational & Maintenance -- - • Facility }36 CR34 WELD • North Longmont - BNSF and SH 66 Mend PLltwlll • Potential Commuter Bus .t,7 " ss Ratteville -US 85 and Grand Ave.' Ill Operational & Maintenance a - North of Facility Longmont of Rogers Rd. 36 IIc 6 85 OULDER _ Elusion* . „s 287 I •d°rlck ~•: Fort Lupton -US 85 and CR 14.5 �.52 --� • 1-25 andWCR8 -NW 5` WFort • corner of 1-25 and CR 8 ,NCR e• D«one tsetse Erie . .I1 Ill : oulder 8 76 93 1 36 Lnisre' © 4/1 imAppre • Northwest f . 5III - ' s Right-of-Way Rail Corridor Preservation . •perie T ten CoresSr �' 6 . • A Implement Dons°r � North Metro 470, Iwt.rn.tlee•I • No-Action * Corridor Aim." Alternative tee, B. • Projects ,2, NimiM I `—, f t . JEFFER ON �• . � �j_ . �� 70 Si •envetUnron Station 40/ -t Denver / S2ii 0 2 4 6 n 10 ii iii=iimoilAilts North . . . • North I-25 EIS Record of Decision . December 2011 Page 13 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. B.2.4 PACKAGE B Package B (see Figure 3) would include adding one buffer-separated TELs to 1-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated TELs would be added. TELs would extend from SH 14 to just north of US 36 in Thornton. TELs would be used by HOVs for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll, and by buses. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would also provide a BRT system including 12 bus stations providing service along 1-25, along US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, bus service would be provided along E-470 from 1-25 to DIA. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 14 ii • NORTH I-2S • EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3. Package B • • It LEGEND es; • 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Wain n 0 MOMS vista Correct geometric • Express Lane (TEL) in Each deficiencies Direction 7,3 4 and replace aging infrastructure • • - i• 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled • Ask Express Lanes (TEL) in Each Harmony Rd. and • �Z• Direction Timberline Fort Coffins • South Fort Collins Transit Center - C O US 34 and SH 257 �• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route 287 and Harmony Rd., Fort Collins Eaton` li (Uses TELs on 1-25) b7 Severance West Greeley -US 34 and ,„ ._ d,. , sip83rd Ave., Greeley trip— e Feeder Bus Service Windsor 125 and SH 392 R92, Le..r IGreeley Downtown Transfer I. Aye.and IP Q Interchange Upgrades 2a�c 4/4 &h�Stgce 34 Lovel nd . ,.� • • © Number of Lanes: General a , 34 ;s: Greeley ` \, 5 Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes ;77;. .:. :...Yg; ,.; _, ;.' Garen City In Crossroads Blvd. and US 34. +5 Evens nj 5 O Bus Rapid Transit Station It - so T Le Sidle III �I FasTracks Rail Line (Berthoud -1-25 , 0 , e Milliken 5 O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station mint III `LARIMER A 4/2 ■ Potential Commuter Bus 5 Operational & Maintenance cR34WEL [? Facility P,.„..,, 7 ongmont ��„ • •© .. 36 ', 85 3OULDERID t��'feteM II ) . • :Dos 52 elm II - I. = oulderM 6/2 II �11e I 41114(‘ Irrrit Right-of-Way I Preservation •I IR idyl e 40 Northwest « • fJ L ® Rail Corridor �+s North r III41e/FA • Metro Z tm.oetr.er.ai Corridor I /Wiped Iett,.•t. II 121 13 a It. v IIJEFFER - ON 0 a D o� S i� ", ?.1 1l�lw�t Station • I 1,4,6 y, 11. 70 s ; � • Denver 225 I 771 _Miles North II I II II I North 1-25 EIS Record of Decision II December 2011 Page 15 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. B.3 BASIS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative was identified based on the Purpose and Need. In addition to meeting the elements of the Purpose and Need, a number of other factors support identification of the Preferred Alternative. These other supporting factors included land use, system benefits, livability, and cost. Each new or revised element of the Preferred Alternative has been carefully considered and either has the same or reduced impacts compared to the comparable element of Package A or Package B analyzed in the Final EIS or creates only minor new impacts. The following discussion characterizes the ability of all the alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need and other factors supporting the identification of the Preferred Alternative. Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Final EIS and Section B.2 of this document describe the other action alternatives that were considered. B.3.1 PURPOSE AND NEED The Preferred Alternative meets the project Purpose and Need to a greater extent than the other two build alternatives. B.3.1.1 Need to Address the Increased Frequency and Severity of Crashes All three build alternatives have been designed to be safe. All three build alternatives would reduce the frequency and severity of crashes on 1-25, when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Considering only 1-25 in 2035, Package B would result in fewer crashes (4,061 average per year) than the Preferred Alternative (4,399) and fewer average crashes per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (1.32) than the Preferred Alternative (1.37). However when considering the entire regional system, the Preferred Alternative has the greatest reduction of crashes because of the reduced daily VMT on arterials compared to Package A or Package B. This reduced VMT is a result of the higher capacity provided by the Preferred Alternative on 1-25 making 1-25 a more attractive route than the adjacent arterial network. The crash rate on arterials is higher than the crash rate on access controlled facilities such as 1-25. This results in improved safety under the Preferred Alternative for the entire regional transportation system because of the transfer of VMT from arterials to 1-25. The Preferred Alternative would result in 11 average annual transit injuries compared to Package A and Package B, which would have 8 and 24 average annual injuries on transit, respectively. Package A would result in the fewest transit injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service at 0.15; the Preferred Alternative is very similar with 0.16 injury per 1,000 revenue hours of service. Package B would result in the highest transit injury rate at 0.32 injury per 1,000 revenue hours of service. B.3.1.2 Need to Address the Increasing Traffic Congestion on I-25, Leading to Mobility and Accessibility Problems The Preferred Alternative provides the most efficient operations for 1-25 compared to Packages A and B. A comparison of the traffic elements of the mobility portion of the Purpose and Need demonstrates that the Preferred Alternative provides the highest benefit: North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 16 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. ► Its remaining congested miles on 1-25 general purpose lanes in the evening (PM) peak hour would be noticeably less at 17 miles, compared to 45 miles with Package B and 44 miles with Package A in 2035. ► In the morning (AM) peak hour, its remaining congested miles on general purpose lanes are only 11, compared to 30 with Package B and 16 with Package A in 2035. ► In 2035, it has the fewest number of interchange ramp merge/diverge locations operating at LOS E or F. The Preferred Alternative would have 13 of these in the AM peak period and 26 in the PM. Package B would have 34 in the AM and 52 in the PM. Package A would have 30 in the AM and 34 in the PM. ► It has the fastest highway travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the general purpose lanes (107 minutes compared to 117 minutes with the other two alternatives in 2035). ► It has the fastest travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the tolled express lanes in 2035 (64 minutes compared to 65 minutes with Package B and 102 minutes with Package A, which only uses a short section of existing tolled express lanes in the Denver metro area and the remaining trip is in general purpose lanes). ► It provides the most travel choices on 1-25 allowing a motorist to pay a toll or carpool to avoid congestion, or choose to travel toll free in the general purpose lanes, or choose express bus. ► It has the fastest bus transit service from the South Transit Center to 20th Street at 63 minutes for an express bus, compared to 70 minutes for BRT with Package B. ► Similar to Package B the tolled express lanes provide an opportunity to maintain reliable travel time for buses, HOVs and toll paying users in perpetuity. ► Because the Preferred Alternative would have the best level of service in the general purpose lanes, it would have the best overall mobility for freight traffic. ► It would serve the highest number of users on 1-25 at over 990,000 users (number of vehicles entering this length of 1-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy. See Section 4.2.5, Highway Users, of the Final EIS for an explanation of the calculation). ► It captures the second highest percentage of transit market share between the northern front range area and the downtown Denver Central Business District at 50 percent in 2035. Package A captures the highest percentage at 55 percent and Package B captures 45 percent. ► It has the second highest ridership with 6,500 daily riders while Package B captures the highest ridership at 6,800 daily riders as a result of its frequent and robust BRT service. Package A captures the fewest riders with 5,850 daily. ► Regional vehicle hours of travel are the least with the Preferred Alternative at 1.68 million compared to1.69 million with Package B and 1.70 million with Package A in 2035. ► It produces the highest amount of vehicle miles of travel at 52.81 million as a result of its higher capacity than the other two packages. Package B produces the least amount of regional VMT at 52.62 million and Package A produces 52.76 million. ► Its regional average speed (including freeways and other facilities) in 2035 is the highest (31.4 miles per hour) compared to 31.1 with the other two build alternatives—a notable increase considering the magnitude of the number of miles and number of hours in the region used to calculate average miles per hour. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 17 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. B.3.1.3 Need to Replace Aging and Functionally Obsolete Infrastructure The Preferred Alternative and Package B both provide the most new structures which replace aging structures: 94, compared to 87 with Package A. All of the alternatives would replace all of the pavement that has exceeded its useful life. B.3.1.4 Need to Provide Modal Alternatives The Preferred Alternative provides the most opportunity for improved mode choice throughout the regional study area. In addition, it allows the ability to implement transit service with minimal initial infrastructure investment. Overall the Preferred Alternative addresses this element of Purpose and Need in the following ways: ► The Preferred Alternative would provide the most opportunity to use multiple modes of travel, since two or more modes would be provided along three separate corridors: commuter rail would be provided on the US 287 corridor; express bus and carpooling on TELs on 1-25; and commuter bus service would be provided on US 85. Package A would provide multiple modes on only two corridors and Package B would provide multiple modes on only one corridor. ► The express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could be fairly easily implemented and implemented in phases, providing near term multimodal options to commuters traveling the North 1-25 and US 85 corridors. BRT service provided as a part of Package B would be harder to implement in phases because stations are located in the median, requiring reconstruction of 1-25. ► Given the uncertainty of the schedules for the FasTracks North Metro and Northwest Rail corridors, express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could provide an additional mode choice that would first supplement and then complement the FasTracks commuter rail corridors. ► It would attract the highest level of special event ridership (transit trips to sporting events, the theater and other activities in downtown Denver), due to the range of transit options that can be accessed for these discretionary trips. B.3.2 OTHER SUPPORTING FACTORS In addition to meeting the elements of the Purpose and Need, a number of other factors support identification of the Preferred Alternative. These other supporting factors include land use, system benefits, livability, and cost. These are described below. Land Use The three build alternatives meet the goals of the community land use plans to varying degrees. Western communities generally have a desire to revitalize and concentrate growth in the central core areas of their towns. This goal is reflected in the master plans for Larimer County and the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud and Longmont. Some of these same communities are also supporting development along the 1-25 corridor in addition to within the core areas generally along the US 287 corridor. The eastern communities, although more dispersed, also have goals to revitalize growth along US 85. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 18 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. The Preferred Alternative provides transit services along all three major corridors. The location of new transit stations, particularly for commuter rail and to a lesser extent for express bus and commuter bus, will focus growth in proximity to the station. This will help communities realize plans for downtown redevelopment or higher density, mixed use development. For this reason, it best supports the land use goals of the communities. While Package A also includes commuter rail along the BNSF corridor thus supporting the western communities land use plans and commuter bus along the US 85 corridor, it does not support goals for higher density, mixed use development along 1-25 because it provides no transit service along 1-25. Package B focuses all improvements along 1-25 and therefore does not support land use goals of revitalizing downtown areas within the western communities or along US 85. Package B could have a detrimental effect on downtown areas, tending to pull growth away from them and focusing it along 1-25. System Benefits There are a variety of system benefits: regional connectivity, regional safety, and travel reliability. An assessment of the three build alternatives demonstrates the difference among system benefits. Regional Connectivity Regional connectivity to the greater Denver metropolitan transportation system is most improved with the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative: ► Connects to two planned RTD rail lines serving Denver Union Station as a hub for the entire metropolitan area. ► Extends the managed lane facility on 1-25 from US 36 to the northern Colorado communities increasing travel options and improving travel reliability. ► Provides commuter bus service on US 85 connecting the eastern communities to the RTD transit system thereby increasing connectivity to employment and activity centers in the Denver metro area. ► Provides reliability through inclusion of multiple transit lines connecting the northern Colorado communities to the Denver metropolitan area. ► Provides multiple avenues to expand transit service as demand warrants. Package A connects to the two RTD rail lines; but does not extend the managed lane facility north from US 36. Package B extends the managed lane north from US 36. However, it does not provide any connection to the RTD rail lines nor does it improve the multimodal connections on US 85. Package B focuses all of the improvements along 1-25 and therefore has less system wide benefits. Regional Safety Regional safety is improved the most with the Preferred Alternative. Accident rates are higher on the arterial street system than on controlled access facilities. Under the Preferred Alternative VMT on the arterial system is less than the other two build alternatives. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 19 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Therefore, there will be fewer system wide crashes with the Preferred Alternative compared to Package A and Package B. For the same reason, the Preferred Alternative will result in less congestion on the arterial system. Package A and Package B also reduce travel on the arterial network but to a lesser degree. Travel Reliability The Preferred Alternative also provides reliable travel times through 2035 and beyond because of the inclusion of both commuter rail and the managed lanes. The commuter rail is not affected by highway congestion or inclement weather. Managed lanes can also maintain a high level of service through pricing and vehicle occupancy requirements. In contrast, travel time reliability is not guaranteed on general purpose lanes beyond 2035. Package A offers travel time reliability through the commuter rail system but not on the highway. In contrast, Package B offers travel time reliability only on the managed lanes. Livability Livability concepts refer to the synergy between transportation, land use and the environment. A livability evaluation of the three build alternatives accounts for the mobility issues surrounding transit dependent populations, the need for sustainable land use patterns, potential higher fuel prices, decreased availability of fossil fuels, and green house gas emissions. The three alternatives address these concepts to varying degrees. The Preferred Alternative provides the greatest mix of transportation improvements in support of the livability concepts. In addition to traditional highway travel, the Preferred Alternative provides choices including commuter rail, commuter bus, express bus, carpooling, vanpooling, and tolled travel options. The livability concepts are addressed through the depth of alternative modes offered by the Preferred Alternative. In addition, these modal alternatives support the goals of the land use plans across the regional study area. Package A also provides commuter rail and commuter bus travel options. However, it only provides general purpose lanes on 1-25 and therefore does not provide an incentive for carpooling and vanpooling. In addition, it is geographically more limited than the Preferred Alternative for accessibility to transit dependent users. Package B provides advantages for using express bus service, carpooling, and vanpooling via the managed lanes. All of these improvements are focused on 1-25 and is therefore far more geographically limited than Package A and the Preferred Alternative. This limits accessibility for the transit dependent population and requires more supporting transit service be provided by the local communities feeding the BRT on 1-25. In addition, it does not support goals for land use plans of the western and eastern communities. Energy consumption is a key livability concept. Over time (after 2035) it would be expected that the rail components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption because train capacity could be readily expanded. The transit stations associated with the rail would serve as a stimulus to transit oriented development. This is also true of the Package B BRT stations along 1-25 but to a lesser degree. This transit oriented development would potentially reduce energy consumption due to mixed use and higher density development, which would reduce trips. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 20 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Cost A tabulation of costs for the three build alternatives shows that the Preferred Alternative costs more than the other two build alternatives. Package A capital cost is $1.96 billion, Package B capital cost is $1.72 billion and the Preferred Alternative is $2.18 billion. However, the Preferred Alternative provides benefits that the other two alternatives do not. The Preferred Alternative: ► Better improves regional safety compared to the other two build alternatives. ► Reduces congestion more effectively than Package A or Package B. ► Is similar to the other alternatives in replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. ► Is superior to the other alternatives in providing modal options. ► Better addresses goals of the land use plans in the northern Colorado communities. ► Achieves system wide benefits that Package A and B do not provide such as regional connectivity and travel reliability. ► Better supports livability concepts than Package A and Package B by providing a more comprehensive multimodal system of transportation improvements. B.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 2 summarizes the social and environmental consequences that would result from the No-Action Alternative and the three build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative). The Preferred Alternative has been determined to cause the least overall harm to Section 4(f) properties based on the definition contained in 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1). The Preferred Alternative is the most responsive to land use goals of stimulating growth around transit stations, since it includes commuter rail along US 287, express bus along 1-25 and commuter bus along US 85. Over time, there is a greater potential with the Preferred Alternative to conserve energy and reduce air emissions because of the easier expansion capabilities of transit service provided on more corridors and because of the potential for transit oriented development around commuter rail, express bus and commuter bus stations. The Preferred Alternative also has the least impact to aquatic resources, including wetlands, other jurisdictional waters, aquatic habitat, and impacts to Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 21 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Land Use and Zoning • Growth would continue to occur • Under Package A,commuter rail • BRT along I-25 would provide less • Under the Preferred Alternative,commuter rail largely on undeveloped agricultural would shift growth towards urban incentive for transit-oriented would shift growth towards urban centers., land at the fringe of the regional centers.,especially in Fort Collins. development than commuter rail. especially in Fort Collins. study area's urbanized areas. • Longmont would increase in density • Market-driven growth would continue to • Longmont would increase in density and size. • Development would likely be pushed and size. be focused along I-25. • Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors towards outlying areas to avoid I-25 . Feeder bus routes along east-west • Communities west of I-25 would designed to serve commuter rail stations could congestion,which would hasten the corridors designed to serve commuter continue to expand towards the east. also stimulate increased levels of development. conversion of agricultural land. rail stations could also stimulate • Some concentration of growth could • Improvements to existing interchanges would • The more dispersed development increased levels of development. occur near BRT stations along I-25. have the same indirect impacts as Package A pattern would result in greater land . Improvements to existing interchanges . Improvements to existing interchanges and Package B. consumption and a broader potential could stimulate some growth,but not would have the same impacts as • Because they are off to one side of the interstate, impact to the regional study area's as would be the case if completely Package A. the express bus stations are more likely to attract environmental resources. new interchanges were proposed. new development to that side of the interstate. • Continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of I-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 22 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Social Conditions Potential direct and indirect impacts on Adverse impacts associated with Adverse impacts associated with Adverse impacts associated wtih the Preferred communities caused by traffic Package A would include: Package B would include: ARernative would include: congestion and impaired mobility would . Relocation of 59 residences. • Relocation of 24 residences. • Relocation of 49 residences. include: • Increased noise and vibration,out-of- • Increased noise,air emissions,and • Increased noise and visual impacts. • Increased air emissions and noise. direction travel,and travel time delays visual impacts to residents near frontage . Out-of-direction travel,and travel time delays • Longer travel times. associated with commuter rail. roads.,parking lots,bus routes,transit associated wtih commuter rail. • Traffic queues at key interchanges. • Air emissions and visual impacts to stations,and maintenance facilities. 9 P • An increase in air emissions[though below • Neighborhood traffic intrusion. residents near carpool lots,commuter • Temporary construction-related impacts National Ambient Air Quality Standards rail.transit stations.bus stations,and such as noise,dust,out-of-direction • Deteriorating safety conditions.(NAAOS)] maintenance facilities. travel,travel-time delays,and access Air emissions and visual impacts to residents • Lengthened emergency response • Airevisions. P times. • Exacerbated`tamer effect'in Fort near carpool lots,commuter rail,transit stations., Collins,Loveland.,Berthoud,and Beneficial impacts associated with bus stations,and maintenance facilities. Longmont. Package B would include. • An exacerbated barrier effect for communities • Temporary construction-related • Regional connections between located along the commuter rail alignment impacts,such as noise,dust,out-of- communities. (although,to a lesser degree than Package A). direction travel,and travel-time delays. . Overall improvements in safety.,mobility., • Temporary construction-related impacts,such as • Potential re-distribution of population in and emergency response,but no noise,dust,out-of-direction travel,and travel-time response to highway capacity or transit improvements in emergency response delays. improvements. where toll lanes are barrier-separated. • Potential re-distribution of population in response Beneficial impacts associated with • Moderate improvements in mobility for to highway capacity or transit improvements. Package A would include: transportation-disadvantaged Beneficial impacts associated with the Preferred • Regional connections between populations. ARernative would include: communities. • Enhanced regional connections between • Improvements in mobility.,safety.,and communities. emergency response. • Improvements in mobility.,safety,and emergency • Improved mobility for transportation- response. disadvantaged populations. • Improved mobility for transportation- disadvantaged populations. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 23 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Social Conditions(coned) Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Adverse effects(highway noise)to Adverse effects to minority and low- Adverse effects to minority and low-income Adverse effects to minority and low-income minorty residents of the Mountain income residents associated with residents associated with Package B would residents associated the with Preferred Alternative Range Shadows subdivision would Package A include: include: include: exceed those experienced by the • Of the 35 residential relocations • Relocation of 7 residences in minority • Of the 18 residential relocations required for the general population.However,the required for the commuter rail and low-income areas. highway improvements,5 are in areas that increase in noise level would be very component,16 are in areas that • There is no evidence these impacts contain minority and/or low-income populations. small and would not be noticeable to contain minority and/or low-income would be disproportionately high and • Of the 31 residential relocations required for the most people.Low-income and minority populations,all in Longmont.There adverse due to mitigation commitments commuter rail component,14 are in areas that populations would not receive more would also be visual impacts,and the and offsetting benefits. contain minority and/or low-income populations, severe impacts than non low-income potential for community disruption. all in Longmont. and minority populations. Beneficial impacts associated with 9 • There is no evidence these impacts Package B include: • In Longmont,there would be noticeable visual The No-Action Alternative would not would be disproportionately high and impacts;however.less than Package A and there provide local communities with the adverse due to mitigation Short-term and long-term employment P 9 g opportunities would occur during the is no evidence these impacts would be accessibility benefits associated with commitments and offsetting benefits. disproportionatelyhighand adverse due to transit services. construction of the facilities as well as Beneficial impacts associated with their ongoing operation and mitigation commitments and offsetting benefits. Package A would include: maintenance. Beneficial impacts associated with the Preferred • Commuter rail would improve access . Transit components would result in Alternative would include: to community facilities,provide moderate improvements in mobility and • Commuter rail would improve access to broader opportunities for employment, would improve regional connectivity. community facilities,provide broader facilitate participation in regional social • Minority and low-income populations are opportunities for employment,facilitate and cultural events.,promote concentrated around transit participation in regional social and cutural interaction between communities,and improvements and would benefit from events.,promote interaction between stimulate business activity. the transit-related components. communities.,and stimulate business activity. • Express bus and commuter bus transit • Shoulders and sidewalks would better • Express bus and commuter bus transit would would result in moderate accommodate bicycle and pedestrian result in moderate improvements in mobility and improvements in mobility and would travel. would improve regional connectivity. improve regional connectivity. Safety and emergency response time Impacts to minority and low-income • Siafety yand emergency response time would • populations associated with all other would improve. P components of Package B would not • Short-term and long-term employment • Shoulders and sidewalks would better exceed those experienced by the general opportunities would occur during the construction accommodate bicycle and pedestrian population. of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation travel and maintenance. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 24 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Social Conditions(coned) • Minority and low-income populations • Shoulders and sidewalks would better are concentrated around transit accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel improvements and would benefit from • Minority and low-income populations are the transit-related components. concentrated around transit improvements and Impacts to minority and low-income would benefit from the transit-related populations associated wdh all other components. components of Package A would not Impacts to minority and low-income populations exceed those experienced by the general associated with all other components of the population. Preferred Alternative would not exceed those experienced by the general population. Economic Conditions • Would not require relocation of any Adverse impacts associated with Adverse impacts associated with Adverse impacts associated wfth the Preferred existing businesses. Package A would include: Package B would include: ARernative include: • Would be no loss to property tax • Relocation of 33 businesses. • Relocation of 16 businesses. • Relocation of 22 businesses. base and revenues. . $5,079,960 loss in the tax base and • $2,814,220 loss in the tax base and • The loss in tax base would be approximately • Would be increasingly difficult to $150,290 loss of tax revenues. $88,720 loss of tax revenues. 17%less than Package A and approximately 1% access businesses. • Temporary construction-related • Temporary construction-related detours., more than Package B. • Future economic growth would most detours,delays.,and out-of-direction delays.,and out-of-direction travel. • Temporary construction-related detours.,delays., likely concentrate along the 1-25 travel. • Temporary impacts to existing freight and out-of-direction travel. corridor and in the southern end of . Temporary impacts to existing freight operations during construction. • Temporary impacts to existing freight operations the regional study area. operations during construction. Beneficial impacts associated with during construction. Beneficial impacts associated with Package B would include: Beneficial impacts associated with the Preferred Package A would include: • Some potential for long-term growth of ARernative would include: • Potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a • Potential for long-term growth of property tax property tax base and revenues as a result of transit-oriented development. base and revenues as a result of transit-oriented result of transit-oriented development. . Some access revisions:transit would development. • Some access revisions;transit would improve access to businesses and • Some access revisions;transit would improve improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunties. access to businesses and expand employment expand employment opportunities. • Creation of 10,200 temporary jobs over opportunities. • Creation of 10,800 temporary jobs the six-year construction period; • Creation of 11400 temporary jobs over the over the six-year construction period, permanent employment created by construction period;permanent employment permanent employment created by transit operation and maintenance. created by transit operation and maintenance. transit operation and maintenance. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 25 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Right-of-Way Would not require acquisition of • Highway components would require • Highway components would require • Highway components would require property or any relocations. 23 residential relocations and 24 residential relocations and 18 residential relocations and 10 business 12 business relocations. 15 business relocations. relocations. • Transit components would require • Transit components would require one • Transit components would require 31 residential 36 residential relocations and additional business relocation and no relocations and 12 business relocations. 21 business relocations. residential relocations. • All property impactp including displacements and • All property impacts,including • All property impacts,including partial acquisitions,would require a total of displacements and partial acquistions, displacements and partial acquisitions, 889 acres,635 acres for highway components would total 1,068 acres,719 acres for would require a total of 913 acres,833 and 254 acres for transit components. highway components and 349 acres acres for highway components and 80 for transit components. acres for transit components. Air Quality • No substantive impacts.Total • No substantive impacts.Total • No substantive impacts.Total emissions • No substantive impacts.Total emissions per day emissions per day of 1700.033 tons. emissions per day of 1713.98 tons. per day of 1700.397 tons.This includes of 1713.005 tons.This includes carbon This includes carbon monoxide This includes carbon monoxide, carbon monoxide,volatile organic monoxide,volatile organic compounds,nitrous (CO),volatile organic compounds., volatile organic compounds.,nitrous compounds,nitrous oxides.,PMm,and oxides.,PMio,and mobile source air toxics. ntrous oxides.,particulate matter oxides,PMm,and mobile source air mobile source air toxics. • No exceedances of standards or thresholds due less than 10 microns in diameter toxics. • No exceedances of standards or to mobile sources. (PMio),and mobile source air toxics. . No exceedances of standards or thresholds due to mobile sources. • Growth and development changes would affect • Growth and development changes thresholds due to mobile sources • Growth and development changes would traffic patterns and air quality.In areas of transit would affect traffic patterns and air . Growth and development changes affect traffic patterns and air quality.In oriented development,air quality could improve quality. would affect traffic patterns and air areas of transit oriented development.,air due to more efficient travel patterns. • Benefits include:(1)emissions for quality.In areas of transit oriented quality could improve due to more • Benefits include.(1)emissions for all pollutants all pollutants from mobile sources development,air quality could improve efficient travel patterns. from mobile sources would be reduced from would be reduced from existing due to more efficient travel patterns. • Benefits include:(1)emissions for all existing levels;and(2)continued conversion of levels;and(2)continued conversion This improvement would be more pollutants from mobile sources would be agricultural land uses would lessen nitrogen of agricultural land uses would noticeable with Package A than reduced from existing levels;and deposition effects to Rocky Mountain National lessen nitrogen deposition effects to Package B and the Preferred (2)continued conversion of agricultural Park. Rocky Mountain National Park. Alternative. land uses would lessen nitrogen deposition effects to Rocky Mountain National Park. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 26 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Air Quality(cont'd) • Benefits include:(1)emissions for all pollutants from mobile sources would be reduced from existing levels;and (2)continued conversion of agricultural land uses would lessen nitrogen deposition effects to Rocky Mountain National Park. Noise and Vibration(from Final EIS Analysis) • An estimated 661 Category B • An estimated 673 Category B • M estimated 685 Category B receivers • An estimated 679 Category B receivers and 161 receivers and 155 Category C receivers and 153 Category C and 163 Category C receivers would be Category C receivers would be impacted by receivers would be impacted by receivers would be impacted by traffic impacted by traffic noise without traffic noise without recommended mfigation traffic noise. noise without recommended mitigation recommended mitigation measures. measures. measures. • 2,192 residences,15 schools.,and 7 churches • 2,192 residences,15 schools,and would experience moderate or severe impacts 7 churches would experience from rail transit noise. moderate or severe impacts from rail • Forty residences would experience vibration transit noise. impacts due to commuter rail. • Forty residences would experience Note:For Phase 1 only.,noise impacts have been vibration impacts due to commuter rail. reanalyzed in accordance with new FHWA noise regulations and CDOT guidelines(2011).,see Section F of this ROD. Highway Impacts Highway Impacts Highway Impacts Highway Impacts • Would result in 1,257 acres of • Would result in 1,946 acres of • Would result in 2,001 acres of • Would result in 1,982 acres of impervious surface impervious surface area. impervious surface area,with the impervious surface area,with the area,with the greatest impacts expected in the • Direct effects on surface water greatest impacts expected in the greatest impacts expected in the Cache la Poudre River.,Big Thompson River.,and quality from increases in stormwater Cache la Poudre and St.Vrain Cache la Poudre River and Big St.Vrain River watersheds. runoff velocity and volume would be Watersheds. Thompson River watersheds. • Would require relocation of as many as 112 wells negligible.The majority of • Would require relocation of as many • Would require relocation of as many as within the right-of-way. stormwater runoff from 1-25 would as 105 wells within the right-of-way. 111 wells within the right-of-way. • Modifications to the existing drainage system or a continue not to be treated prior to . Modifications to the existing drainage • Modifications to the existing drainage new system could improve drainage compared to discharging to water bodies. system or a new system could improve system or a new system could improve the No-Action Alternative. drainage compared to the No-Action drainage compared to the No-Action Alternative Alternative. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 27 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Wetlands • Would generally not affect existing Would result in total direct impacts of: Would resit in total direct impacts of: Would result in total direct impacts of: wetland resources,except those • 18.33 acres for wetlands. • 19.01 acres for wetlands • 15.31 acres for wetlands associated with development • 3.54 acres of jurisdictional open • 2.28 acres of jurisdictional open water • 2.87 acres of jurisdictional open water activities and rehabilitation of major water. • Indirect wetland effects would be the • Indirect wetland effects would be the same as and minor structures. Indirect Impacts same as Package A. Package A and Package B. • With continuing development in the • Indirect wetland effects would result regional study area.,some affects to from the increase in impervious wetlands would be expected. surfaces caused by additional lanes or added road shoulders.Effects would be expected to include increased roadway runoff,increased surface flows in adjacent streams,erosion,and the creation of channels in wetlands that were previously free of channelization. • New flows could contain pollutants associated with roadway runoff. Sediment from winter sanding operations accumulating in wetlands. • De-icers,petroleum products,and other chemicals would also likely degrade water quality and impacting wetland plants. • Addtional sediment and erosion would be expected during and after construction until exposed fill and cut slopes could be successfully re- vegetated. • Other indirect effects include the decrease or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway/rail corridor and wetlands adjacent to other aquatic sites. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 28 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Floodplains • Existing conditions would continue. • Would impact a total of 12.8 acres of • Would impact a total of 13.5 acres of • Would impact a total of 13 acres of floodplains, Floodplain impacts would be floodplains,10.8 acres from highway flootlplains,all from highway 11 acres from highway components and 2.0 acre addressed during the final design components and 2.0 acres from transit components. from transit components. phases of each CDOT project along components. . Would result in twelve 1-25 crossings of • Would result in twelve 1-25 crossings of 1-25 within the regional study area., . Would result in seven 1-25 crossings of floodplains and 15 drainage structure floodplains and replacement or rehabilitation of such as rehabilitation of various floodplains and nine drainage structure replacements. 13 drainage structures along 1-25. drainage structures. replacements. • Would not have any floodplain impacts • Would result in 10 commuter rail crossings of • Would result in 11 commuter rail beyond those for the highway floodplains. crossings of floodplains. components. • None of the bus facilities would impact a • Would result in two floodplains • None of the bus facilities would impact a floodplain. impacted by queue jumps for floodplain. commuter buses. Vegetation • Would only have a minimal effect on • Results in 927 acres of vegetation • Results in 819 acres of vegetation • Results in 818 acres of vegetation impacts. existing vegetation resources. impacts. impacts. • Results in 269 acres of soil disturbance which • Effects from increasing development • Results in 305 acres of soil • Results in 271 acres of soil disturbance can result in the potential disturbance to natural on vegetation could include disturbance which can result in the which can result in the potential resources due to spread and establishment of population fragmentation,reductions potential disturbance to natural disturbance to natural resources due to noxious weeds. in riparian zones,and ground and resources due to spread and spread and establishment of noxious • Sensitive wildlife species including Preble's soil disturbance which could establishment of noxious weeds. weeds. meadow jumping mouse will be affected by the promote increased germination of . Sensitive wildlife species including • Sensitive wildlife species including spread of noxious weeds in riparian areas. noxious weed populations. Preble's meadow jumping mouse will Preble's meadow jumping mouse will be . The potential for noxious weeds to establish and • Would not contribute to the spread be affected by the spread of noxious affected by the spread of noxious weeds spread onto public lands such as parks and open of noxious weeds. weeds in riparian areas. in riparian areas. spaces.,and agricultural areas exists. • The potential for noxious weeds to • The potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread onto public lands establish and spread onto public lands such as parks and open spaces.,and such as parks and open spaces.,and agricultural areas exists. agricultural areas exists. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 29 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Wildlife • Existing conditions would continue. • Would impact 2.01 acres of sensitive • Would impact 2.35 acres of sensitive • Would impact 1.94 acres of sensitive wildlife Increased traffic on secondary roads wildlife habitat. wildlife habitat. habitat. would increase mortality of wildlife . Would impact 1.82 acres of aquatic • Would impact 2.25 acres of aquatic • Would impact 1.54 acres of aquatic habitat. from collisions. habitat. habitat. • Would impact 14 wildlife movement corridors and • Would impact 13 wildlife movement • Would impact 7 wildlife movement 57 raptor nests. corridors and 49 raptor nests. corridors and 43 raptor nests. Threatened,Endangered,Other Federally-Protected and State Sensitive Species • Would not affect threatened and • Direct impact to 0.81 acre of potential • Direct impact to 0.80 acre of potential • Direct impact to 0.72 acre of potential Preble's endangered species.Existing Preble's habitat. Preble's habitat. habitat. conditions would continue. • Direct impact to 204 acres of bald • Direct impact to 231 acres of bald eagle • Direct impact to 231 acres of bald eagle foraging eagle foraging habitat. foraging habitat. habitat. • Direct impact to 60 acres of black- • Direct impact to 97 acres of black-tailed • Direct impact to 86 acres of black-tailed prairie tailed prairie dog colonies. prairie dog colonies. dog colonies. • Indirectly affect Western Burrowing • Indirectly affect Western Burrowing Owl • Indirectly affect Western Burrowing Owl habitat Owl habitat associated with prairie dog habitat assodated with prairie dog associated with prairie dog colonies. colonies. colonies. • Direct impact to 17 acres of habitat for northern • Direct impact to 20 acres of habitat for • Direct impact to 21 acres of habitat for leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. northern leopard frogs and common northern leopard frogs and common • Direct impact to 0.4 acre of habitat for state gartersnakes. gartersnakes. threatened,endangered.,or special concern • Direct impact to 0.4 acre of habitat for • Direct impact to 0.4 acre of habitat for aquatic species. state threatened,endangered,or state threatened,endangered.,or special . Direct impact to 5 acres of habitat for bald eagle special concern aquatic species. concern aquatic species. roost sites. • Direct impact to 7 acres of habitat for • Direct impact to 2 acres of habitat for bald eagle roost sites. bald eagle roost sites. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 30 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Visual Quality • Would generally have minimal effect • Most of the proposed improvements • Most of the proposed improvements • Most of the proposed improvements would not on visual resources.Growth would would not have a substantial effect to would not have a substantial effect to the have a substantial effect to the visual quality of continue to occur on undeveloped the visual quality of the corridors. visual quality of the corridors. the corridors. agricultural land.This would change . Long-term impacts would include • Package B would have the same basic • The Preferred Alternative would have the same the landscape character along the relocation of businesses and visual impacts as described for basic visual impacts as described for Package A I-25,BNSF,and US 287 corridors, residences,rebuilt interchanges, Package A,except that BRT elements and Package B. and alter views and perception of increased right-of-way.,additions of would occur along 1-25 instead of the • Many elements of the express bus have the visual character. station amenities,and changes to the commuter rail and bus elements along same visual impacts as the BRT associated with surrounding landscape through the other rights-of-way. Package B. use of overpasses,bridges,retaining walls,medians,as well as alterations to the existing roadway grade. • Indirect impacts of the proposed improvements could encourage development that is more compact and denser.,especially whin walking distance of a commuter rail station. • The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists,as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. • Short-term impacts would include detours,increased roadway congestion in and around the area,the presence of large equipment.,and dust from construction. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 31 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Historic Preservation • Would generally not affect significant Direct Impacts Direct Impacts Direct Impacts (NRHP-eligible)historic resources. • Adverse effects from direct impacts to • Four adverse effect from direct impacts • Adverse effects from direct impacts to seven • The present trend of conversion of nine NRHP-eligible or listed properties. to NRHP-eligible or listed properties. NRHP-eligible or listed properties. much of the remaining farmsteads (many of which are historic)into residential,industrial and commercial development would continue. • No significant(NRHP-eligible) archaeological resources would be affected within the Area of Potential Effect. Paleontological Resources No impacts. • Construction along the existing BNSF • Construction along 1-25 between E-470 • Construction along 1-25 between E-470 and rail-line between Fort Collins and and US 36,especially where cuts are US 36,especially where cuts are necessary to Longmont,and along 1-25 between necessary to expand highways and expand highways and interchanges.,has the E-470 and US 36,especially where interchanges.,has the highest likelihood highest likelihood of adversely impacting cuts are necessary to expand rail of adversely impacting paleontological paleontological resources. alignments,highways.,and resources. • Disturbances associated with the commuter rail interchanges,has the highest • Package B would generally require facilities would be noticeably less than likelihood of adversely impacting 2,959 acres of ground disturbance. Package A. paleontological resources. • The Preferred Alternative would generally require • Ground disturbance associated with 3.224 acres of ground disturbance and has the the construction of commuter rail lines highest potential for impacts on paleontological and facilities is anticipated to be resources. greater than that required for BRT facilities. • Package A would generally require 2,877 acres of ground disturbance and has the lowest potential for impacts on paleontological resources. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 32 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Hazardous Materials • No direct impacts. • 38 parcels with potential environmental • 40 parcels with potential environmental • 67 parcels with potential environmental • Indirect impacts include the potential conditions and 16 parcels with conditions and 16 parcels with conditions and 20 parcels with recognized to encounter contaminated soil recognized environmental conditions recognized environmental conditions are environmental condtions are associated wdh the and/or groundwater during structure are assodated with the highway associated with the highway Preferred Alternative. maintenance activities or during components. components. • Forty parcels with potential environmental safety improvements that require • 58 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized ramp terminal widening. conditions and 2 parcels wdh environmental condtions are associated wdh recognized environmental conditions highway components. are associated with the transit • Twenty-seven parcels with potential components. environmental condtions and four parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with transit components. Parks and Recreation • Portions of three parks.,a wildlife • Direct use of eight properties,seven • Direct use of six properties,five having • Direct use of six properties,five having minor area,and one golf course will having minor impacts.McWhinney minor impacts.McWhinney Hahn impacts.McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park would continue to receive noise impacts. Hahn Sculpture Park would need to be Sculpture Park would need to be need to be acquired. acquired. acquired. • Benefits would include improved access and • Benefits would include improved • Benefits would include improved access mobility to and from these recreational resources. access and mobility to and from these and mobility to and from these recreational resources. recreational resources. Section 6(f) Would have no impacts on any of the Would have no impacts on any of the Would have no impacts on any of the Would have no impacts on any of the Section 6(f) Section 6(f)properties. Section 6(f)properties. Section 6(f)properties. properties. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 33 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Farmlands • Would not directly impact prime • Package A would result in the direct • Package B would result in the direct • The Preferred Alternative would resuft in the farmland.,farmland of statewide conversion of 977.13 total acres.,R conversion of 925.36 total acres.,if direct conversion of 977.16 total acres,if certain importance,or farmland of local certain farming conditions are present. certain farming conditions are present. farming conditions are present.This would importance. This would include: This would include: include: • The more dispersed development • 1.80 acres of farmland of local • 1.66 acres of farmland of local • 5.05 acres of farmland of local importance. pattern would further fragment importance. importance. • 46.61 acres of farmland of statewide remaining agricultural lands, • 44.52 acres of farmland of • 35.39 acres of farmland of statewide importance. reducing their long-term viability. statewide importance. importance. • 92550 acres of farmland that would be • 930.81 acres of farmland that would • 888.31 acres of farmland that would considered prime if four certain conditions are be considered prime if four certain be considered prime if four certain present. condtions are present. conditions are present. • No farms would be severed or lose access. • No farms would be severed or lose • No farms would be severed or lose • Most of the farmland impact is associated with access. access. the widening of 1-25 to accommodate general • As a result of commuter rail.,the rate at • Most of the farmland impact is purpose lanes and buffer separated tolled which environmental resources associated with the widening of 1-25 to express lanes in each direction. (including farmlands)would be accommodate adddional buffer or barrier affected in undeveloped and suburban separated express lanes in each areas within the regional study area direction. would likely be slowed.,especially near 1-25. Energy • Annual energy consumption from • Would use approximately 0.8 percent • Would use approximately 0.4 percent • Would use approximately 0.9 percent more operations would be 403,220 million more energy than the No-Action more energy than the No-Action energy than the No-Action Alternative,as a resuft BTUs. Alternative,as a result of increase in Alternative,as a result of increase in of increase in annual vehicle miles of travel within • Energy demand would be directly annual vehicle miles of travel within annual vehicle miles of travel within the the regional study area. proportionate to the increase in the regional study area. regional study area. population as land development occurs. • Population is anticipated to increase at the same rate for all four alternatives. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 34 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Public Safety and Security • As congestion increases,there • A 70 percent reduction in accidents • M increased security presence would • Impacts would be similar to those described for would be a greater likelihood of both associated with trains and other be needed on trains,buses,and at Package A for the commuter rail.The highway highway and railway crashes;and vehicles is predicted. existing and proposed stations and and express bus service impacts would be similar emergency response times would be . An increased security presence would associated existing park-n-Rides. to Package B. negatively affected. be needed on trains,buses,and at • There is a potential for modest increases • The likely higher number of crashes existing and proposed stations and to police services in response to also could affect the likelihood of a associated existing park-n-Rides. increases in crime. crash involving a transporter of • There is a potential for modest • There is a potential for increased theft hazardous materials. increases to police services in during the construction phase(a response to increases in crime. temporary impact). • There is a potential for increased theft during the construction phase(a temporary impact). Construction • Would result in no construction or • Would have the greatest construction • Would have fewer impacts than • The Preferred Alternative would have utility impacts aside from those impacts(noise,air quality., Package A because there is no rail construction impacts greater than Package B associated with the currently transportation)to residential areas component,and I-25 widening occurs because it includes commuter rail,but less than programmed projects since construction of the double-track along a corridor that consists primarily of Package A because d has a single track,rather commuter rail would extend through commercial,industrial,and agricultural than double track. residential areas.The double-track development • Construction of all build package would cause commuter rail would use the existing • Construction of all build package would varying temporary impacts to traffic patterns and BNSF railroad track plus one new cause varying temporary impacts to congestion.,noise and vibration.,air quality,and track from Fort Collins to downtown traffic patterns and congestion,noise visual presence Longmont,and a new double-track and vibration,air quality.,and visual • Construction impacts would be short-term and commuter rail line would connect presence isolated in extent depending upon the types and Longmont to the FasTracks North • Construction impacts would be short- location of construction. Metro end-of-line station in in Thornton term and isolated in extent depending • Construction of all build packages upon the types and location of would cause varying temporary construction. impacts to traffic patterns and congestion,noise and vibration.,air quality.,and visual presence North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 35 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation. Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts(cont'd) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Construction(cont'd) • Construction impacts would be short- term and isolated in extent depending upon the types and location of construction Section 4(f)' No substantive impacts. Historic Historic Historic • 1 ditch:316 linear feet—Adverse effect • 1 ditch:357 linear feet—Adverse effect • 1 ditch:1,084 linear feet—Adverse effect • 1 railroad:2.9 miles—Adverse effect • 3 properties:32.32 acres—Adverse • 1 railroad:2.9 miles—Adverse effect • 7 properties:45.35 acres—Adverse effect • 5 properties:38.04 acres—Adverse effect effect • 4 historic properties:18.41 acres— • 7 properties:10.99 acres—De minimis" • 8 properties:20.78 acres— De minimis • 14 ditches:4236 linear feet—De minimis De minimis" • 8 ditches:3,959.5 linear feet— • 2 railroads:4.92 miles—De minimis • 14 ditches:4,418.5 linear feet— De minimis De minimis • 1 railroad:0.05 mile—De minimis Parks and Recreation • 3 parks:5.83 acres—De minimis" • 2 railroads:4.92 miles—De minimis Parks and Recreation • 1 park.1.21 aces—Adverse Effect Parks and Recreation • 4 parks:7.52 acres—De minimis • • 5 parks:8.69 acres—De minimis"" • 1 park:1.21 acres—Adverse Effect 3 recreation trail:1,857 linear feet—De minimis • 1 park:1.21 acres—Adverse Effect • 3 recreation trail:1,857 linear feet— The Preferred Alternative causes the least overall • 1 recreation trail.1,510 linear feet— De minimis harm to Section 4(f)properties. De minimis Total Uses Total Uses Total Uses (not including de minimis)=10 (not including de minimis)=5 (not including de minimis)=8 'Section 4(f)impacts are summarized in this table and explained in detail in the Revised Section 4(1)Evaluation dated October 27,2011. "De Minimis impacts to Sandstone Ranch are included under both the Parks and Recreation as well as Historic totals. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 36 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. C. PHASE 1 OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The lead agencies identified a Preferred Alternative for the project in the Final EIS, which is described in Section 2.2.4, Preferred Alternative, of the Final EIS. Appendix A of this ROD includes a figure of the Preferred Alternative. In this ROD, FHWA approves the selection of Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative as described in this section. CDOT and FHWA collaborated on a process to determine the overall philosophical approach to phasing. The engineering team developed various scenarios for consideration. These scenarios were evaluated in comparison to the amount of funding in the fiscally constrained DRCOG 2035 RTP, NFR 2035 RTP, and UFR 2035 RTP, the project Purpose and Need, and input from the local jurisdictions. C.1 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS A phased approach is being taken because the solution to the identified transportation problems costs more to implement than is available in the fiscally constrained RTP(s). The identification of an initial phase for implementation is consistent with FHWA requirements to have funding for projects identified before final decisions are made. The first phased ROD is consistent with projects and funding in the fiscally constrained DRCOG 2035 RTP, NFR 2035 RTP, UFR 2035 RTP. To develop the phasing plan, the first discussion with the stakeholders described the funding limitations in detail, and also described the implications of phasing. The first phase needs to identify a subset of components that amount in cost equal to the identified project funds in the fiscally constrained, conforming long range plans (2035). It was also clarified that staging of components in subsequent phases could be re-evaluated as funding and needs change over time regardless of the phase that the improvements have been included. Given this information, the stakeholders were first tasked with identifying phasing criteria. The stakeholders developed the phasing criteria by referring to the defined elements of Purpose and Need, as well as their community and agency values. In addition, CDOT provided guidance regarding the need for a cohesive system for each major phase. A collaborative decision-making process ensued with the stakeholders over a series of meetings. In the end, consensus was achieved on a recommended three phase implementation plan. More detail describing the development of the phasing plan is provided below and in Appendix B of the Final EIS. C.2 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS The RCC and the TAC provided a prioritized list of guiding principles that were important to their communities when developing a phasing plan for the Preferred Alternative. These included: 1) Replace infrastructure. 2) Address safety concerns. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 37 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 3) Improve mobility. 4) Coordinate with community plans. 5) Consider long-term with near-term implementation. 6) Implement cost effective solution. The first three are consistent with the project's Purpose and Need (described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need of the Final EIS). The project's Purpose and Need statement identifies a need to replace aging infrastructure on 1-25, address safety concerns on 1-25, improve mobility and provide modal options. The last three reflect the communities' desire to ensure consistency with their current plans and consideration of commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative. Following identification of these guiding principles for prioritization, the RCC/TAC and other agencies involved in this effort (CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) prioritized projects as near-, mid- or long-term improvements. See Appendix B of the Final EIS for further information regarding decision making process. FHWA, as the lead federal agency, was involved throughout the decision making process. Key results of this exercise were: ► 1-25 widening and reconstruction of the interchanges north of SH 66 were the most strongly supported near-term improvements due to a desire to address critical safety, mobility, and aging infrastructure problems in this part of the corridor. ► Bus services included in the Preferred Alternative (express bus on 1-25 and commuter bus on US 85) had substantial support for inclusion as a near-term project due to the lack of immediate funding availability for commuter rail and the expected timeframe for implementation of RTD's North Metro and Northwest Rail Lines. The expected time frame for the RTD rail lines was important because the Preferred Alternative connects to these two rail lines for a complete trip between Fort Collins and Denver Union Station or DIA. 1-25 widening in the form of tolled express lanes is a critical component of express bus service that is competitive with general purpose lane travel time. ► Commuter rail projects included in the Preferred Alternative were rated as longer-term improvements due to the lack of immediate funding availability and the delay in scheduled implementation of RTD's North Metro and Northwest Rail Lines. ► Widening 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 7 was identified by the RCC/TAC as a mid- or long-term priority because this section of 1-25 has recently been widened and reconstructed and therefore has relatively new pavement and infrastructure, so that more improvements are not required in the near term. Consequently, the following guidance for identification of Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative was developed: ► Address concerns on 1-25 north of SH 66—This principle is consistent with the project's Purpose and Need and the committees' strong desire to address safety, capacity and infrastructure issues on this stretch of 1-25. ► Include bus transit—This is consistent with the project's Purpose and Need to increase modal options, and the committees' desire to see bus service implemented in the near- term. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 38 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. ► Include a commitment to commuter rail—This is also consistent with the project's Purpose and Need to increase modal options, and the committees' desire to ensure that near- term solutions are considering the long-term vision. C.3 REASONS FOR SELECTING SPECIFIC ELEMENTS Based on the guiding principles identified above, the following Phase 1 improvements have been selected with reasons listed that indicate their relationship to the guiding principles. 1) Reconstruct and widen 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 with one TEL in each direction. This would: • Replace and widen seven miles of pavement with no remaining service life. • Reconstruct two substandard interchanges (1-25/SH 56 and 1-25/CR 34). • Address geometric safety concerns. • Improve mobility by increasing capacity. • Increase modal options and provide a competitive travel time advantage by providing a lane for carpools and bus service. • Address the committees' desire to improve safety and mobility north of SH 66 in the near-term. 2) Reconstruct and widen 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 392 with continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes that would ultimately become part of the eight-lane cross-section. This would: • Replace seven miles of pavement with no remaining service life. • Reconstruct two substandard interchanges (1-25/SH 14 and 1-25/Prospect). • Address geometric safety concerns. • Improve mobility by increasing capacity. • Address the committees' desire to improve safety and mobility north of SH 66 in the near-term. 3) Construct an interchange at US 34/Centerra Parkway [Larimer County Road (LCR) 5], which is part of the Preferred Alternative configuration for the 1-25/US 34 interchange. 4) Widen 1-25 between 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 with one buffer-separated TEL in each direction. This would: • Address geometric safety concerns along 1-25. • Improve mobility by increasing capacity. • Increase modal options and provide a competitive travel time advantage by providing a lane for carpools and bus service. 5) Interchange reconstruction at 1-25/SH 7, which would be constructed to its ultimate configuration. This would: • Improve accessibility and mobility by improving interchange operation. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 39 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 6) 1-25 express bus service—Express bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1. These are located at 1-25/SH 7, 1-25/SH 119, 1-25/Harmony Road. This would: • Increase modal options by providing bus service. • Address the committees' desire to see bus service implemented in the near-term. 7) US 85 commuter bus service—Commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver would be implemented in Phase 1. This would: • Increase modal options by providing bus service. • Address committees' desire to see bus service implemented in the near-term. Phase 1 would cost approximately $670 million (2009 dollars) and is planned to be completed by 2035. A Cost Estimate Review (CER) was conducted on the Preferred Alternative by CDOT with guidance from FHWA. The results of the CER are described in more detail in Chapter 6, Financial Analysis, of the Final EIS and in the North 1-25 Project Cost Estimate Review Report (FHWA and CDOT, 2010). The CER included construction of the interchange at US 34/Centerra Parkway (LCR 5), in the Preferred Alternative configuration for the 1-25/US 34 interchange, but did not include it in Phase 1 as it was added to Phase 1 after the CER was completed. Moving the improvements at US 34/Centerra Parkway into Phase 1 from a later phase does not affect the reliability of the CER. In the CER, the cost of these improvements was accounted for in a later phase and represents a very small percentage of the overall project cost. The CER assesses cost risks, and one of the largest risk factors in the assessment was inflation uncertainty and the impact on overall construction cost. Completing additional work sooner would have the net result of lowering risk in terms of overall project cost, therefore the reliability of the CER has not been reduced by moving the US 34/Centerra Parkway improvements into Phase 1. The CER will need to be updated during preparation of the project financial plans. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires air quality conformity to be demonstrated for major transportation projects in non-attainment and/or maintenance areas. Regional air quality conformity for Phase 1 is demonstrated in its inclusion in the fiscally constrained DRCOG 2035 RTP, NFR 2035 RTP, and UFR 2035 RTP. The regional emissions analysis conducted for the Preferred Alternative is discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, of the Final EIS. The fiscally constrained RTP, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) must identify all projects that are expected to receive federal funds or that will require FHWA or FTA approval. Regarding commuter rail right-of-way preservation, all right-of-way necessary to construct the ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1, which would address the committees' desire to consider the long-term vision in the near-term. It is important to note that the purchase of right-of-way for commuter rail is not eligible for federal aid funding until construction funds for commuter rail have been identified in a fiscally constrained RTP and, therefore, it is not included in this ROD. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 40 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. C.4 DESCRIPTION OF ELEMENTS Phase 1 includes the following elements and is shown in Figure 4. This ROD only addresses the elements of Phase 1 that are under the jurisdiction and control of the FHWA. The commuter rail right-of-way purchase, which is included in Phase 1 by the consensus of the stakeholders, would not be constructed until future funds for design and construction are identified. State funds will be used for the purchase of commuter rail right-of-way in Phase 1. Therefore, this right-of-way preservation is not included in the ROD because it is not eligible for federal funds until the construction of the commuter rail project is included in the fiscally-constrained, air quality conforming plan. State expenditures for this purpose may become eligible for use as a credit towards the state's share of a federal aid project in the future at the time of commuter rail implementation if funds for construction are not identified prior to purchasing the right-of-way, in accordance with applicable federal regulations [23CFR710.501(b); 23CFR630.112(c)(1)]. The elements of Phase 1 included in this ROD are: ► Widening 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 392 (approximately seven miles). This improvement would include full reconstruction of the existing cross section plus pavement to accommodate the Preferred Alternative TELs. While the additional pavement would ultimately be used for TELs, it will be used as continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes as an interim improvement. This would avoid potential operational problems associated with a southbound lane drop at SH 392. Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross-section is also included. ► Widening 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 (approximately seven miles) with one TEL in each direction. Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross-section. ► Widening 1-25 between approximately US 36 and 120th Avenue (approximately six miles) with one buffer-separated TEL in each direction and interchange modifications, as necessary. Widening would include noise abatement walls, water quality ponds, and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross-section. ► Replacement and reconstruction of interchanges-1-25/SH 14, 1-25/Prospect, 1-25/SH 56, 1-25/CR 34, and 1-25/SH 7 would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. SH 392 and 84th Avenue would be completed as part of separate projects. A first phase of improvements to the 1-25/US 34 interchange would be completed, which includes a single point urban interchange SPUI at the US 34/Centerra Parkway intersection. ► Replace or construct forty-six structures, modify two existing structures, and rehabilitate (minor) two structures (see Table 3). ► Installation of six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges (1-25/SH 14, 1-25/Prospect Road, I 25/Harmony Road, 1-25/SH 56/Weld County Road (WCR) 44, Firestone, and 1-25/SH 7). Several of these carpool lots are shared with the 1-25 express bus transit stations. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 41 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. ► 1-25 express bus—Regional express bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1: 1-25/Harmony Road, US 34/83rd Avenue, Firestone (1-25/SH 119), and 1-25/SH 7. Two on-street stops are assumed and 27 buses would be purchased. ► US 85 commuter bus—Commuter bus along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver would be implemented in Phase 1. This would include construction of five stations and the purchase of five buses. The entire US 85 commuter bus system identified in the Preferred Alternative would be implemented in Phase 1. The decisions of what elements to include in Phase 1 were based on funding constraints, the project Purpose and Need, and concerns of the local jurisdictions. The elements of Phase 1, including the tolled express lanes, continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes, and interchange improvements, are anticipated to provide a substantial benefit to corridor users and would offset irreversible impacts. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 42 IP • NORTH 1-25 • EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 4. Phase 1 III I Wellington 8S • LEGEND - 1CININ 25 Commuter Bus & Stations ountain Vista 287 uunuQuumi Initial 1-25 Express Bus & Stations • Q Commuter Rail ROW Preservation Ault ROW owned by RTD 14 1111iiun iit Continuous Accel/Decel Lanes Fort a Ijn 'rospeot • Tolled Express Lanes Phase 1 includes • EB1 Be S O Interchange Reconstruction Stop at Existing Harmony nath Severance Eaton III O NFR Separate Action Interchange Transit Center — Lucerne Upgrade(No-Action Alternative) ( • 392 III FasTracks Rail Line Windsor Express Bus 34 Crossroads On-Street Stop Only • o FasTracks/ RTD Transit Station Lov = I : nd Lt., CB1 • • Existing Interchange I 34 , - eeleyE •I CB�^ Garden City • 287 X40• CR 16 Q5y) !vans • CB3 •TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS - cR so 50 • -- - La Salle PHASE 1 LARIMER C p n Johnstown - 60 , Express BusII Milliken E5 South Fort Collins Transit 56 Center - Mason St and rth• ud a en • Phase 1 includes only West Fairway Lane (stop at existing Transit Center) construction of • EB3 East Fort Collins - I-25 and interchange at US 34 / Harmony Rd. 36 R 34 WE L Ci Centerra Parkway E67 Greeley US 34 and 83rd ""sae Plant/fill. Ave. 66 • CB4 • EBB Greeley Downtown Transfer Lon m o n t Center - 8th Ave. and 9 8th St. (on street) • -,�19 E81 ') • EB1 P , Firestone - 1-25 andSH 119 Q 36 Broomfield ie 1-25 and H 7 BOULDER _ 85 S (119 Firestone . EB1 B O DIA287 Brick iwot 1 ;% • 52 • C85 Fort Commuter Bus WC Oacono upton • • CB1 Greeley - US 85 and D SL tarie • •••�• . C B2 South Greeley • 8th Ave. and 119/ ,. oulder l d e r '.1 7F 24th St. E B 13 5 CB3 Evans US 85 and 42nd St. a La yens ,2 ' •. ' ' 7 • — - 93 CB4 Platteville US 85 and Grand S8 Loulsvil Br on . Ave. Northwest , �� • s ` CB5 Fort Lupton US 85 and Rail Corridor �, Droomtieldr3611 • 5 CR14.5 - ROOMII I °n Brighton US 85 and SH 7 • '" Ave • Com co • Commerce City - 72nd and • t°°' a" • Colorado n' / 72 t stew rDenver w k • North Metro E470" International IIAve CorridorAirport • 2 i 121 • 11111111114 5 JEFFER ON all • y. D�yow1 IInj wn - 40 , f1 2 4 6 8 IU / e Den er V _ Miles North ID North 1-25 EIS Record of Decision . December 2011 Page 43 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3. Phase 1 - Structures Replacement or Reconstruction • 1-25 over Niver Creek(CBC) • RTD Pedestrian Overpass • 88th Avenue over 1-25 • Pedestrian Overpass between 104th Ave and 112th Ave.1-25 over Farmers Highline Canal • Pedestrian Underpass(CBC)south of 120th Ave. • 1-25 over S. Fork Preble Creek(CBC) • Bull Canal(CBC)between 160th Ave and SH 7 • SH 7 over 1-25 • 1-25 NB over WCR 32 • l-25 SB over WCR 32 • WCR 34 over 1-25 • 1-25 over North Creek(CBC) • 1-25 NB over GWRR • 1-25 SB over GWRR • 1-25 over Drainage(CBC), south of WCR 38 • WCR 38 over 1-25 • 1-25 NB over Valley Road • 1-25 SB over Valley Road • 1-25 over Draw(CBC) • 1-25 NB over Little Thompson River • 1-25 SB over Little Thompson River • 1-25 NB over SH 56 • 1-25 SB over SH 56 • US 34 WB By-Pass over LCR 5 • US 34 over LCR 5 • US 34 EB By-Pass over LCR 5 • 1-25 over Cache Ia Poudre Floodway(CBC) • 1-25 SB on Ramp over Cache Ia Poudre Floodway(CBC) • LCR 36(Kechter Road)over 1-25 • LCR 36 over Cache Ia Poudre Floodway(CBC) • Kechter Rd over Cache Ia Poudre Floodway(CBC) • 1-25 over Cache Ia Poudre Floodway(CBC) • Harmony Road over 1-25 • 1-25 NB over Cache Ia Poudre River • 1-25 SB over Cache Ia Poudre River • 1-25 NB over GWRR • 1-25 SB over GWRR • Prospect Road over 1-25 North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 44 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3. Phase 1 - Structures (cont'd) Replacement or Reconstruction(cont'd) • Lake Canal(CBC)north of Prospect Road • Timnath Ditch(Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet)(CBC) • Box Elder Creek(CBC) • SH 14 over 1-25 • SH 14 over Frontage Road Connector • 1-25 NB over GWRR • 1-25 SB over GWRR Modification • Wagon Road HOV Ramp • 1-25 over Preble Creek(CBC) Rehabilitation • Community Center Drive over 1-25 • Wagon Road HOV Ramp C.5 ESTIMATED COST Table 4 summarizes the estimated cost by Phase 1 element. Table 4. Phase 1 - Estimated Cost by Element Element Estimated Cost(2009 dollars) Widen 1-25 between SH 392 and SH 14, including Prospect interchange $133.3 million Widen 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 56 $119.7 million Widen 1-25 between approximately US 36 and 120th Avenue $138.3 million Replace and reconstruct interchanges-1-25/SH 14, 1-25/SH 56, and 1-25/SH 7 $157.1 million Construct intersection at US 34/Centerra Parkway(LCR 5) $29.7 million Install six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges $2.3 million Initiate 1-25 express bus and US 85 commuter bus $63.1 million Preserve commuter rail right-of-way* $26.4 million Total $669.9 million *This element has been included to indicate total cost for Phase 1 but it is not a part of this ROD. C.6 RESPONSIVENESS TO PURPOSE AND NEED The project Purpose and Need, as described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Final EIS would be addressed by implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety. Phases 1, 2 and 3 individually would not fully address the Purpose and Need, but each phase would contribute by incrementally addressing elements of the Purpose and Need. Phase 1 would incrementally contribute to addressing elements of the project Purpose and Need as follows. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 45 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. ► Need#1: Address increased frequency and severity of crashes on 1-25. • Widening 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 would correct existing substandard shoulders and stopping sight distance to provide continuous, safe refuge for stopped vehicles and emergency use and would correct deficiencies in the horizontal alignment. • Widening 1-25 between SH 392 and SH 14 would correct deficiencies in the horizontal alignment between SH 392 and Harmony Road. ► Need#2: Address increasing traffic congestion on 1-25, leading to mobility and accessibility problems. • Reconstructing the 1-25/SH 7 interchange would replace an interchange that does not have the capacity to safely or efficiently accommodate the higher traffic volumes anticipated by 2035. • Reconstructing the 1-25/SH 14, 1-25/Prospect, 1-25/SH 56, and 1-25/CR 34 interchanges would improve capacity and therefore enhance accessibility at these locations. • Widening 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 56, SH 392 and SH 14, and 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 would improve mobility along the 1-25 corridor. ► Need#3: Replace aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure. • Reconstructing the 1-25/SH 14, 1-25/Prospect, 1-25/SH 56, and 1-25/CR 34 interchanges would replace structures that were constructed prior to 1985, which, based on a 50-year design life and a design year of 2035, is the cut-off date for replacement of aging structures. ► Need#4: Provide modal alternatives. • Constructing six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges, initiating express bus service along 1-25, building express bus and commuter bus stations, and implementing commuter bus service along US 85 would provide modal alternatives. These improvements are considered a reasonable expenditure of funds and would incrementally contribute to addressing the Purpose and Need of the project, even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. The improvements proposed in Phase 1 would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. The transportation improvements to be constructed in Phase 1 would have independent utility in that they would provide transportation benefits, be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional improvements are made in the area, and each element has logical termini. Because the EIS addressed the regional transportation needs, the study considered environmental resources on a broad scope. C.7 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A traffic analysis for Phase 1 for the year 2035 was completed. The traffic analysis evaluates traffic conditions at the completion of Phase 1 in 2035, since all of Phase 1 is not expected to be constructed until 2035. Figure 5 presents the level of service (LOS) for each segment of 1-25 during the AM and PM peak hours for Phase 1. A total of 25 freeway segments were analyzed. Forecasted North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 46 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. volumes result in 15 segments in one or both directions operating at LOS E or F in the AM peak hour and 17 segments in the PM peak hour. In the No-Action Alternative most of the corridor would operate with LOS E and F conditions. Under Phase 1, travel demand forecasts are similar to the No-Action Alternative, but 1-25 capacity would be enhanced at selected locations, resulting in a reduction in the number of miles of the corridor operating at LOS E and F conditions and improved travel times, relative to the No-Action Alternative. These improvements to the 1-25 corridor are part of incrementally addressing Need #2 (mobility and accessibility), and also Need #1 (safety), described in Section C.6 above. Table 5 correlates congested segments to miles of 1-25 operating with congested conditions and compares Phase 1 miles of congestion to miles of congestion for the No-Action Alternative. As shown in the table, Phase 1 capacity enhancements provide some reduction in miles operating at LOS E or F, with a reduction from 56 miles to 42 miles in the AM peak hour and from 75 miles to 63 miles in the PM peak hour. Improved operations occur from SH 14 to SH 392 where continuous auxiliary lanes would be implemented, between SH 56 and SH 66 where tolled express lanes and improved geometric conditions would provide some additional capacity, and between 120th Avenue and US 36 where tolled express lanes would be added. Table 5. Miles of I-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Component No-Action Phase 1 No-Action Phase 1 SH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 22 17 29 20 SH 60 to E-470 17 10 I 24 21 E-470 to US 36 17 15 22 22 Total 56 42 75 63 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 47 1 NORTH 1-25 4 EIS I information. cooperation. transportation. 4 Figure 5. Phase 1 - 1-25 Mainline Level of Service (LOS) 4 PHASE 1 PHASE 1 I (Tolled Express Lanes) SH1 CR34 — CR34 I A A D B B B ' A A C F B C Mountain ' Vista SH 66 SH 66 B B C _ C 4 B B CD ' SH 14 Il_ - SH 119 WEAVE C C D C D D C D 4 Prospect SH 52 ' I. CC IFS C D C F' D 4 Harmony -r -- CR 8 C C E D ' C C D SH 392 SH 7 — I WEAVE Crossroads E•470 1:7' G [,' US 34 144th Ave. - SH 402 136th Ave. ' rs" (Tolled Express Lanes) CR 16 120th Ave. 120th Ave. - I D B B ' (Tolled Express Lanes) P ft? C D I 104th Ave 104th Ave. --1--SH 60 SH 60 [L' D BB D BB I D G B C Cry.. C D Thornton Thornton SH 56 SH 56 0 - Parkway Parkway D C B B Id D B B I C r B I C ( , :_ C D i 84th Ave. 84th Ave. LEGEND i -- 13 B B I NUR t�AUND I C D I AM X Y AM ■ LOS A B, , D I PM X Y PM ■ LOS E, F SOUTHBOUND I I I North 1-25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 48 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Travel Time Table 6 illustrates travel time anticipated for users in the general purpose lanes and for users of the tolled express lanes (where available) with the completion of Phase 1. As shown, travel in the general purpose lanes would be improved by eight minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street in the AM peak hour southbound. Travel in the tolled express lanes would improve from 116 minutes to 107 minutes over that same section of 1-25. Table 6. 2035 Phase 1 Travel Time Travel Time in Minutes No-Action Phase 1 General Purpose Lanes SH 1 to E-470 69 69 E470 to 20th Street 64 56 Total 133 125 TEL Lanes where available SH 1 to E-470 69 69 E470 to 20th Street 47 38 Total 116 107 Transit Ridership Table 7 summarizes the anticipated regional transit ridership with the completion of Phase 1. As shown, the initial 1-25 bus service is expected to attract 2,000 boardings daily. The US 85 commuter bus would attract an additional 200 riders daily. These numbers represent about one third of the regional transit ridership anticipated with the Preferred Alternative. Table 7. 2035 Weekday Transit Ridership—Phase 1 Phase 1 Daily Riders US 85 Commuter Bus to/from Downtown Denver 200 Initial 1-25 Express Bus: North Front Range to/from Downtown Denver and DIA 2,000 Total Regional Riders 2,200 C.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The environmental impacts of Phase 1 are discussed in Section 8.5, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation, of the Final EIS and provided in Table 8. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 49 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8. Resources Impacted by Phase 1 Resource Phase 1 Improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as would be the case if completely new interchanges were proposed. Land Use Because they are beside 1-25,the express bus stations are more likely to attract new development. Non-urban stations would help realize plans for more urban development that otherwise would not occur. Impacts associated with Phase 1 would include: • Relocation of 39 residences. • Increased noise and visual impacts. • A slight increase in air emissions(but below NAAQS)relative to the No-Action Alternative. Benefits associated with Phase 1 would include: • Enhanced regional connections between communities. • Improvements in mobility,safety, and emergency response. • Improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Social Conditions Environmental Justice Impacts to minority and low-income residents include 14 residential displacements. Benefits associated with the Phase 1 would include: • Express bus and commuter bus transit would result in moderate improvements in mobility and would improve regional connectivity. • Safety and emergency response time would improve. • Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance. • Shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. Impacts associated with Phase 1 include: • Relocation of 16 businesses. • The loss in tax base associated with right-of-way acquisitions. • Temporary construction-related detours,delays, and out-of-direction travel. • Temporary impacts to existing freight operations during construction. Economics Benefits associated with Phase 1 would include: • Potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a result of transit-oriented development. • Some access revisions;transit would improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunities. • Creation of 3,500 temporary jobs over the construction period. Right-of-Way Would require 39 residential relocations and 16 business relocations. (Acquisitions and All property impacts,including displacements and partial acquisitions,would require a total of Displacements) 568 acres for the implementation of Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. No exceedances of standards or thresholds due to mobile sources. Growth and development changes would affect traffic patterns and air quality. In areas of transit oriented development, air quality could improve due to more efficient travel patterns. Air Quality Benefits include: • Emissions for all pollutants from mobile sources would be reduced from existing levels. Continued conversion of agricultural land uses would lessen nitrogen deposition effects to Rocky Mountain National Park. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 50 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8. Resources Impacted by Phase 1 (cont'd) Resource Phase 1 Noise and Vibration An estimated 32 additional Category B/C/E sites would be impacted by traffic noise without (from noise re-analysis recommended mitigation measures. and without mitigation) No residences,schools, or churches would experience impacts from rail transit noise or vibration. Highway Impacts: • Would result in 815 acres of impervious surface area. Water Resources • Would require relocation of as many as 76 wells within the right-of-way. • Modifications to the existing drainage system or a new system could improve drainage compared to the No-Action Alternative. Would result in total direct impacts of 7.75 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open water. Indirect wetland effects would result from the increase in impervious surfaces caused by additional lanes or added road shoulders. Effects would be expected to include increased roadway runoff,increased surface flows in adjacent streams, erosion, and the creation of channels in wetlands that were previously free of channelization. New flows could contain pollutants associated with roadway runoff. Sediment from winter Wetlands and Waters sanding operations accumulating in wetlands. of the US De-icers,petroleum products, and other chemicals would also likely degrade water quality and impacting wetland plants. Additional sediment and erosion would be expected during and after construction until exposed fill and cut slopes could be successfully re-vegetated. Other indirect effects include the decrease or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway/rail corridor and wetlands adjacent to other aquatic sites. Would impact a total of 7.8 acres of floodplains. Floodplains Would result in six 1-25 crossings of floodplains and replacement or rehabilitation of six drainage structures along 1-25. Results in 337 acres of vegetation impacts. Vegetation The potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread onto public lands such as parks and open spaces, and agricultural areas exists. Noxious Weeds Results in 111 acres of soil disturbance which can result in the potential disturbance to natural resources due to spread and establishment of noxious weeds. Would impact 1.41 acres of sensitive riparian/wetland habitat. Wildlife Would impact 0.71 acres of aquatic habitat. Would impact 3 wildlife movement corridors and 28 raptor nests. Direct impact to 0.25 acre of occupied Preble's habitat. Threatened, Direct impact to 194 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Endangered,Other Direct impact to 48 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Federally-Protected, Indirect impact to Western Burrowing Owl habitat associated with prairie dog colonies. and State Sensitive Direct impact to 8 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. Species Direct impact to 0.15 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered,or sensitive aquatic species. Most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect to the visual quality of the corridors. Visual Quality Long-term impacts would include relocation of businesses and residences, rebuilt interchanges, increased right-of-way,additions of station amenities, and changes to the surrounding landscape through the use of overpasses, bridges,retaining walls, medians, as well as alterations to the existing roadway grade. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 51 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8. Resources Impacted by Phase 1 (cont'd) Resource Phase 1 Indirect impacts of the proposed improvements could encourage development that is more compact and denser, especially within walking distance of a transit station. Visual Quality(cont'd) The addition of transit stations and a maintenance facility would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists,as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. Short-term impacts would include detours, increased roadway congestion in and around the area,the presence of large equipment, and dust from construction. "Adverse effects"to NRHP eligible or listed properties: • 0"Adverse effect"determinations Historic Preservation "No adverse effect"to NRHP eligible or listed properties: • 6"No adverse effect"determinations • No NRHP-eligible archaeological resources would be affected within the Area of Potential Effect Construction along 1-25 between E-470 and US 36, especially where cuts are necessary to expand highways and interchanges, has the highest likelihood of adversely impacting Paleontological paleontological resources. Resources Ground disturbance associated with the construction of commuter rail lines and facilities. Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative would generally require 1,328 acres of ground disturbance and has the potential for impacts on paleontological resources. Hazardous Materials 50 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 15 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with the Preferred Alternative. Two park and recreation properties(Arapahoe Bend Natural Area and Little Thompson River Corridor)would be impacted through acquisition of small strips of land directly adjacent to 1-25. Parks and Recreation Widening of bridges over the Cache la Poudre and Little Thompson Rivers would also occur creating additional shading over future trail locations. Benefits would include improved access and mobility to and from these recreational resources. Section 6(f) Resources Would have no impacts on any of the 6(t)properties. The Preferred Alternative would result in the direct conversion of 402.8 total acres, if certain farming conditions are present. Farmlands No farms would be severed or lose access. Most of the farmland impact is associated with the widening of 1-25 to accommodate buffer separated tolled express lanes. Energy Would use approximately 0.9 percent more energy than the No-Action Alternative, as a result of increase in annual vehicle miles of travel within the regional study area. An increased security presence would be needed on buses, and at existing and proposed Public Safety and stations and associated existing park-n-Rides. Security There is a potential for modest increases to police services in response to increases in crime. There is a potential for increased theft during the construction phase(a temporary impact). The Preferred Alternative would have construction impacts greater than Package B because it includes commuter rail, but less than Package A because it has a single track, rather than double track. Construction Construction of all build packages would cause varying temporary impacts to traffic patterns and congestion, noise and vibration, air quality, and visual presence. Construction impacts would be short-term and isolated in extent depending upon the types and location of construction. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 52 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8. Resources Impacted by Phase 1 (cont'd) Resource Phase 1 Section 4(t)resource uses: • No Section 4(t)non-de minimis uses. Section 4(f) Properties • Three park Section 4(t) de minimis uses. • Three trail Section 4(f)de minimis uses. • Six NRHP listed or eligible sites with de minimis uses. The Phase 1 impacts presented in Table 8 include residential and business relocations associated with the purchase and preservation of right-of-way needed for commuter rail. Commuter rail right-of-way will be purchased with State funds in Phase 1, and this action is not part of this ROD. Of the total Phase 1 relocations shown in Table 8, 31 residential and 13 business relocations are associated with purchase/preservation of right-of-way for commuter rail. C.9 TIMING OF ADDITIONAL PHASES The timing of implementation for additional phases or specific projects within those phases will be determined through the statewide planning and programming process, which is carried out by CDOT in accordance with 23 CFR 450. Under those regulations, a project that involves federal funding can be implemented only if the project is included in the STIP. The Colorado Department of Transportation uses 4P (Project Priority Programming Process) to prioritize projects. Federal regulations (23 CFR 450.216[a] through [o]) require all states to develop a STIP. Colorado develops its STIP in cooperation with the rural Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs) and MPOs, who have their own processes that include stakeholder outreach. Colorado Department of Transportation Engineering Regions initiate 4P, conduct priority programming, and submit projects for inclusion in the STIP. The governor, MPOs, and the Transportation Commission have roles in approving the STIP. The final step in STIP approval is when FHWA and FTA approve the STIP. Stakeholders have a role during the statewide planning process by providing input on project priorities. Phased project design processes can be amended into the STIP between formal planning cycles by the Colorado Transportation Commission. As conditions change, either through new legislation or changes in identified funding, the Colorado Transportation Commission may include additional projects in the STIP. D. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1505.2[b]) require the ROD to identify the environmentally preferable alternative. The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. The Council on Environmental Quality has clarified that the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment, and that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. NEPA does not require an agency to select the environmentally preferable alternative. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 53 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Package A requires relocation of the most number of residences and businesses, results in slightly higher total air emissions than the other packages, results in the most acres of vegetation impacts and soil disturbance, the most acreage of impact to potential Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat, the highest numbers of adverse effects to properties on the National Register of Historic Places (N RHP) and the most number of parcels with potential or recognized hazardous material conditions. Package A also exacerbates an existing freight rail barrier between neighborhoods in some areas and creates a new barrier in other areas. Package A improves transit related mobility on two corridors in the regional study area. The addition of general purpose lanes to 1-25 does not provide an opportunity to manage congestion over time, as volumes grow. Package B results in the largest number of residences and commercial buildings that would be impacted by highway noise, the most acreage of new impervious surface area, the most wetland impact, the most acreage of floodplain impact, the greatest acreage of impact to sensitive wildlife habitat and aquatic habitat, and the most acres of impact to black-tailed prairie dog habitat. Package B concentrates both highway and transit improvements on a single corridor, 1-25. It therefore does not have the negative community impacts the other two alternatives have on noise, visual and community cohesion. It requires the least number of residential and business relocations. It could also tend to provide a growth stimulus to areas along 1-25, farther away from the downtown areas located along the US 287 corridor. In general, the magnitude and severity of the impacts of the three build alternatives to the natural environment are relatively similar taking into account the size of the project. The Preferred Alternative has fewer impacts to the habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, a federally threatened species. The Preferred Alternative also has the least impacts to aquatic resources. On the other hand, the Preferred Alternative has more impacts than either of the other build alternatives to bald eagle foraging habitat and raptor nests and it has more impervious surface than Package A. The Preferred Alternative has been determined to cause the least overall harm to Section 4(f) properties. The Preferred Alternative is most responsive to land use goals of stimulating growth around transit stations, since it includes commuter rail along US 287, express bus along 1-25 and commuter bus along US 85. Over time, there is a greater potential with the Preferred Alternative to conserve energy and reduce air emissions because of the easier expansion capabilities of transit service provided on more corridors and because of the potential for transit oriented development around commuter rail, express bus and commuter bus stations. The Preferred Alternative also has the least impact to aquatic resources, including wetlands, other jurisdictional waters, aquatic habitat, and impacts to Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. For these reasons, the Preferred Alternative is considered to be the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Air pollutant emissions associated with all three build packages would be slightly greater than those anticipated under the No-Action Alternative because vehicle miles of travel would be expected to increase. These emissions in 2035 would, however, be lower than existing levels for all pollutants and in all alternatives. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 54 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. E. LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA) The Preferred Alternative has fewer impacts to aquatic resources and threatened and endangered species than Packages A or B, as described above and in Table 2. The USACE, in their letter dated August 16, 2011 (included in Appendix C of this ROD), stated that the Preferred Alternative appears to be the LEDPA. Concurrence from the USACE that the mitigation meets the regulatory requirements will be granted when a Section 404 permit is issued. The application for the Section 404 permit has been made to the USACE. F. RE-ANALYSIS OF NOISE IMPACTS Traffic noise analyses were previously conducted for both the Draft EIS and Final EIS. The study corridors were evaluated for noise impacts and abatement actions following CDOT's 2002 noise guidelines. A number of traffic noise impacts were identified and several noise abatement actions were recommended, which were described in those documents. Since that time, new traffic noise regulations have been promulgated by FHWA (CFR Title 23 Part 772) and CDOT has completed the Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines (2011), so a re-analysis of the Phase 1 improvements was needed to comply with the changed requirements. The full re-analysis is included in Appendix F of this ROD. The 2011 CDOT guidelines fundamentally changed the way receptors are considered in noise impact analyses. For example, Land Use Categories B and C from the 2002 CDOT guidelines (the land uses of primary importance in the previous noise analyses) were substantively changed in the 2011 guidelines. The more important of these are the former Category B land uses (residential), which have been split between the new Categories B, C and E. In addition, the upper floors of multi-story multi-family buildings were analyzed under the new guidelines. The re-analysis focused on methods and results that are new or changed in the Phase 1 regional study areas since the Final EIS. Note that noise issues unchanged or untouched by Phase 1 were not revisited and can be found in the previous technical reports. Phase 1 does not include construction of any commuter rail components; therefore, rail noise/vibration is not a consideration for this ROD. In addition, there have been no changes to the rail noise/vibration guidance since the Final EIS was completed, so those conclusions do not need to be re-evaluated at this time. This noise analysis will need to be updated per latest guidance prior to approval of any subsequent ROD(s). The results from the re-analysis are similar to the results from the Final EIS (see Table 9), even with the methodology changes. The same areas are impacted at essentially the same noise levels for both analyses. No new impacted areas or substantive noise impacts were identified by the re-analysis that were not already identified for the Final EIS. The total number of impacts appear to differ because of the way receptors are examined under CDOT's 2002 guidelines versus the 2011 guidelines. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 55 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Table 9. Summary and Comparison of Phase 1 Area Traffic Noise Impacts Number of Impacted Receptors from Final Number of Impacted Receptors from ROD EIS(CDOT 2002 Land Use Category B) (CDOT 2011 Land Use Categories B/C/E) I.25 Segment Existing No-Action Phase 1 Existing No-Action Phase 1 (2005) (2035) (2035) (2005) (2035) (2035) SH 14 to SH 60 7 9 9 6/3/0 I 9/3/1 8/4/1 SH 60 to E470 7 14 14 15/1/0 19/2/0 19/2/0 E470 to US 36 215 407 417 393/8/4 529/8/4 558/10/5 Total 229 430 440 414/12/4 I 557/13/5 585/16/6 Because of the impacts listed in Table 9, traffic noise abatement actions were considered. Several of these abatement actions were found to be feasible and reasonable and were, therefore, recommended for construction in Phase 1, which were the same mitigation locations recommended for Phase 1 in the Final EIS. Four noise abatement walls were recommended and these are described in Table 11 in Section K. G. SECTION 4(f) A Revised Section 4(t) Evaluation dated October 27, 2011, was prepared and circulated after publication of the North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Section 4(17 Evaluation, August 2011. This Revised 4(f) Evaluation is incorporated by reference into this ROD. After the Final EIS and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation were circulated, CDOT and FHWA, based on consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), changed the effect determinations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for three properties: the Bein Farm, the Mountain View Farm and the Schmer Farm to adverse effects. This in turn changed the analysis required under Section 4(f). The previous no adverse effect determination, as discussed in the Final EIS would have resulted in a de minimis use allowing the use of a Section 4(f) resource without requiring an avoidance analysis, and would not have, by definition, contributed to harm in the Least Overall Harm Analysis. For this project, because these properties will be adversely affected, a Revised Section 4(f) Evaluation that considers additional avoidance alternatives for the three historic agricultural properties and any unavoidable uses that these Section 4(f) properties may contribute to the overall harm of the alternatives being considered was prepared and submitted to the USDOI for review per 23 CFR 774. Although the effects determinations for the three properties of issue are changing from "no adverse effect"to "adverse effect,"the impacts as described in the Final EIS are the same. The impacts the alternatives have on the properties are described in Section 3.15.2, Historic Preservation, of the Final EIS. A supplemental EIS per 23 CFR 771.130 would not be required because the impacts as described in the Final EIS have not changed and do not result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS. The actual impacts to these properties are relatively small, primarily constituting the taking of a narrow strip of land from a relatively large agricultural property and include visual intrusions to the Schmer Farm and the Mountain View Farm. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 56 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. This new information was incorporated into the October 27, 2011 Revised Section 4(t) Evaluation (information on the availability of the Revised Section 4(17 Evaluation can be found on the back of the title page of this ROD). The Preferred Alternative uses 8 Section 4(f) properties and has a de minimis impact on 29 Section 4(f) properties. The historic properties for which a de minimis impact will occur are listed in Table 5 of the Revised Section 4(17 Evaluation, October 27, 2011 and include: ► Larimer County Ditch ► Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence (5LR.8932) (5WL.3149) ► Einarsen Farm ► Olson Farm (5LR.11396) (5WL.5198) ► Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet ► Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5LR.11409) (5WL.1966, 5BF.76, 5BF.72, 5AM.457) ► Boxelder Ditch ► Supply Ditch (5LR.2160) (5BL.3449) ► Loveland and Greeley Canal ► Rough & Ready Ditch (5LR.503.2) (5BL.3113) ► Farmers Ditch ► Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.8928) (5BL.4832) ► Handy Ditch ► Kitely House (5LR.1710.1) (5BL.9163) ► McDonough Farm ► Sandstone Ranch (5LR.11210) (5WL.712) ► Zimmerman Grain Elevators ► Boulder& Weld County Ditch (5LR.11408) (5WL.5461) ► Great Western Railway ► Rural Ditch (5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514) (5WL.1974) ► Hatch Farm ► UPRR-Dent Branch (5LR.11382) (5WL.1317) ► Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927) The criteria below must be met for a de minimis finding to be made by FHWA for the use of these properties. For each of the historic properties recommended for a de minimis impact, in all cases, the Preferred Alternative has a no adverse effect on the historic property, the SHPO was notified of the intent of the FHWA to make a de minimis impact finding, and consulting parties were provided multiple opportunities to give their view. Each of the properties above has met these criteria and FHWA, with the approval of this ROD finds that the uses associated with the above properties are de minimis. The impacts of a transportation project on a historic property that qualifies for Section 4(f) protection may be determined to be de minimis if: North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 57 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1) The process required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act' results in the determination of"no adverse effect" or"no historic properties affected" with the concurrence of the SHPO and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) if participating in the Section 106 consultation; 2) The SHPO and/or THPO, and ACHP if participating in the Section 106 consultation, is informed of FHWA's or FTA's intent to make a de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence in the Section 106 determination; and 3) FHWA or FTA has considered the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 106 consultation. The park, recreational area and wildlife and waterfowl refuge area properties for which a de minimis impact will occur are listed in Table 6 of the Revised Section 4(0 Evaluation, October 27, 2011 and include: ► Arapaho Bend Natural Area ► Little Thompson River Corridor ► Sandstone Ranch ► 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass ► Farmers Highline Canal Trail ► Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail The impacts of a transportation project on a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge that qualifies for Section 4(f) protection may be determined to be de minimis if: 1) The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f); 2) The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA's or FTA's intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f); and 3) The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource. For the park and recreation properties recommended for the de minimis impact finding, in all cases, the impacts will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). The Officials with Jurisdictions have agreed to this impact assessment, and letters confirming this are included in Appendix E of the Final EIS. The public had an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on these resources through the public involvement process associated with the EIS. r 16 U.S.C.470f, with implementing regulation at 36 CFR part 800 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 58 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. and Section 4(f) Evaluation. The FHWA, with the approval of this ROD, finds that the uses associated with the above properties are de minimis. The FHWA has determined that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and the Preferred Alternative includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) properties resulting from such use. In addition, Section 6.8 of the Revised Section 4(0 Evaluation, concludes that the Preferred Alternative is the alternative with the least overall harm to the Section 4(f) properties. The FHWA, with the approval of this ROD, based on consultation with the officials with jurisdictions and the public finds that the uses associated with the above 29 Section 4(f) properties are de minimis. The Revised Section 4(0 Evaluation was submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) on October 28, 2011 for their review. USDOI responded on December 6, 2011 indicating their concurrence with the Revised Section 4(f) Evaluation, pending execution of the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement, which was executed December 15, 2011 and is included as Appendix G of this ROD. H. STATUS OF FEDERAL AND STATE APPROVALS The following descriptions are of federal or state approvals that have been made following publication of the Final EIS. H.1 AIR QUALITY Transportation conformity, as a provision of the CAA Amendments of 1990 applies to federally funded projects. Conformity requires that these actions be included in a fiscally constrained RTP and TIP that meet statutory and regulatory tests. A conformity determination includes a regional emissions analysis at the RTP and TIP level, and demonstrates that emissions are within the limits set by the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Federal projects require a separate project level conformity determination. H.1.1 PROJECT LEVEL AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION (PHASE 1) The Final EIS in Sections 3.5.3.3, Project—Level CO Analysis, and 3.5.3.4, Project—Level PM10 Analysis, provide the analysis needed to demonstrate that the project would meet the transportation conformity requirements because Phase 1 would not cause or contribute to any new localized CO or PMto violations, or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the CO, PMto or ozone NAAQS. The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), in its concurrence letter signed October 19, 2011 (see Appendix C of this ROD), has concurred with the findings of the Phase 1 project level conformity analyses that were done. H.1.2 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY EVALUATION FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE To ensure that air quality conformity would not be an issue if money were to become available to completely build out the Preferred Alternative, conformity analyses were performed. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 59 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. To demonstrate that the North 1-25 project would not cause significant air quality impact and would comply with the current SIP when it is fully constructed, the entire North 1-25 Preferred Alternative, with all of the proposed improvements, was modeled in a separate, non-fiscally constrained 2035 regional travel demand modeling run prepared using a combined travel model covering the entire scope of the regional study area. The use of a project-defined travel model, which combined the DRCOG and NFRMPO coverage of the entire regional study area, was determined to be the appropriate course of action in an interagency air quality consultation meeting held on November 17, 2009. The results of this travel modeling effort were submitted to the state agency that regulates air pollution, the APCD, on October 26, 2010, emissions modeling conducted by APCD, and emissions modeling results transmitted to CDOT on November 9, 2010. These modeling results indicated that all currently applicable conformity emissions tests would still be met if the Preferred Alternative were to be constructed in its entirety before 2035. The APCD has concurred with the finding that there would not be any significant regional air quality impacts once all phases of the project are funded and completed for the North 1-25 Preferred Alternative. See Appendix C of this ROD for this concurrence. H.1.3 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY FOR PHASE 1 Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is incorporated into the following RTPs: ► DRCOG Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP amendment adopted by the DRCOG board on August 17, 2011. ► North Front Range Fiscally Constrained 2035 Plan Update adopted September 1, 2011 by NFR Council. ► Upper Front Range 2035 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan adopted by UFRRPC January 2008. Portions of Phase 1 are included in TIPs/STIP as follows: ► Initial preconstruction phases, design and ROW, in DRCOG TIP adopted August 17, 2011 as 2008-081. The TIP covers a time period of 2012 to 2017. This includes design and ROW for 1-25 improvements between SH 56 and WCR 38. ► Initial preconstruction phases, design and ROW, in NFR TIP Strategic Program as SSP4028 adopted on March 3, 2011, and readopted September 1, 2011, and in the CDOT 2012-2017 STIP as SSP4028 for current fiscal year (which begins July 1, 2011), and SR41001 for 2013 to 2015 (which begins July 1, 2012). This includes design and ROW for 1-25 improvements from WCR 38 to SH 66 and from Crossroads to SH 14, and design and ROW for Phase 1 of the US 34/1-25 interchange. The TIP covers a time period of 2012 to 2017. ► Initial preconstruction phases, design and ROW in the CDOT 2012-2017 STIP as SSP4028 for current fiscal year (which begins July 1, 2011, and ends June 30, 2012), and SR41001 for 2013 to 2015. This includes design and ROW for 1-25 improvements from SH 66 to SH 56 and from Crossroads to SH 14, and for Phase 1 of the US 34/1-25 interchange. The STIP covers a time period of 2012 to 2017. 2035 traffic data were sent to APCD containing Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. APCD was then able to make a determination that Phase 1 demonstrates regional conformity with North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 60 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. respect to the transportation conformity rule and therefore is not expected to cause significant regional air quality impacts. APCD and MPO conformity determinations were made as noted below: ► The DRCOG /APCD Conformity Determination for carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10, as adopted by the DRCOG Board on August 17, 2011 is available at http://www.dreog.org/documents/final%20%202011%20Cycle1%20- %20DRCOG%20CO_PM10%20conformity.pdf ► The DRCOG /APCD Conformity Determination for Ozone, as adopted by the DRCOG Board on August 17, 2011 is available at http://www.dreog.org/documents/final%20- %202011%20Cycle1%20%20Southern%20Subarea%208- hour%200zone%20conformity.pdf ► The NFRMPO Plan and TIP conformity findings were made on September 1, 2011 FHWA official conformity determinations were made on October 24, 2011, for both the NFRMPO Plan and TIP and the DRCOG Plan and TIP. H.2 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION The lead agencies have consulted with the SHPO and Consulting Parties on determinations of eligibility and effects. As documented in the North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(t) Evaluation, CDOT, August 2011, Section 3.15, Historic Preservation consultation has consisted of arranging with the SHPO to substitute the project's NEPA documents (Draft and Final EIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish the effects determination part of the Section 106 consultation process, per 36 CFR 800.8(c). The partial document substitution process is intended to reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties, by providing detailed information about project impacts associated with the various alternatives in the EIS rather than additional documents. For the North 1-25 EIS, the Section 106 consultation step involving determinations of NRHP eligibility for all historic and archaeological resources was accomplished by the traditional method of submitting survey reports and site forms to the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties. The survey reports and site forms included the eligibility determinations proposed by the lead agencies for SHPO concurrence. A number of resources within the North 1-25 project Area of Potential Effect (APE) were determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP as a result of past studies and were assumed eligible for this project. After the Draft EIS was released, four additional properties were identified as eligible through consultation. Concurrence on eligibility was received from the SHPO on January 3, 2011. The Final EIS provides the formal documentation for consultation on effects for all the alternatives. In addition, the Final EIS includes responses to comments received on the Draft EIS. By letter dated October 3, 2011 and a follow-up letter dated October 14, 2011 (see Appendix B of this ROD), the SHPO concurred with findings of effect for all properties except for three findings of no adverse effect. FHWA and CDOT, based on consultation with the SHPO, changed the effect determinations for three properties (the Schmer Farm, Mountain View Farm, Bein Farm) from no adverse effect to adverse effect. FHWA notified the ACHP of these three new adverse effect findings (see letter dated November 9, 2011, in North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 61 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Appendix C of this ROD). These new effect determinations are included in Appendix D of this ROD. Following consultation on the effects, the resolution of adverse effects has been documented in a Programmatic Agreement (PA) signed by the lead agencies and the SHPO. Consulting parties were invited to sign the PA, but all declined. The lead agencies and the SHPO have executed the PA dated December 2011. This is included in Appendix G of this ROD. The PA sets forth a process by which CDOT, on behalf of FHWA where applicable, will re-evaluate effects to existing and new cultural resources as construction projects are funded and designs are refined. The reason this PA is needed is because of the length of time that may pass between the signing of this ROD and the implementation of various phases of the Preferred Alternative. The signatories to the PA have agreed to certain measures to accommodate changes in the design, changes in perceptions of significance, or other changes that may occur due to the length of time before full project implementation. Mitigation measures are documented in the PA. In addition, Section K of this ROD lists mitigation measures. All Section 106 consultation has been finalized for this project. H.3 CDOT 1601 PROCESS The CDOT 1601 process (required by Policy Directive 1601, which addresses new interchanges or interchange modifications on all state and federal highways) is required for all interchange modifications. This analysis was signed by the CDOT Chief Engineer on August 8, 2011, addressing five of the six interchanges identified for Phase 1. The sixth location is for a new interchange on US 34, east of 1-25 at LCR 5. This is the first phase of a multi-phase, major interchange for 1-25 at US 34 and will only involve improvements east of 1-25 at LCR 5. No improvements are included on 1-25 itself. Approval for this sixth location was provided by the CDOT Chief Engineer on October 5, 2011. Because all six modifications are Type 2, (which means the improvements proposed are minor, including adding lanes to an on-ramp, changing acceleration or deceleration lanes on 1-25, changing ramp termini or moving gore points closer to an adjacent interchange) no action is needed by the Colorado Transportation Commission. H.4 SECTION 404 PERMIT The North 1-25 EIS was conducted using a NEPA/Section 404 merger process as documented in a letter dated February 5, 2004 from FHWA and FTA to the USACE. This included coordination with the USACE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Formal concurrence from the USACE has been received for three concurrence points: ► Agreement with Purpose and Need ► Agreement with the Alternatives for Detailed Analysis ► Agreement that the Preferred Alternative appears to be the LEDPA North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 62 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. The USACE will provide their concurrence with the final step (the Compensatory Mitigation Plan) at the same time they issue the Section 404 permit for the project. A Section 404 Permit will be obtained prior to any construction activities. H.5 BIOLOGICAL OPINION The Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO), dated October 13, 2011, is included in Appendix E of this ROD. This PBO provides concurrence from the USFWS with the findings of effect for threatened or endangered species. I. APPROVALS FOR INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS These approvals from FHWA still need to be made prior to any final design or construction of 1-25 interchange modifications. The following Phase 1 interchanges include substantial modifications to the existing configuration and, therefore, required Interchange Access Requests: ► SH 14 ► SH 7 The following Phase 1 interchanges only include minor modifications to the existing configuration and, therefore, required Minor Interchange Modification Requests: ► SH 56 ► WCR 34 ► 120th Avenue ► 104th Avenue ► Thornton Parkway ► 84th Avenue J. CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS FROM FINAL EIS This section includes clarifications or corrections to specific items in the Final EIS. These issues were brought up during the public and agency review process for the Final EIS. J.1 CLARIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DRCOG 2035 RTP The DRCOG 2035 RTP was adopted in February 2011, and was amended on August 17, 2011, which was after the North 1-25 Final EIS was released. The DRCOG RTP, as amended in August 2011, is consistent with the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 as identified in this ROD. The following paragraphs summarize the DRCOG 2035 RTP, as amended in August 2011, with regard to North 1-25. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 63 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. The 2035 Metro Vision Plan (unconstrained) identifies HOT/HOV lanes that would continue north from US 36 to SH 66. The DRCOG 2035 fiscally-constrained and air quality conformity RTP was amended in August 2011, from adding two general purpose lanes on 1-25 from US 36 to Thornton Parkway to adding two TELs from US 36 to 120th Avenue. Revised costs and funding including interim staging elements were included in the project description. Also amended was the RTP description for the segment of 1-25 from SH 66 to WCR 138, from adding two general purpose lanes to adding two TELs and interchange reconstruction at WCR 34. In Final EIS Chapter 8, Phased Project Implementation, the text notes that the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP identifies $268 million in funding for the improvements along 1-25 and $58 million for the 1-25/SH 7 interchange, which is accurate relative to the general purpose lane widening indicated in the February 2011-adopted 2035 RTP. It should be clarified that, as amended in August 2011, the DRCOG 2035 fiscally-constrained and air quality conforming RTP identifies $286 million in costs and funding identified by CDOT for adding TELs and related improvements along 1-25 in addition to $58 million in locally derived funding for the 1-25/SH 7 interchange. This clarification also applies to Chapter 7, Financial Analysis, of the Final EIS. Since these clarifications are simply changes in wording to reflect the latest DRCOG Plan Amendment language, there are no new significant impacts that were not identified in the Final EIS. J.2 CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE MASON CORRIDOR AND SPECIFIC DETAILS RELATED TO IT The Final EIS contains various references in the text, maps, and callout boxes related to Mason Corridor. The correct reference to this corridor is "Mason Corridor," not"Mason Street Corridor" or"Mason Street Transportation Corridor." The correct location for the South Transit Center is "Mason Street and West Fairway Lane" (which is a more precise location description preferred by the City of Fort Collins, rather than the more general Harmony Road). All station locations are correctly illustrated in Table 2-18 of the Final EIS. The station description on the figures in Appendix A of this ROD have been revised to "Mason Street and West Fairway Lane". Also, the opening day for the Mason Corridor MAX BRT service is now 2014 based on the latest schedule information from the City's engineering department. For more details regarding the MAX BRT project, contact Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, at (970) 218- 1409 or via e-mail at hmigchelbrink@fcgov.com These clarifications are related only to labeling used on maps or in the text. The station location that was analyzed in the impact assessment process is correct. The change in date for opening of the Mason Corridor MAX BRT does not influence any impact analysis. For these reasons, these minor changes do not result in new significant impacts that were not identified in the Final EIS. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 64 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. J.3 CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING FLEX BUS ROUTE FROM FORT COLLINS TO RTD'S TRANSIT SYSTEM IN LONGMONT The Regional "Foxtrot" route is now referred to as "Flex" and connects from Fort Collins through Loveland to Longmont where it connects into RTD's transit system. This clarification is a wording change only —for the name of a bus route. It does not result in any new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.4 CLARIFICATION REGARDING ACCESS CONTROL PLANS The list of Access Control Plans listed in the Final EIS (see Section 2.1.3, Regional Planning Context) should have also included the two access plans for US 287—North College and South College Access Controls Plans. The list of Access Control Plans in Chapter 2 was included for reference only. Adding two more plans to this list does not result in a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF THE COMMUTER RAIL LINE On page 2-20 of the Final EIS, the description of the Package A Commuter Rail service is inaccurate in terms of where the northern end of service would begin. The description should have read: "...downtown Fort Collins at Mason and Maple Streets" (not at University Avenue). The change noted is a description in Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Final EIS. The change is consistent with the information shown on the commuter rail plans, which shows a commuter rail platform and a small park and ride at Mason and Maple. Since this location is what was analyzed for impacts, the change in description does not constitute a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.6 REVISIONS TO MUNICIPAL PLANS On page 3.1-4 of the Final EIS, the City of Fort Collins should have been included in the list of 1-25 corridor municipal plans and not just on the US 287 list of communities. Also, the City Plan's title should have been "Plan Fort Collins," which includes both the City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. These plans were updated in 2010-2011. Regarding land use (on page 3.1-11 of the Final EIS), the City of Fort Collins' adopted comprehensive plan (City Plan) calls for higher density, mixed use, infill and redevelopment along US 287 and Mason Corridor. This is the area covered by the TOD Overlay Zone. Fort Collins' city plans do not envision this corridor as built out or remaining the same as today. It is a focus area for targeted infill and redevelopment supported by high-quality transit service and multimodal transportation choices. The list of municipal plans was provided for reference only and adding the correct name of the Fort Collins plan to the 287 corridor plans and to those along 1-25 is not a significant change nor does it represent a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 65 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. The information about the TOD Overlay Zone in Fort Collins is consistent with the information in Section 3.1, Land Use that "future land use would include densification of land use in the urban centers". This information also does not represent a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.7 CORRECTION TO LOCATION OF PM 2.5 MONITORING STATION On Table 3.5-2 of the Final EIS, the address for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM25) monitoring station in Fort Collins should have been 708 South Mason Street. The address for the PM 2.5 monitoring station was provided in the Final EIS for information purposes only. Correcting that location does not result in a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.8 CORRECTIONS TO THE FIGURES SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE END OF LINE FOR THE NW RAIL STATION IN LONGMONT Figures ES-3, ES-5, 2-6, 2-34, 8-3, 8-5 and 8-6 of the Final EIS all show an incorrect location for the end of line station for the NW Rail Corridor. That location is correctly shown on the Preferred Alternative figure in Appendix A of this ROD. The incorrect location for the station at the end of the line for the NW Rail Corridor which was shown on several graphics was used for illustrative purposes. The correct location is shown on the commuter rail plans. This is the location that was used for impact analysis so the change in the graphics in the Final EIS does not result in a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.9 LOCATION OF AN EXPRESS BUS STATION ALONG US 34 This location is incorrect as described in Chapter 8, Phased Project Implementation, page 8-10, line 37 of the Final EIS. The location is correctly shown on Figure 8-3. The correct location is on US 34 at 83rd Avenue. The Phase 1 graphic in Appendix A of this ROD shows the correct location. The correct location of the express bus station along US 34 was illustrated in graphics and was used for the Final EIS analysis. The incorrect information was simply in the text; the correct information was used in the analysis. This change does not result in a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.10 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE NUMBERS OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AFFECTED Table 10 is a corrected version of Table 3.15-3 from the Final EIS. Changes were made to respond to the October 3, 2011, letter from the SHPO. Table 10 reflects three adverse effects to Bein Farm, the Mountain View Farm, and the Schmer Farm. Other minor corrections have also been made to this table. Changes in the numbers of historic properties and their correct Section 106 effect determinations was a recent change that is fully documented in Section H.2 of this document. This change in effect determinations does not alter the original discussion of impacts in the Final EIS since the actual impacts have not changed —only how they are North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 66 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation transportation. categorized within Section 106. The change has been fully acknowledged and mitigation developed as defined in the PA signed in December 2011 and contained in Appendix G of this ROD. No new significant impacts that were not identified in the Final EIS have occurred as a result of this change. J.11 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE NUMBER OF SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES USED BY THE PROJECT Since the Final EIS was published, there have been changes and corrections made to the number of Section 4(f) properties used by the project. Corrections and clarifications were required for historic properties only. A full description of these changes can be found in the Revised Section 4(t) Evaluation, dated October 27, 2011, which has been finalized and circulated to the USDOI. A summary of the changes can be found in Table 10. This information does not change the conclusion that the Preferred Alternative causes the least overall harm to Section 4(f) properties and is the most responsive to project Purpose and Need. Changes in the numbers of historic properties and their correct Section 106 effect determinations also affected the Section 4(f) Evaluation. This resulted in a Revised Section 4(17 Evaluation, dated October 27, 2011, which has been discussed in Section G of this ROD and incorporated herein by reference. These changes do not alter the preliminary findings in the Final EIS related to significance of impacts and the conclusions in Section G of this ROD reflect that. No new significant impacts that were not identified in the Final EIS have occurred as a result of this change. J.12 CLARIFICATIONS TO TEXT DESCRIBING THE HISTORIC IMPACT TO THE LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER BRIDGE Section 3.15, Historic Preservation of the Final EIS describes the impact of the action alternatives on the Little Thompson River Bridge (5WL.2985) on the 1-25 frontage road as "no historic properties affected." The replacement of this bridge is being pursued by CDOT as a separate action for safety reasons, as described above in this ROD in Section B.2.2 No-Action Alternative and would be needed regardless of any of the alternatives being considered in the Final EIS of the North 1-25 project. Recent information supporting the need for this bridge replacement would have applied to all of the alternatives being evaluated in the Final EIS. The impacts would apply to all the build alternatives in the same way. The new information provided in this section regarding the Little Thompson River Bridge has been evaluated in a separate categorical exclusion. Based on this analysis it does not result in new significant impacts that were not identified in the Final EIS. J.13 LOCATION OF COMMUTER BUS STATION ON FIGURE During the North 1-25 Final EIS review, it was discovered that the Preferred Alternative and the Phase 1 project maps in the Executive Summary (page ES-8 and ES-18), Chapter 2, Alternatives (page 2-54), Chapter 8, Phased Project Implementation (pages 8-2 and 8-11), and in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (page 6-52) had labeling error North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 67 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. (station shown on the wrong side of US 85). This labeling error was corrected. The updated maps can be found in Appendix A, Figures of Preferred Alternative and Phase 1, of this ROD. The correct location of the commuter bus station illustrated on the Final EIS graphics does not affect the analysis that was done for the Final EIS. The correct location was used for all environmental analysis. For this reason, this new information does not result in new significant impacts that were not identified in the Final EIS. J.14 DESIGNATION OF LONGVIEW OPEN SPACE A comment was received that the Longview Open Space was incorrectly noted as agriculture. Longview Farm is shown correctly as Open Space/Parks on all these figures (Figure 3.1-3 and Figure 3.1-4 through Figure 3.1-7). No change necessary. The newly designated Longview Open Space is noted. Since the Longview Farm was shown correctly as open space/parks on the figures and this designation is what was used for analysis purposes, no new significant impacts were identified as a result of the name change to Longview Open Space. J.15 CORRECTIONS TO THE NUMBER OF DISPLACEMENTS Table 2 of this document correctly states the number of residential and business displacements for the Preferred Alternative. The correct number is 49 residential displacements, instead of 51, and 22 business displacements, instead of 23 as reported in the Final EIS. The changes result from the review between the Final EIS and this ROD which identified an error in the total displacements in the summary in the Final EIS. The evaluation was based on the correct individual properties and not the total number of properties. The reduced number of displacements does not result in a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.16 CLARIFICATION OF USE OF THE ACRONYMS GP AND GPL In Table 6-7 of the Final EIS, the abbreviation GPL should have been used instead of GP. The incorrect use of an acronym does not constitute a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS. J.17 CLARIFICATION OF THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION As described in Section B.1 of this document, the FTA served as a joint lead agency along with FHWA and CDOT through preparation of the Draft EIS. Before the Final EIS was released, FTA determined that they would not continue as a lead agency but rather would be cooperating agency. FTA, therefore, is not part of the ROD at this time but they could participate a future ROD or RODs if appropriate. FTA's change of role from a lead agency to cooperating agency was explained in the Final EIS; however, in Chapter 6, Financial Analysis (page 6-1) of the Final EIS (and possibly other locations in the Final EIS document or technical reports) FTA continued to be referred to as a lead agency. This was incorrect. The changed status of the FTA was reflected in other locations in the Final EIS. Clarifying this in Chapter 6, Financial Analysis does not result in a new significant impact that was not identified in the Final EIS North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 68 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus Component Historic Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Property Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components Preferred Alternative Highway Components 5LR.8932.1 Larimer Yes No adverse effect' Yes No adverse effect' Yes No adverse effect' County Ditch 5LR.11396 Einarsen Yes No adverse effect' Yes No adverse effect' Yes No adverse effect' Farm 5LR.863.2 No No adverse effect No No adverse effect No No adverse effect SH 1 to SH 14 Larimer and Weld Canal 5LR.1731.2 Colorado& Southern Railroad, No No adverse effect No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Black Hollow Branch 5LR.1327.,5LR.1731., 5BL.400.,Colorado& No No adverse effect No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Southern Railroad" Commuter Rail. 5LR.1327., Fort Collins to 5LR.1731..5BL.400.., No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Longmont Colorado&Southern Railroad** North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 69 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+ Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Commuter Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus Component Historic Direct Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Property Impacts? Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components Preferred Alternate Highway Components 5LR.11409.1 No adverse Cache la Poudre Reservoir Yes No adverse effect* Yes effect* Yes No adverse effect* Inlet 5LR.2160.1 No adverse Yes No adverse effect* Yes Yes No adverse effect* SH 14 to SH 60 Boxelder Ditch effect* 5LR.8930 Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Louden Ditch 5LR.1815 Union Pacific No adverse Railroad. No No adverse effect No effect No No adverse effect Fort Collins Branch 5LR.503 No adverse Loveland and Yes No adverse effect* Yes effect* Yes No adverse effect* Greeley Canal 5LR.8928 No adverse Yes No adverse effect* Yes Yes No adverse effect* Farmers'Ditch effect* 5LR.11209Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Schmer SH 14 to SH 60 Farm 5LR.11210 McDonough Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse Yes No adverse effect* Farm effect* 5LR.850.5WL.841. No adverse 5BL.514 Yes No adverse effect* Yes effect* Yes No adverse effect* Great Western Railway** North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 70 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus Component Historic Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components Preferred Alternative Highway Components 5LR.850,5WL.841, No adverse GP/TEL Highway 5BL514 No No adverse effect No effect No No adverse effect 9 y Great Western Railway" Widening: SH 60 to E-470 5WL.3149.1 No adverse Handy/Home Supply Yes No adverse effect* Yes effect* Yes No adverse effect* Ditch Confluence Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Preferred Alternative Transit Components 5LR.850,5WL.841, Commuter Rail: 5BL.514 No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Fort Collins to Great Western Railway" Longmont Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components Preferred Alternative Highway Components 5LR.11408 Zimmerman No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Yes No adverse effect* Grain Elevator SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.11382 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Hatch Farm 5LR.8927.1 Hillsboro Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Ditch North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 71 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B I PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus ic Component Proper Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components Preferred Alternative Highway Components 5LR.11242 Mountain Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect View Farm SH 60 to 5WL.5203 Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect E-470 Bein Farm 5WL.5198 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse Yes No adverse effect* Olson Farm effect* GP/TEL Highway 58F76.,58F72. Widening. 5AMA57.,5W1-.1966. Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse Yes No adverse effect* SH 60 to E-470 Bull Canal/Standley effect* Ditch" Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Preferred Alternative Transit Components Commuter Rail: 5BF.76.,5BF.72. Longmont to 5AM.457.,5WL.1966. Yes No adverse effect* No No adverse effect* FasTracks North Bull Canal/Standley Metro Ditch" Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components Preferred Alternative Highway Components 5AM.2073 North Glenn No No adverse effect No No adverse No No adverse effect Structural First Filing effect Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 5AM2074 North Glenn No No adverse effect No No adverse No No adverse effect Second Filing effect North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 72 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus ic Component Proper Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Preferred Alternative Transit Components 5LR.11330 Public Service Company of No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Colorado—Fort Collins Substation Commuter Rail: 5LR.10819.2 Latimer Fort Collins to County Canal No 2 Yes No adverse effect No No adverse effect Longmont 5LR.1729.2 Big Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Thompson Ditch 5LR.1710.1 No No historic Yes No adverse effect* Handy DBch properties affected 5BL.9163 Kitely House Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* 58L.10636 No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Boggs Residence Commuter Rail: 5B L.3449.2 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Fort Collins to Supply Ditch Longmont 5BL.3113.67 Rough& Ready Ddch Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* 5LR.488 Colorado and Southern Railway Yes No adverse effect* No No adverse effect Depot/Loveland Depot North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 73 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus Component Historic Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Property Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Preferred Alternative Transit Components Commuter Rail: Longmont to 58L.4832 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* FasTracks North Oligarchy Ditch Metro 58L.1245 Yes Adverse effect No No Adverse Effect Old City Electric Building 58L1244 Colorado& Yes Adverse effect No No Adverse Effect Southern/BNSF Depot 5BL.513 Great Western Sugar Yes No adverse effect* No No Adverse Effect Factory Commuter Rail. 5BL.7606 Longmont to Novartis Seeds/ No No adverse effect No No Adverse Effect FasTracks North Syngenta Seeds Metro 5WL.712 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Sandstone Ranch 5WL.5461.1 Boulder and Weld County Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Ditch 5WL5263 Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Hingley Farm 5WL.6564 Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Jillson Farm North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 74 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus • Historic Component Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Property Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Preferred Alternative Transit Components Commuter Rail: 5WL.1974.3 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Longmont to Rural Ditch FasTracks North 5WL2247.11 Metro Community Ditch No No adverse effect No No adverse effect 5WL.19707 No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Lower Boulder Ditch 5WL1317,5AM.472 Yes No adverse effect* Yes No adverse effect* Commuter Rail: UPRR-Dent Branch** Longmont to FasTracks North 5WL1969.,5BF.130. Metro Denver Pacific/Kansas PadficlUnion Pacific Yes Adverse effect Yes Adverse effect Railroad,Denver& Boulder Valley Branch 5LR.488 Colorado& Southern Railroad Depot., No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Loveland Commuter Rail Stations 5LR.530 No No adverse effect No No adverse effect Bimson Blacksmdh Shop North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 75 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation.Eransportali on. Table 10. Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component(coned) PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+Commuter Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid General Purpose and Tolled Express Rail and Bus Transit Lanes+Commuter Rail and Bus Component Historic Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Direct Impacts? Effect Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Preferred Alternative Transit Components Alternative Totals PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes+ Tolled Express Lanes+Bus Rapid Transit General Purpose and Tolled Express Lanes+ Commuter Rail and Bus Commuter Rail and Bus Direct Impact Effect Direct Impact Effect Direct Impact Effect 9 adverse effects to 4 adverse effect, 7 adverse effect, 34 properties properties, 17 properties 31 properties directly Impacted 39 no adverse effects to directly impacted 20 no adverse effects to directly impacted 42 no adverse effects to properties properties properties Properties would be considered for de minimis Section 4(f)status. "Segments of these properties are impacted by separate components and listed accordingly in the table.However,these are counted as one property in the Alternative Totals. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 76 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. K. MITIGATION MEASURES This section summarizes the mitigation measures identified by CDOT and FHWA to eliminate or minimize social and environmental impacts for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. The impacts of Phase 1 were summarized in Table 8. Mitigation measures that warrant monitoring have also been identified below. Monitoring has been identified where it is appropriate for specific resources to ensure implementation, meet permitting requirements and/or help identify trends and possible means for improvement. As described in this section, monitoring has been identified for air quality (during construction), water quality (per CDOT Region and statewide program/permit requirements), wetlands (per Section 404 permit requirements), noxious weeds (during construction and revegetation), hazardous materials (during construction), paleontology (during construction), and a number of construction activities (see Table 11). Monitoring and permitting are also discussed in Section L of this document. CDOT and FHWA will ensure the mitigation commitments outlined herein will be implemented as part of the project design, construction, and post-construction monitoring. These commitments will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the construction plans and specifications for this project. CDOT and FHWA will ensure that these commitments are implemented through review of the project construction plans and specifications, as well as periodic inspections during construction. Inspections during construction will involve both a review of project construction documentation and observation of construction activities. CDOT and FHWA will monitor mitigation effectiveness and success through a combination of field reviews, pre-construction and post-construction inspections and post-construction monitoring, as appropriate. CDOT will be preparing annual reports, by agreement with some resource agencies. Reporting of effectiveness will be done by CDOT and FHWA, in accordance with agency requirements. If mitigation is not successful or mitigation commitments are not met, CDOT will rectify as needed. The public has been afforded a number of opportunities to comment on proposed mitigation measures, including public meetings, newsletters and the project website. CDOT and FHWA worked with the public and agencies to avoid and minimize impacts. The distribution of the Draft and Final EIS documents have provided the primary opportunity to inform the public on the proposed project and the environmental analysis associated with each identified alternative. Following the distribution of each document, a public comment period was provided. Further opportunities for public information and involvement will exist through updated information provided on the CDOT website, and through public involvement activities that will be initiated during the design and construction phases. All practicable mitigation measures have been adopted to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative. In general, mitigation requested by local, regional and state agencies has been included in the mitigation commitments listed below. It should be noted that the City of Fort Collins asked that wetland impacts within their City be mitigated onsite or within the city limits. As described in Appendix B response to Fort Collins Comment#5, the temporarily impacted wetlands will be mitigated onsite while permanent impacts are expected, at this time, to be mitigated through the development and enhancement of wetlands at St. Vrain State Park. The USACE, EPA, and the USFWS are North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 77 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation transportation. all supportive of the mitigation plan that concentrates mitigation at St Vrain State Park. This site possesses many positive attributes for not only wetland mitigation, but for a possibility of interpretive trails adjacent to the mitigation and will create wildlife corridors. St. Vrain State Park was selected based on the following: ► It is a large area allowing the mitigation of wetland impacts for the entire project (i.e., all three phases) at one location. Smaller mitigation areas typically have low success rates. ► It allows for wetland mitigation for the entire project (all three phases) to be completed up front and not delayed as subsequent phases or specific projects are implemented. ► It has a better chance of succeeding because all mitigation is concentrated at one site and because the State Park personnel stationed onsite can easily monitor the success of the wetlands daily. ► Groundwater levels will be monitored conveniently and frequently by park personnel. ► The mitigation will enhance wildlife habitat connectivity, including habitat for threatened and endangered species. ► It provides an opportunity to develop and enhance interpretive trail for visitor education. ► Wetland mitigation plans allow the creation of a buffer zone between SH 119 and St. Vrain State Park. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Land Use No mitigation required. Social Conditions • CDOT will provide advance notice to emergency service providers, local schools, home owners associations, and the public of upcoming activities that are likely to result in traffic disruption. Such notifications will be accomplished through radio and public announcements, newspaper notices,on-site signage,and CDOTs website. • Where feasible, retaining walls have been identified for construction along 1-25 to minimize impacts to residential development. • Mitigation for construction related impacts to minority and low-income populations could include the provision of reduced price bus passes during construction, acceptable access modifications, and translated information on construction processes and alternate modes available during construction and pre-opening day. Economic Conditions • New access will be provided for properties where existing accesses are removed. To avoid disruption of business activities during construction,the new access will be provided before the existing access is removed. • To minimize disruption to traffic and local businesses, construction activities will be staged and work hours varied. Throughout the construction stage,access will be preserved for each affected business. • Where feasible, retaining walls have been identified for construction along 1-25 to minimize impacts to commercial development. Right of Way • Acquisition of those property interests required for the project will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (the Uniform Act) and other applicable relocation assistance programs. • The Uniform Act also provides for numerous benefits to individuals who occupy improvements that must be acquired,to assist them both financially and with advisory services related to relocating their residence or business operation to a replacement site. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 78 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Air Quality The following mitigation measures are recommended for construction activities associated with Phase 1: • An air quality mitigation plan will be prepared describing all feasible measures to reduce air quality emissions from the project. CDOT staff must review and endorse construction mitigation plans prior to work on a project site. • Acceptable options for reducing emissions could include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, and after-treatment products. • The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Idling time will be minimized to 10 minutes—to save fuel and reduce emissions. • Hauling and trucking operations will be consolidated as much as possible to reduce fuel consumption. • An operational water truck will be on site at all times.Water will be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts off site. • There will be no open burning of removed vegetation.Vegetation will be chipped or delivered to waste energy facilities. • Existing power sources or clean fuel generators will be utilized rather than temporary power generators. Obstructions of through-traffic lanes will be minimized. A flag person will be provided to guide traffic properly minimizing congestion and to ensure safety at construction sites. The following mitigation measures were identified which could be included (for others to implement) to help reduce ammonia emissions within the regional study area: • Choose a nitrogen fertilizer appropriate for a given cropping system that will have the lowest nitrogen volatilization on the soil type to which it is applied. • Propedy store and manage commercial fertilizer to minimize emissions of ammonia from leaks,spills, or other problems. • The use of feed additive and supplemental hormones in animal production has proven to greatly improve nutrient utilization, resulting in more efficient milk and meat production. Use of these products may decrease nitrogen excretion per day and/or reduce the total number of days on feed,thereby reducing overall nitrogen excretion and subsequent ammonia volatilization. • Ammonia volatilization occurs soon after manure is deposited on barn floors. Best management practices(BMPs) should be implemented such as scraping and flushing the floors and alleyways, drying manure and cooling barn temperatures, install filters/scrubbers on air exchange systems, etc. Areas such as lawns, open spaces,parks, and golf courses require large amounts of water as well as significant amounts of fertilizers to help them stay lush green.Therefore,appropriate fertilizers should be applied and BMPs for re-treatment of wastewater run-off should be implemented. Noise and Vibration(from noise re-analysis results) There are several existing traffic noise barriers in the regional study area. If any of these barriers must be removed for construction,the old barrier will be replaced with an equivalent or better barrier as part of the Preferred Alternative. From the feasibility and reasonableness evaluations for the barriers, new traffic noise barriers are recommended for the following locations along the Preferred Alternative in Phase 1: • Stone Mountain Apartments (14-foot barrier) 1,300 feet • Greens of Northglenn (10-foot to 12-foot barrier) 600 feet • Badding Reservoir extension (12-foot barrier) 900 feet • Brittany Ridge extension (12-foot barrier) 1,000 feet Construction Noise Construction noise would be subject to relevant local regulations and ordinances, and any construction activities would be expected to comply with them. To address the temporary elevated noise levels that may be experienced during construction, standard mitigation measures would be incorporated into construction contracts, where it is feasible to do so. These would include: • Exhaust systems on equipment would be in good working order. Equipment would be maintained on a regular basis, and equipment may be subject to inspection by the project manager to ensure maintenance. • Propedy designed engine enclosures and intake silencers would be used where appropriate. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 79 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration(from noise re-analysis results) • New equipment would be subject to new product noise emission standards. • Stationary equipment would be located as far from sensitive receivers as possible. • Most construction activities in noise-sensitive areas would be conducted during hours that are least disturbing to adjacent and nearby residents. Water Resources • A combination of mitigation measures consisting of permanent structural, nonstructural, and temporary construction BMPs will be implemented in the regional study area, in compliance with the Clean Water Act and CDOT's MS4 permit requirements. BMPs will include water collection and passive treatment of stormwater, which is currently being directly discharged into existing water systems. Structural BMPs • Extended detention/retention ponds have been identified as the primary structural BMP for this project. The Preferred Alternative would provide water quality ponds with a capacity to treat 2,009 acres (101%) of the total impervious area. Locations of water quality ponds have been identified throughout the regional study area. Placement of the BMPs is provided in the Water Quality and Floodplain Technical Report (FHU, 2008b) and Addendum (FHU, 2010) and the Concept Plans Technical Report(FHU, 2010x). • Stormwater management plans (silt fence, inlet protection, containerization of wastes, etc.)will be developed during design, implemented during construction, and updated as needed. • Riprap will be placed at bridge abutments,piers,and at critical portions of channels or floodplains. • When possible, passive BMPs(e.g., grass swales or natural infiltration)will be used for ephemeral streams. Temporary Construction BMPs • A Spill Prevention Plan will be prepared. • In-stream activities will be minimized. • CDOT's specifications for managing stormwater at a construction site (currently specifications 107.25, 208, 212, 213, and 216)will be followed. • A Senate Bill 40(SB40)permit from the CPW will be obtained. It will include measures to protect existing riparian areas, such as mitigating stormwater runoff or replacing riparian vegetation. • Vegetation or other erosion control techniques(as indicated by CDOT erosion control practices)will be established to prevent sediment loading in compliance with the general stormwater construction permit. Construction activities will be phased to minimize effects associated with large areas of exposed ground and with soil compaction from heavy machinery use. Groundwater Quality • If groundwater is encountered during activities associated with excavations for caisson/retaining walls, the discharge of groundwater is authorized when the following conditions are met: • Source is groundwater and/or groundwater combined with stormwater that does not contain pollutants in concentrations exceeding the State groundwater standards in Regulations 5 CCR 1002-41 and 42. • Discharge is in accordance with CDPHE Water Quality Control Division, Water Quality, Policy-27, Low-Risk Discharges, September 2009. • Source is identified in the Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP). • Dewatering BMPs are included in the SWMP. • Discharges do not leave the site as surface runoff or to surface waters. If these conditions are not met,then a separate Clean Water Act Section 402 Construction Dewatering Permit or Individual Construction Dewatering Permit will be required to be obtained by CDOT's contractor from the CDPHE's Water Quality Control Division • If dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction(CDOT, 2011). If active wells are present prior to construction, status of groundwater well use will have to be determined.Active wells within the right-of-way will be relocated,replaced,or supplemented if a reduction in the water table is anticipated. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 80 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open water will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible during preliminary and final design. The following mitigation goals are appropriate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands for Phase 1: • All impacted wetlands and jurisdictional open waters would be mitigated in accordance with the USACE mitigation policies, and the conditions of the USACE Section 404 Permit.All mitigation plans would be developed in coordination with the USACE and other appropriate agencies during the Section 404 permitting process. In addition, all mitigation for the wetlands as a result of the North 1-25 project would be done in accordance with CDOT and FHWA(23 CFR 777). Current mitigation plans are that all wetland impacts will be mitigated at St.Vrain State Park. • During construction, BMPs will be used to avoid indirect construction impacts to wetlands. Materials and equipments will be stored a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands, drainages, and ditches that could carry toxics materials into wetlands. Construction fencing and appropriate sediment control BMPs will be used to mark wetland boundaries and sensitive habitats during construction. • Sediment and erosion control will be required to be placed during all phases of construction and will remain in place until all disturbed areas have reached 70%of preconstruction vegetative cover. Floodplains The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: • Designs will comply with federal,state,and local agency requirements. • Design will consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. • 100-year FEMA design flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. • 500-year design flows will be used for the scour design and to determine the depths of piles or caissons. • Impacts to downstream areas must be assessed during preliminary and final design by using the guidelines described in Section 3.9 Floodplains, of the Final EIS. • Design flows will be based on the current level of development, and it will not be assumed that any inadvertent detention facilities will lower them. • A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at joints should be considered. If possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged into a floodplain. • CDOT policy, to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual,2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1),will be followed. • Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. • Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. • SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Vegetation Specific BMPs will be determined during final design. Mitigation measures are anticipated to include: • An acceptable revegetation plan will be developed with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties. The revegetation plan must also be acceptable to municipalities, such as Fort Collins and Longmont,within their jurisdictional areas. • A SB 40 certification for stream crossings or adjacent stream banks will be obtained. In these areas, it is recommended that trees and shrubs be replaced on a 1:1 basis(trees)and square-foot basis(shrubs). • CDOT standard specifications for the amount of time that disturbed areas are allowed to be non-vegetated will be followed. • Existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation will be avoided to the maximum extent possible, especially wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. • Weed-free topsoil will be salvaged for use in seeding. • Erosion control blankets will be used on steep, newly seeded slopes. Slopes should be roughened at all times. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 81 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Vegetation(cont'd) • All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native grass and forb species. • Seed, mulch,and mulch tackifier will be applied in phases throughout construction Noxious Weeds An integrated weed management plan or project-specific CDOT 217 Specification, will be incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction. Specific BMPs will be required during construction to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weed species. These will include: • Noxious weed mapping will be included in the construction documents along with appropriate weed control methods. • Highway right-of-way areas will be inspected periodically by the associated city or its consultants during construction and during post-construction weed monitoring for invasion of noxious weeds. • Weed management measures will include removal of heavily infested topsoil, herbicide treatment of lightly infested topsoil as well as other herbicide and/or mechanical treatments, limiting disturbance areas, phased seeding with native species throughout the project,and monitoring during and after construction. • Use of herbicides will include selection of appropriate herbicides and timing of herbicide spraying and use of a backpack sprayer in and adjacent to sensitive areas, such as wetlands and riparian areas. • Certified weed-free hay and/or mulch will be used in all revegetated areas. • No fertilizers will be allowed on the project site. Preventative control measures for project design and construction may include: • Only native species will be used to revegetate sites. • Materials used for revegetating will be inspected and regulated in accordance with provisions of the Weed Free Forage Act, Title 35,Article 27.5, CRS. • When salvaging topsoil from on-site construction locations, the potential for spread of noxious weeds will be considered. Importing topsoil onto the project site will not be allowed. • Equipment will remain on designated roadways and stay out of weed-infested areas until the areas are treated.All equipment will be cleaned of all soil and plant parts before its arrival at a project site. Wildlife CDOT mitigation measures associated with wildlife impacts will include: • An application for SB 40 Certification will be submitted to CPW. • Requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) (MBTA) will be followed. CDOT has proposed special provisions creating a new Standards and Specification Section 240—Protection of Migratory Birds to address the requirements of the MBTA. These provisions will ensure that consistent, appropriate and reasonable measures are taken to prevent injury to and death of migratory birds and the CDOT activities are compatible with current federal and state wildlife laws and regulations. • CDOT will implement three mitigation measures for projects that will have an impact to migratory birds: (1) tree trimming and/or removal activities, (2) bridge or box culvert work that may disturb nesting birds, and (3) clearing and grubbing of vegetation that may disturb ground nesting birds will all be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. • A raptor nest survey will be conducted prior to project construction to identify raptor nests and nesting activity in the vicinity of the proposed project. CPW recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions will be implemented if active raptor nests are found. • If impacts to raptor nests are unavoidable,specific mitigation measures will be developed prior to construction. • To maximize use of movement corridors by wildlife, bridge spans and culverts should have the following features: a minimum clearance of 10 feet and width of 20 feet for deer and a minimum"openness ratio"of 0.75. • Shrubs and vegetative cover will be placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a"funnel effect." • For structures that periodically convey water,ledges or shelves will provide passage alternatives during high water. • To avoid human disturbance to wildlife,trails should not be placed near wildlife crossing structures. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 82 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Wildlife(cont'd) To maximize use of bridges and culverts by wildlife,other recommended design elements include: • The placement of lighting should be avoided near the crossing structures. • Roadside vegetation height should be kept to a minimum. • Along the commuter rail corridor, CDOT/FHWA will seek permission from the regional transit authority to minimize the use of chain-link fencing in areas that are heavily used by wildlife. The following design measures may be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species,including native fish: • Riffle and pool complexes should be maintained and/or created. • Natural stream bottoms will be maintained. • Culverts should be partially buried and the bottom should be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. • Culverts to be replaced should be replaced with one of equal or greater size. • Culverts will not have grates,impact dissipaters,or any other features that would impede fish movement. • Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. • No new fish passage barriers will be created. • Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where possible. Threatened, Endangered,Other Federally Protected,and State-Sensitive Species The following mitigation measures address impacts to the threatened and endangered species: • An integrated weed management plan will be incorporated into project design and implemented during construction to control the infestation and spread of noxious weeds. • Visible barriers will be used to limit the area of construction. • Construction materials will be stockpiled in bare areas rather than on top of existing vegetation in known occupied and suitable habitats. • Construction workers will be informed of the reasons for and importance of limiting impacts to vegetated habitat outside the work area in habitats known to be occupied by listed species. • Work will be supervised on a daily basis to ensure that conditions established by the USFWS are met. • Water quality BMPs will be implemented to prevent sediment loading and impacts to Colorado butterfly plant, Ute ladies' - tresses orchid,and Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitats. • Concurrent revegetation will be implemented during construction to the maximum extent practicable. • A report will be provided to the USFWS that includes photographic documentation of site conditions prior to and at the completion of construction. • Pre-construction habitat assessments and/or surveys for the Colorado butterfly plant will be conducted during the survey season just prior to construction, or in accordance with the USFWS survey protocol at the time of construction. Should the plant occur within the construction footprint, specific conservation measures will be developed during site-specific consultation. • Suitable Ute ladies'-tresses orchid habitat will be surveyed prior to time of construction in accordance with the most recent guidelines for the species. Should the plant occur within the construction footprint, specific conservation measures will be developed during site-specific consultation. • CDOT's Shortgrass Prairie Initiative addresses impacts to the Colorado butterfly plant and the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid in portions of the project area. In those portions of the project area covered by the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, no additional conservation measures for the Colorado butterfly plant or Ute ladies' -tresses orchid will be necessary provided that the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative is still in effect when construction begins. • Pre-construction habitat assessments and/or trapping surveys for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse will be conducted where appropriate. • Impacts to occupied Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat at the Little Thompson and Big Thompson rivers and any areas found to be occupied by Preble's meadow jumping mouse by future surveys will be limited to their inactive season(November through April). North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 83 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Threatened, Endangered,Other Federally Protected,and State(cont'd) • If culverts in occupied or suitable Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat are replaced or upgraded, the new culverts will incorporate ledges to facilitate small mammal passage. • Lighting within and near Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat will incorporate current technology and standards (e.g., Dark Skies)at the time of design to reduce lighting impacts to Preble's meadow jumping mouse. • During construction, nighttime work within 0.25 mile of Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat will be minimized. • Where impacts to habitat occupied by Preble's meadow jumping mouse are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation will be provided through enhancement or replacement with suitable habitat. Permanent impacts will be mitigated at a 3: 1 mitigation to impact ratio; temporary impacts will be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio. Mitigation measures for Preble's meadow jumping mouse could be combined with wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures also may replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied habitat. Coordination with the USFWS will occur prior to mitigation implementation to determine the appropriateness of mitigation. • Any inadvertent Preble's meadow jumping mouse mortalities during construction will be reported as specified in current trapping guidelines. CDOT will report all relevant information within 24 hours and subsequently submit a completed Injury/Mortality Documentation Report to the USFWS, Ecological Services Colorado Field Office or the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Lakewood,Colorado(telephone 720-981-2777). • In the unlikely event that a Preble's mouse (dead, injured, or otherwise) is located during construction, the Colorado Field Office of the USFWS will be contacted immediately to identify additional measures, as appropriate, to minimize impacts to Preble's. • A raptor nest survey will be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests in the regional study area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within 0.5 mile of the regional study area, the buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by CPW will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. • No construction will occur within 0.25 mile of active nocturnal roosts between November 15 and March 15. If perch or roost trees are removed during construction,they will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with native cottonwood trees. • Prairie dog colonies will need to be resurveyed prior to construction. In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT will follow its Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy.Any prairie dog relocation or removal activities will be carried out in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations, and with close coordination with CPW. • Burrowing owl surveys will be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies between March 15 and October 31. If burrowing owls are present, prairie dog removal will be scheduled to occur outside this time period. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during preconstruction surveys, nests will be left undisturbed and additional avoidance measures will be developed in coordination with CPW. Direct impacts to burrowing owls will be avoided by covering or destroying prairie dog burrows prior to construction (prior to March 15).Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons will be avoided by prohibiting work within the 500-meter(0.31-mile)buffer from nest sites recommended by CPW. Impacts within this buffer will be limited during the nesting season,which occurs from mid-March through July. • Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetlands replacement and riparian enhancement, will also mitigate impacts to northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. Visual Quality • Mitigation measures to address visual effects of highway widening will include incorporating landscaping at interchanges and along the highway. • Mitigation measures to address visual effects of structural elements will include providing architectural interest or color into retaining walls and sound walls, and reducing the effect of overpasses by providing architectural detailing of the railings and other features. • Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of carpool lots will include the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the carpool lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image. Landscape islands with shade trees would be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. • Mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effects of slip ramps will include incorporating landscaping, providing architectural interest or color in retaining wall and limiting lighting to only what is required for safety and security. • Potential mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effect of the proposed commuter rail service will include fencing types, landscaping,and architectural features. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 84 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Visual Quality(cont'd) • Mitigation measures to soften and enhance visual effects of track widening for transit will include incorporating landscaping, considering vinyl-coated chain-link fencing, providing architectural interest or color in retaining wall and bridge design, and limiting lighting to only what is required for safety and security. • Mitigation measures to address visual effects of express bus, commuter bus, and commuter rail stations will include providing distinctive treatments at station locations to designate station locations. Local communities, business districts, or other entities should be involved in upgrading or enhancing the currently proposed features. The effects of overpasses will be reduced with architectural detailing of the railing and other features. Station effects will be reduced with the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the station and parking lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image to attract ridership. Landscape islands with shade trees will be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. Historic Preservation 1. Standard Mitigation: a. CDOT shall prepare Level II Recordation for all historic properties that have an adverse effect determination resulting from action of this undertaking. b. CDOT shall submit Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Cultural Resource Re-evaluation Forms (Form#1405) for any properties that will be changed or modified in order to document changes in the conditions of the properties for OAHP's site files. c. CDOT shall submit the mitigation produced for the project to SHPO and the consulting parties for review and comment. d. CDOT and FHWA will review and consider suggested mitigation measures from the Consulting Parties. CDOT and FHWA will leave open the period for the Consulting Parties to submit alternative mitigation strategies. 2. Creative Mitigation: a. CDOT shall coordinate with Jillson family members and if the Jillsons would like to pursue designation as a Centennial Farm, CDOT will assist in the preparation of all application material and documentation necessary for pursuing such designation for their farm. CDOT-Region 4 is preparing a historic context of the development and lasting significance of irrigation in Northern Colorado. The Colorado SHPO originally requested the context as a component of the Northern Colorado Historic Ditch Inventory. The historic ditch context will be accessible through the North 1-25 web page. The historic ditch context will inform the public to Northern Colorado's role and importance in the development of irrigated agriculture in the western United States. This mitigation will satisfy adverse effects to all irrigation conveyance features (ditches, laterals, and related components and structures) that become eligible after the Agreement is executed. Paleontological Resources • The latest revision of the CDOT Specification 107 Archeological/Paleontological shall be followed. All paleontological monitoring work will be performed by a qualified and State of Colorado-permitted paleontologist. Paleontological monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units and microscopic examination of matrix to determine if fossils are present. This work would take place during surface disturbing activities, such as excavations for the construction of roads, railways, bridges, underpasses, and buildings. • Monitoring will be scheduled to take place continuously or to consist of spot-checks of construction excavations, depending upon the paleontological sensitivity of the regional study area based on its geology and the types and significance of potential fossils that could be present in subsurface sedimentary deposits. Paleontological monitors will follow earth-moving equipment and examine excavated sediments and excavation sidewalls for evidence of significant paleontological resources. At the request of the monitors, the project engineer will order temporary diversion of grading away from exposed fossils in order to permit the monitors to efficiently and professionally recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays to project schedules will be made. • If any subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found by construction personnel during construction, work in the immediate area will cease immediately, and the CDOT paleontologist will be contacted to evaluate the significance of the find. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 85 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Hazardous Materials • A Materials Management Plan (MMP), as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2011), will be prepared for areas with known soil and groundwater contamination. Construction specifications will be written to include review of the MMP by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. • If dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2011) and permitted by the CDPHE's Water Quality Control Division. • Relocation of overhead electrical utility lines and pole-mounted transformers will be conducted in accordance with any easement agreement between CDOT and/or private landowners. • All wells within the proposed construction area will be abandoned and plugged according to CDOT Section 202.02 in Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2011) and in conformance with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources State Engineer Water Well Construction Rules, specifically Rule 16. • If contaminated soil is encountered and a responsible party is not identified, CDOT will be responsible for the clean-up in accordance with state and federal regulations. A MMP and a Health and Safety plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2011), also is recommended for use when oil and gas facilities are encountered. • Prior to demolition of any structures, an asbestos, lead-based paint, and miscellaneous hazardous materials survey will be conducted at each parcel, where applicable. Regulated materials abatement will be conducted in accordance with Section 250, Environmental, Health, and Safety Management, of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction(CDOT, 2011)and relevant Occupational Health and Safety(OSHA)regulatory details. • Prior to demolition, regulated materials must be removed from any structures and appropriately recycled or disposed. • Coordination with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety(OPS)will be required as soon as possible for any parcel that is or will be acquired, is regulated by OPS and is found to have contaminated the environment. If site characterization and/or remediation have not been completed, the OPS may require CDOT to complete these activities after acquisition. During the right-of-way acquisition process, additional properties may require other actions depending on the results of the Initial Site Assessments(ISAs). By law, all friable asbestos-containing materials(ACM) must be removed from structures, including bridges, prior to demolition, and soils if encountered in excavated landfill or building debris, buried utilities, or other ACM. The contractor performing the asbestos abatement is required to be licensed to perform such work and obtain permits from the CDPHE. • Lead-based paint may need to be removed prior to demolition if the lead is leachable at concentrations greater than regulatory levels. Where lead-based painted surfaces will be removed via torching, additional health and safety monitoring requirements are applicable. • Prior to construction activities, a Health and Safety Plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2011), will be developed. Construction specifications shall be written to include review of the Health and Safety Plan by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. • If abandoned landfills or coal mines are present below and/or within 1,000 feet of construction activities,the Health and Safety Plan will need to include provisions for assessing and monitoring air quality at all utility trenches, drainage structures, and similar underground construction(i.e., caissons)areas prior to and during intrusive activities to ensure worker safety Parks and Recreation • All ground disturbing and debris generating construction processes will be contained by erosion and sediment control BMPs designed as part of approved stabilization and stormwater management plans. • All disturbed areas will be returned to their original contour, vegetation, and landscape appearance in cooperation with and direction from the resource jurisdictional authorities. Some techniques that may be used to mitigate impacts will include, but not be limited to: • Coordinating with the local jurisdiction to prepare for construction at the site, including public safety and security measures and providing signed detour and alternate access information; • Replacing vegetation will be with native grass and shrubs or irrigated turf as pre-construction conditions dictate (mitigation ratios and plant selection and placement will be determined through coordination with local jurisdictional agencies). North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 86 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation(cont'd) • Using BMPs to limit erosion during construction. • Compensating for acquisition of the resource(location of any lost access will be negotiated with park representatives during final design). • Rebuilding park features, such as trails,elsewhere on the park site. • Fencing will be included in all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern Section 6(f) No mitigation is required. Farmlands If any important agricultural features are affected as design is further defined, mitigation measures, such as replacement of irrigation ditches and pipes, will be considered as appropriate. Loss or damage to crops resulting from construction activities will be compensated. Energy Mitigation of energy consumption during operations will focus on a reduction in daily vehicle miles of travel. This reduction can be achieved through successful transit-oriented development, congestion management, and effective improvements to the roadways. These measures all work to increase travel efficiency and save energy. Public Safety and Security Mitigation measures for temporary impacts during construction include: • The design of bus stations will incorporate life-safety standards, similar to RTD's Comprehensive Safety Certification Program. To ensure consistency of service across the transit corridor, the commuter rail operating authority will be expected to adhere to these same standards. These include measures such as fencing to protect patrons from the track area; well- designed pedestrian underpasses; lighting as a deterrent to crime and to ensure good visibility in stations and parking areas; and,where walls and elevator shafts are constructed,the use of transparent materials to provide better sight lines and reduce concealment areas for criminals. • Prior to operation of commuter rail the operational authority will host training sessions for all affected police, fire, emergency response teams, schools, and employers who either are responsible for police or emergency response or are located in the immediate project corridor. These training sessions will cover the details of commuter train and bus operations, potential security issues, and agency responsibilities. • Potential losses at construction sites will be mitigated through fencing and on-site security provided by contractors. All construction contractors will be responsible for safety at their respective sites and will be required to follow all OSHA requirements applicable to construction site safety. The appropriate agencies will provide a site safety officer to monitor site safety. Construction CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2011) and CDOT's Construction Manual (2002a) outline basic mitigation measures that contractors are required to take on any construction project. Appropriate application of these mitigation strategies will be defined during the final engineering phase of this project. Noise • Implement construction BMPs. • Use noise blankets on equipment and quiet-use generators. • Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. • Use alternative construction methods, such as sonic or vibratory pile-driving in sensitive areas,when possible. • In residential areas, construction activities will be minimized during the evening, nighttime, weekends, and holidays when receptors are usually in these areas. • Nighttime construction will be desirable(e.g., commercial areas where businesses may be disrupted during daytime hours) or necessary to avoid major traffic disruption. • The major noise source on construction sites is typically diesel motors; therefore, all engines will use commercially available effective mufflers and enclosures, as possible. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 87 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Construction(cont'd) • Modern equipment will be used with improved noise muffling and all equipment items will be evaluated to ensure that they have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measure, such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Generally, newer equipment would create less operational noise than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise-control devices(e.g., mufflers and shrouding). • The use of impact pile driving will be avoided near noise-sensitive areas, where possible. Alternative foundation preparation technologies will be used, such as vibratory pile driving or cast in drilled hole. • Temporary barriers will be used and relocated, as required, to protect sensitive receptors from excessive construction noise. Noise barriers should be made of heavy plywood or moveable insulated sound blankets. • Plans will be made to conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so that noise will be kept to a minimum. • Frequent updates of all construction activities will be provided to the public. • A community noise and vibration monitoring plan and a noise and vibration control plan will be prepared before initiating any construction. Access • Use enhanced signing. • Use alternate access enhancements. • Use advertising/public relations. • Do not close multiple interchanges concurrently. Highway • Limit detours. • Place detours on major arterial streets and ensure no local street detours are implemented. • Schedule construction during periods of least traffic. • Use geometric enhancements including wider lanes and better visibility. • Limit construction vehicles to major arterials. • Enforce speed restrictions; provide adequate space for enforcement; make prime contractor accountable. • Use courtesy patrol. • Use enhanced signing. • Phase construction to limit traffic in neighborhoods. • Comply with AASHTO guidance and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • Coordinate work activities to ensure they do not coincide with sporting, school, or special events. • Implement advanced traffic diversion. • Use intelligent management systems and variable message signs to advise/redirect traffic. Work with RTD to offer enhanced operations during peak construction. • Develop traffic management plans. • Maintain access to local businesses/residents. • Coordinate with emergency service providers to minimize delay and ensure access to properties. Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility • Provide well-defined detours for pedestrians/bicyclists. • Enhance safety through the use of adequate signing,fencing,and lighting. • Implement a public relations program. • Comply with American Disability Act requirements. • Construct new bike/pedestrian overpass as a detour before old is demolished. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 88 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Construction(cont'd) Environmental Impacts • Use wetting/chemical inhibitors for dust control. • Provide early investigation of subsurface conditions. • Prepare a well-defined materials handling plan. • Employ educated contractor with trained personnel. • Require prompt and safe disposal of waste products. • Implement water quality BMPs. • Prepare well-defined stormwater management plan. • Conduct monitoring. • Institute resource reuse and allocation. • Ensure regulatory compliance. • Cover trucks hauling soil and other materials. • Stabilize and cover stockpile areas. • Minimize offsite tracking of mud, debris, hazardous material, and noxious weeds by washing construction equipment in contained areas. • Avoid impacts to wetlands or other areas of important habitat value in addition to those impacted by the project itself. • Control and prevent concrete washout and construction wastewater. As projects are designed, ensure that proper specifications are adhered to and reviewed to ensure adequacy in the prevention of water pollution by concrete washout. • Store equipment and materials in designated areas only. • Promptly remove any unused detour pavement or signs. • Follow CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005), including sections regarding water quality control, erosion control, and environmental health and safety. • Prepare or revegetate exposed areas as soon as possible after construction. • Remove soil and other materials from paved streets. • Incorporate recommendations as appropriate from the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) report, Reducing Diesel Emissions in the Denver Area(RAQC, 2002). • Operate equipment mainly during off-peak hours. • Limit equipment idling time. • Use recycled materials for project activities to the extent allowed by good practice and CDOT construction specifications. Use construction equipment that use ultra-low sulfur fuels to the extent practicable. Floodplains and Water Resources • BMPs used will be consistent with the MS4 permitting requirements, requirements of Northern Front Range flood control districts, as well as practices mentioned in CDOT's Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide(CDOT, 2002b). • Section 107.25 of CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2011) deals with contractor's requirements for water quality control. Section 4(f) Mitigation measures to address impacts to Section 4(f)park resources will include: • Coordinating with the local jurisdiction to prepare for construction at the site including public safety and security measures, and providing detour and alternative access information. • Replacing vegetation with native grass and shrubs or irrigated turf as pre-construction conditions dictate. Mitigation ratios and plant selection and placement will occur through coordination with the local agencies having jurisdiction. • Using BMPs to limit erosion during construction. • Compensating for acquisition of the resource. Location of any lost access will be negotiated with park representative during final design. • Rebuilding park features, such as trails,elsewhere on the park site. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 89 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11. Phase 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Summary (cont'd) Phase 1 Mitigation Measures Section 4(f) • Fencing will be included in all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. • Mitigation measures to address impacts to Section 4(f) historic resources are identical to those listed under the Historic Preservation section of this table. L. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Transportation projects must comply with a wide range of federal and state environmental laws and regulations, permits, reviews, notifications, consultations, and other approvals. This section summarizes the permits that may be potentially applicable to regulated project activities. It is not an all-inclusive list nor does it include reviews, consultations, and other types of approval that do not involve granting or denial of a permit. The following permits and coordination activities may be required to support the construction of the proposed build packages, including the Preferred Alternative. L.1 WATER QUALITY/WATER RESOURCES L.1.1 COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) A CDPS permit is required by State and Federal regulations for stormwater discharged from any construction activity that disturbs at least one acre of land. This discharge permit is required to ensure the quality of stormwater runoff from the construction site. Under CDPS permit stipulations, a site-specific stormwater management plan would be prepared that outlines in detail specific BMPs for inclusion in project plans and implementation in the field. Included in the stormwater management plan are such aspects as BMP locations, turbidity and monitoring requirements, seed mix, concrete wash-out provisions, and other relevant information. Permits would be obtained from CDPHE's Water Quality Control Division. L.1.2 SECTION 404 PERMIT A Section 404 permit, which is issued by the USACE, is required whenever construction projects or maintenance activities require filling that would occur below the ordinary high water line in any body of water considered a water of the U.S. (navigable waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands; all tributaries to navigable waters and adjacent wetlands; interstate waters and their tributaries and adjacent wetlands). An individual permit is required if an excess of 0.5 acre or 300 linear feet of waterway are to be filled; a nationwide permit is required where lesser amounts of waterway are to be filled. This project is being accomplished under a merger agreement with the USACE. A Section 404 permit application has been submitted. L.1.3 SECTION 402 PERMIT A Section 402 permit is required for dewatering of construction areas, if necessary. The following activities would likely require a Section 402 permit: North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 90 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. ► Construction dewatering operations associated with utility excavation, bridge pier installation, foundation or trench digging, or other subsurface activities ► If discharge from a point source is expected to occur due to vehicle washing, or from industrial discharges. A Section 402 permit would be obtained from CDPHE's Water Quality Control Division. L.1.4 SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required in conjunction with an Individual 404 Permit (dredge and fill permit) for any transportation construction project or maintenance activity where work occurs below the ordinary high-water line or adjacent to wetlands. As part of its 401 Certification, Regulation No. 82 states that CDOT is required to notify the CDPHE and the owners and operators of municipal and domestic water treatment intakes or diversions downstream if potential impacts to nearby receiving waters may occur during construction, e.g., when blasting occurs near receiving streams. Unless specified by the Water Quality Control Division of CDPHE, in-stream turbidity monitoring is not typically required. The 401 Certification must be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division of the CDPHE. L.1.5 FLOODPLAIN PERMITS Floodplain permits, including a floodplain development permit, Conditional Letter of Map Revision, and Letter of Map Revision, are required for any floodplain encroachment. L.2 AIR QUALITY L.2.1 STATIONARY SOURCE PERMITTING AND AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS NOTICE (APEN) REQUIREMENTS A stationary source permit and APEN requirements stipulate that a construction permit must be obtained from CDPHE for any and all emissions associated with construction activities, including operations of portable sources. CDOT will submit an APEN to CDPHE's APCD if more than 25 acres of land would be impacted and/or project construction would last longer than six months. CDPHE will respond whether or not a permit would be required prior to commencing construction. L.2.2 OTHER AIR QUALITY PERMITS A portable source construction permit would likely need to be obtained from CDPHE for the operation of portable sources (e.g. asphalt plants, generators, rock crushers). A fugitive dust permit and bridge demolition permit will be required for construction projects. Additionally, an asbestos abatement permit from the CDPHE would also be required for demolition of structures that potentially have friable asbestos containing material (see Section 3.17, Hazardous Materials, of the Final EIS). North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 91 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. L.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES L.3.1 SENATE BILL (SB) 40 CERTIFICATION Senate Bill (SB) 40 certification would be required by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) for the crossing of streams or adjacent stream banks to avoid adverse effects to waterways, stream banks, or associated tributaries. This legislation is designed to protect fishing waters and to recognize the importance of the entire stream ecosystem, including wetland and riparian areas. A SB 40 wildlife certification application would need to be submitted to CPW 60 days before construction begins. Based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CPW and CDOT in 2004, it was established that all future transportation, construction, and maintenance activities that satisfy the requirements for use of the Programmatic SB 40 Wildlife Certification as described in the Guidelines of the MOU may be taken without written certification from CPW. L.3.2 PRAIRIE DOG RELOCATION PERMIT A prairie dog relocation permit, issued by CPW, will be required for the relocation, transportation, or donation of any prairie dog(s) or colonies that may be affected by project activities. Local permits may also be needed for this activity. L.3.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Mitigation for impacts to threatened and endangered species will be monitored with consultation with USFWS in accordance with the PBO which is included as Appendix E of this ROD. As described in the PBO: 1) FHWA/CDOT will monitor and report on the progress of implementation of the proposed action including all conservation measure. 2) FHWA/CDOT will monitor all temporary disturbed sites. L.4 ACCESS L.4.1 STATE ACCESS PERMIT A state Access Permit, issued by CDOT, would be required for all requests for new or modified access to all state highway roadways. Owners of any existing accesses adversely affected by the project would be notified of the proposed changes. L.4.2 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PERMIT Construction access permits would likely be required for temporary access needs outside the project limits. North I.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 92 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. L.4.3 OTHER LOCAL PERMITS Other local permits would likely be required by cities and counties as needed, such as construction, grading, erosion control, utility, or survey permits either prior to the beginning or during construction phases. M. COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS The North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(t) Evaluation (FHWA and CDOT, 2011) was released on August 19, 2011. The notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2011, indicating a 30-day review period ending on September 19, 2011. Subsequently, an extension to this comment period was announced in the Federal Register (September 9, 2011) extending the end of the comment period to October 3, 2011 (i.e., 45 days total). Public comment was solicited and received through a variety of sources, including the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement website, mail, fax, and verbal and written comments submitted at the three public hearings. In total, comments were submitted by 301 individuals, two public interest organizations, six agencies (federal, state, tribal or regional) and six local governments. Comments were received via the project website, fax, mail, or as verbal and written comments at the three public hearings. Many of the comment submittals addressed multiple topics. The lead agencies have responded to each comment and topic individually and each comment received is presented next to the corresponding response in Appendix B of this ROD. During the Final EIS comment period, a total of 301 comments were received from the general public in the following manner: ► 287 comments were submitted through the project Web site or through e-mail. ► 9 written comments were submitted during a public hearing, mailed or faxed to CDOT. ► 5 verbal comments were made at one of the three public hearings. The public comments received on the Final EIS reflected the following community sentiments: ► 21 specifically supported the Preferred Alternative. ► 1 specifically supported Package A. ► 2 specifically supported Package B or an element included only in Package B. ► 213 supported commuter rail or rail transit without mentioning an alternative. ► 171 supported an expedited schedule for completion of improvements. ► 57 expressed support for some other project phasing/prioritization scheme. ► 7 did not support rail transit. ► 22 did not support highway improvements. ► 20 supported only highway improvements. ► 17 supported improving bus transit. North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 93 NORTH I-25 EIS mforrnation Coorera-ion transportation ► 2 did not support improving bus transit. ► 3 expressed concern about potential construction impacts. ► 1 expressed concern about entering/exiting tolled express lanes at Mead. ► 1 expressed displeasure about the public hearing locations and lack of public transportation availability. ► 1 expressed concern about the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with all build alternatives. Some comments required minor revisions and clarifications to the Final EIS; these revisions are noted in the corresponding comment responses and identified in Section J of this document. N. DECISION Based on the information provided in the North 1-25 Final AS and Section 4(f) Evaluation (August 2011) and Revised Section 4(f) Evaluation (October 2011), which have been incorporated by reference into this ROD, and information contained in this ROD, the FHWA concludes that selecting Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative, as described in this document, for the North 1-25 Project is in the best overall public interest, uses all practicable means to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoids or minimizes any possible adverse effects. Based on the considerations identified in the Revised Section 4(f) Evaluation dated October 27, 2011, the FHWA also concludes that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) protected lands and that the Proposed Action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the identified Section 4(f) properties resulting from such use. /Z/Z9/eo// -� Date ouglas ennett, PE 9 Acting Di ision Administrator North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision December 2011 Page 94 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX A: FIGURES OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND PHASE 1 North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision Appendix A This Page Left Intentionally Blank. • a NORTH 1-25 • EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. • Preferred Alternative • 25 . LEGEND • Tolled Express Lanes O Express Bus Transit Station Wellin• ' Reconstruct mainline to correct geometric • _ � General Purpose Lanes Commuter Bus Transit Station 1 deficiencies and • replace aging mum Express Bus Commuter Rail Transit Station 28` •Muurtanvela infrastructure • Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 CR1 • Ault • Commuter Rail O Commuter Rail Operational 14 . & Maintenance Facility Passing Track Fort • CR2 6/2 • Ei Commuter Bus Operational Coll s . i rosoect 85 Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance Facility Et . Q CR34• . A, �)► . Eaton Interchange Reconstruction FasTracks Rail Line r nath 571 Severance • �+fi*. Number of Lanes: O FasTracks / RID Transit Station �ER4 392 Lucerne iii►` General Purpose/ • Tolled Express Windsor -_ - =_______________ -- — Loy ' : nd .:...ssroaesBlva EB7 EB8 •, CB1 • CR4 • E: + 6/Z EBi.•�: • -is i 34 � ..... 34 . •W... CR "pi _ • CB Garden City • TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS * 257 Evan LARIMER a • CR 50 Commuter Rail Express Bus La Salle CB3 • Cs • 4 '� ohnstown�- C R 1 Fort Collins Downtown EB 1 South Fort Collins Transit l so • Transit Center - BNSF and Center - Mason St. and Maple St. West Fairway Lane 4:1:-�4 _ 56 ..I�• EB9 Milliken ' CR2 CSU - BNSF between EB2 Timberline - Harmony Rd. oud G' cre: • University Ave. and W. Pitkin and Timberline St. EB3 East Fort Collins - 1-25 and - - • CR3 South Fort Collins Transit Harmony Rd. :6/2Center Mason St. and EB4 Windsor 125 and SH 392 36 = R 34 f'. Lti.) • West Fairway Lane tit Plaeeevnl CR4 North Loveland - BNSF and EB5 Crossroads - Loveland 7 ss • CB4 between Crossroads Blvd. U • 29th S . and US 34 Lon mont CR5 Downtown Loveland g BNSF and approximately, EB6 West Greeley - US 34 and ' , • 6th St. SH 257 CR8 visit • EB10 Berthoud BNSF and EB7 Greeley US 34 and 83rd 36 85 • SH 56 Ave. BOULDER Firestone ll EB8 Greeley Downtown Transfer IW• CR7 . rth Longmont - BNSF Center 8th Ave. and I 7. rick Fngmont d SH 668thSt. 52 :x EB11CB5 • CR8 Sugar Mill, uth of Rogers Rd E612 EB9 Berthoud 125 and SH 56 ' i ® . • Fort pton _ WMI EB10 Firestone - 1-25 and , • • * °ono • CR91 - l-25andR8e SH 119Erie CR0sTracks Rail Stations to 6/2 EB11 Frederick/Dacono - 1-25 = oulder 76 • vet . _ - and SH 52 ilk _ — — — — EB12 Erie - 1-25 and CR 8 ` .411 Commuter Bus 7 • • • E613 Broomfield 125 and SH 7 93 36 ' Loulsvil Sri CB1 O DIA 1441hive. 1" • t ' ; 5 • CB2 South Greeley - 8th Ave. and { Northwest , 136th 24th St. Rail Corridor Superb 1 Broomfield ' - a Mon • ROO ;i0pr. CB3 Evans - US 85 and 42nd St. eke a Corn C64 Platteville US 85 and Grand � —1 r loal Ave e _ ms • Nor Ave. ASter' 1D" E470; Denver wYInternational • CB5 Fort Lupton US 85 andNorth Metro' Airport CR 14.5 6/2 �z • Corridor •. Brighton - US 85 and SH 7 s F it . ' _I ' uuuw►• Commerce City - 72nd and ` - / —' T Colorado of �� r , J • 464sp *.agi0,` • JEFFERS 'i N 70 Downt wn• I_1 !'SJPNbenve 70 Z\ 111 0 2 4 6 8 10 en er • ;_Mies North / 6 � 6th ' vc 25 225 • • • This Page Left Intentionally Blank. IP • NORTH 1-25 • EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. • • Phase 1 • , Wellington .85 • LEGEND ' 25 • X10- Commuter Bus & Stations Mountain Vista I inuOuuuu Initial 1-25 Express Bus & Stations 287 . o Commuter Rail ROW Preservation ♦ Ault III -. ROW owned by RTD — 1a 11111111111 Continuous Accel/Decel Lanes Fort • I1n ♦ rospect — • Tolled Express Lanes EB1 B Phase 1 includes ,. e • O Interchange Reconstruction Stop at Existing Harmony °- oath 57 Severance Eaton * NFR Separate Action Interchange Transit Center • Lucerne mi Upgrade(No-Action Alternative) I • Windsor 9� . sItl» FasTracks Rail Line Express Bus 34 C Windsor On-Street Stop Only . o FasTracks/ RTD Transit Station Lov = 1 nd E13; �a CB1 . • Existing Interchange � • x+!'34 ' � eeley ey FM CB I02 Garden City . 8 SCR 16 257J Evans t CB3 TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS - cR so . PHASE 1 fio`— - C . I A w Johnstown(60 La Salle LARIMER . Express Bus 56 , MillikenMillikenE61 South Fort Collins Transit 1 � . . Center - Mason St. and West Fairway Lane (stop at t °d GI ores Phase 1 includes only 5 . existing Transit Center) ' construction of E63 East Fort Collins 125 and interchange at US 34 / Ill Harmony Rd. 36 ♦ R 34 WELD EB7 Greeley - US 34 and 83rd Mn. Centerra Parkway Plattevill ID EBB 66 a CB4 EBB Greeley Downtown Transfer Longmont Center - 8th Ave. and . 8th St. (on-street) I 119# E B 10 EB 10 Firestone - 1-25 and 36 II SH 119 85 E B13 Broomfield - 1-25 and SH 7 BOULDER _ _ II Firestone O DIA 87S derick Iwot . * 52 2) WC . $ Fort Commuter Bus [Poconopten Ill • CB1 'greetey US 85 and D St. ertei •• . 4 5 CB2 6outh Greeley - 8th Ave. and 119 „! oulder l d e r 4 7. 24th St. E Ei 13 •�` ••: •; 5 CB3 Evans US 85 and 42nd St. » La yette 7 f • 7 5 CB4 Platteville US 85 and Grand 93 36 Loulsvll srl onAve. Northest 1441h Ave. Ill CB5 Luton - US 85 and Rail Corr dor , ' ff I 1 fR 114.5 Supers k 7roomfield= •'- Tt colon ROOM� - Brighton - US 85 and SH 7 �� + "' Ave. + Corn c. Commerce City - 72nd and 1 « 1041 Ave • III Colorado / 72 W stir', Pr ae North Metro .E470: international 84 Ave Corridor Alrpprt li 2 ` 1 121 a /llllllIIIIlIPSJ � r _ _ - , r JEFFER ' Oi^• 76 e 0 �� i t 5 7N $r40 Denawn . to 7f 6 � Den er n. a- —.wiles North — •f F' V= _ . 2S I 22s 0 This Page Left Intentionally Blank. NORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO FINAL EIS COMMENTS North 1.25 EIS Record of Decision Appendix B This Page Left Intentionally Blank. NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX B RESPONSES TO FINAL EIS COMMENTS This appendix provides responses to public and agency comments on the Final EIS and received during the Final EIS public comment period, including comments on effects to historic properties from Section 106 consulting parties. An index of the comments is presented below and a summary of the comments received is available in Section M of the Record of Decision. Comment Index The following is an index of the submitted comments from the public and governmental agencies on the Final EIS during the public comment period. This index presents the public comment index first, then agencies (federal, tribal, state and local). The public comment index is organized by the last name of the individual and identifies the method of commenting. This index also presents the comment number and page number where the response can be found in this appendix. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page General Comment 0 General Comment and Response Final EIS Team B-1 Public Comments IN-040 Adamson, Bonnie Public Website B-25 IN-224 Alaback, Paul Public Website B-89 IN-135 Alldrin, Lynn Public Website B-52 IN-200 Anderson, Amber Public Website B-74 IN-103 Anderson, Amy Public Website B-40 IN-246 Anetrini,Jane Public Website B-98 IN-106 Apt, Alan Public Website B-41 IN-280 Armstrong,Janet Public Website B-112 IN-265 Baggett, Tamie Public Website B-106 IN-158 Ball, Deanna Public Website B-59 IN-069 Barnett, Alex Public Website B-31 IN-261 Bartlett, Andrew Public Website B-104 IN-033 Bartlett, Dana Public Website B-22 IN-258 Baumgarn, Stacey Public Website B-103 IN-235 Beck-Ferkiss, Sue Public Website B-94 IN-128 Bennett, Ken Public Website B-49 Appendix B Index—Page 1 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-277 Bersch, Layton Public Website B-109 IN-006 Bersch, Linda Public Website B-6 IN-061 Bersch, Linda Public Website B-29 IN-289 Bersch, Linda Public Verbal B-117 IN-271 Bersch, Robert Public Website B-107 IN-276 Bingham, Evelyn Public Website B-109 IN-263 Bisbee,John Public Website B-105 IN-052 Bissett, Crystal Public Website B-27 IN-190 Blake, Cara Public Website B-71 IN-107 Bolton, Jeanne Public Website B-41 IN-004 Breimhorst, Mark Public Website B-6 IN-037 Bright,Janice Public Website B-23 IN-011 Bright, Lisa Public Website B-9 IN-018 Bright, Ron Public Website B-11 IN-044 Brown, Barbara Public Website B-25 IN-194 Bublitz, Stephanie Public Website B-72 IN-188 Buescher, Mary Beth Public Website B-70 IN-199 Burgonio-Watson, Thelma Public Website B-74 IN-023 Bush, Ingrid Public Website B-15 IN-038 Bushnell, Helen Public Website B-24 IN-238 Byers, Stephen Public Website B-95 IN-008 Byrnes, Jason Public Website B-8 IN-201 Carnes, Virginia Public Website B-75 IN-154 Caufman, Joyce Public Website B-58 IN-080 Christman, Christine Public Website B-33 IN-081 Christman, Roy Public Website B-33 IN-270 Chudacoff,Julie Public Website B-107 IN-269 Chudacoff, Matthew Public Website B-107 IN-203 Cisek, Dale Public Website B-75 IN-161 Clark, Jacqueline Public Website B-60 IN-248 Clark, Roger Public Website B-99 IN-012 Clusin, Cliff Public Website B-9 IN-293 Coale, Laura Public Written B-121 IN-125 Colley, Kristen Public Website B-48 IN-264 Cooper, Elliot Public Website B-105 Appendix B Index—Page 2 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-026 Cooper, Gwen Public Website B-17 IN-025 Cooper, Mark Public Website B-16 IN-212 Cox, Don Public Website B-81 IN-111 Cox,Jim Public Website B-42 IN-058 Danella, Jim Public Website B-28 IN-149 Davis, Mary Public Website B-57 IN-295 Dean, Dan Public Written B-122 IN-034 DeBell, Linsey Public Website B-22 IN-136 DeMarco, Claudia Public Website B-52 IN-094 DeMarco, William Public Website B-36 IN-171 DeMarco-Hay, Camille Public Website B-63 IN-127 Dennis, Dave Public Website B-49 IN-204 Detweiler, Mary Public Website B-75 IN-047 Dietrich, Gabrielle Public Website B-26 IN-113 Dixon, Debbie Public Website B-43 IN-007 Dobbs, Dennis Public Website B-7 IN-139 Dupuis, Ernie Public Website B-53 IN-244 Eidsness,Jody Public Website B-97 IN-146 Elliott, Elizabeth Public Website B-56 IN-290 Elmquist, Artie Public Verbal B-118 IN-001 Erwin, Chuck Public Website B-5 IN-021 Erwin, Chuck Public Website B-14 IN-119 Everts, Corey Public Website B-45 IN-060 Fairbank, David Public Website B-29 IN-122 Feinstein,Jonas Public Website B-46 IN-239 Fischer, Randy Public Website B-95 IN-051 Flannery, John Public Website B-27 IN-267 Floyd, Barry Public Website B-106 IN-259 Foote, Michael Public Website B-103 IN-292 Fortune, Irene Public Verbal B-120 IN-254 Fortune, Irene Public Website B-100 IN-130 Fossen, Patricia Public Website B-50 IN-073 Fox, Samuel Public Website B-31 IN-064 Francis, James Public Website B-30 IN-242 Freeman, John Public Website B-97 Appendix B Index—Page 3 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-063 French,Jon Public Website B-30 IN-257 Friedlander, Ariana Public Website B-102 IN-005 Fritz, Derek Public Website B-6 IN-075 Gallup, Sarah Public Website B-32 IN-286 Gerber, Jerry Public Website B-114 IN-084 Gicharu, Liz Public Website B-33 IN-198 Gillette, Michael Public Website B-74 IN-088 Giordanengo,John Public Website B-34 IN-082 Goeke,Judith Public Website B-33 IN-115 Gosden, Hiro Public Website B-44 IN-142 Gould, Dan Public Website B-54 IN-098 Graham, David Public Website B-38 IN-253 Greaves, Linda Public Website B-100 IN-178 Greer, Diana Public Website B-66 IN-074 Gressianu, Christina Public Website B-32 IN-195 Griggs,Tom Public Website B-72 IN-181 Grubb, Anne Public Website B-67 IN-187 Hamm, Sharon Public Website B-70 IN-137 Hansen, Vicky Public Website B-52 IN-041 Harper, Wendy Public Website B-25 IN-168 Harroun, Ann Public Website B-62 IN-134 Hawley, Brie Public Website B-51 IN-045 Heacox, Stephanie Public Website B-26 IN-145 Hendrick,Jasmun Public Website B-55 IN-031 Henry, Becca Public Website B-21 IN-155 Heyman, Joel Public Website B-58 IN-176 Hindman, Laura Public Website B-65 IN-229 Hobbs, Lyle Public Website B-92 IN-150 Hoff,Tracy Public Website B-57 IN-079 Horowitz, Mark Public Website B-33 IN-165 Howard, Adele Public Website B-61 IN-160 Hughey, Linda Public Website B-59 IN-274 Humstone, Mary Public Website B-109 IN-272 Jacobsen, Janice Public Website B-108 IN-013 James, Susan Public Website B-10 Appendix B Index—Page 4 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-285 Janssen, Suzanne Public Website B-113 IN-059 Jenkins, Bill Public Website B-28 IN-062 Jobe , Callahan Public Website B-29 IN-278 Johansing, Bruce Public Website B-110 IN-123 Johnson, Erick Public Website B-47 IN-233 Johnson, M. L. Public Website B-93 IN-121 Jones, Durl Public Website B-45 IN-185 Jones, Jay Public Website B-69 IN-089 Jones, Richard Public Website B-35 IN-297 Jordan, Pat Public Written B-123 IN-262 Jurin, Richard Public Website B-104 IN-173 Kain, Nancy Public Website B-64 IN-247 Karspeck, Milan Public Website B-98 IN-197 Kefalas,John Public Website B-73 IN-284 Kellogg, Leonard Public Website B-113 IN-186 Kelly, Indrani Public Website B-70 IN-124 Key, Sivea Public Website B-48 IN-223 Kimmel, Gailmarie Public Website B-88 IN-251 Kneller, Jane Public Website B-100 IN-086 Kohler,Jennifer Public Website B-34 IN-032 Kopp, Hollie Public Website B-21 IN-017 Krueger-Koplin, Suzanne Public Website B-11 IN-152 Kubik, Nancy Public Website B-58 IN-166 Kubik,Tim Public Website B-61 IN-196 Kuhn, Jill Public Website B-73 IN-138 Larsen, Earl Public Website B-53 IN-243 Latona, Janet Public Website B-97 IN-014 Lechtanski,Julie Public Website B-10 IN-093 Levandoski, Gregory Public Website B-35 IN-022 Lewis,John Public Website B-15 IN-169 Lewis, Marcia Public Website B-62 IN-104 Liebler, Barbara Public Website B-40 IN-256 Liggett, Julie Public Website B-102 IN-288 Lindsay, Dave Public Verbal B-115 IN-164 Lipson, Elaine Public Website B-61 Appendix B Index—Page 5 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-140 Little, David Public Website B-54 IN-211 Livesay, Janice Public Website B-80 IN-039 Locker, Georgia Public Website B-24 IN-108 Long, John Public Website B-42 IN-222 Losonsky, Michael Public Website B-88 IN-029 Lovett, Kevin Public Website B-19 IN-281 Lucero, Rita Public Website B-112 IN-097 Lynch, Steve Public Website B-37 IN-227 MacDonald, Nola Public Website B-91 IN-077 MacDonald, Robin Public Website B-32 IN-133 Mason, Scott Public Website B-51 IN-148 Mason, Scott Public Website B-57 IN-205 Massaro, Bob Public Website B-75 IN-174 Massaro, Carla Public Website B-65 IN-048 McCarthy, M Public Website B-26 IN-042 McDonald, Tammy Public Website B-25 IN-207 McGregor, Sarah Public Website B-78 IN-027 McKean, Hugh Public Website B-18 IN-101 McLaughlin,JP Public Website B-39 IN-273 Meck, Anna Public Website B-108 IN-090 Mellifont, Robin Public Website B-35 IN-287 Meyers, Buddy Public Website B-115 IN-019 Michael, Robert Public Website B-12 IN-299 Michael, Robert Public Written B-124 IN-110 Miller, Elyse Public Website B-42 IN-132 Miller, Shane Public Website B-51 IN-100 Mishler, Ada Public Website B-39 IN-070 Molinari, Scott Public Website B-31 IN-071 Molinri, Patrick Public Website B-31 IN-050 Moriarty, Rebecca Public Website B-27 IN-189 Morris, Donald Public Website B-71 IN-035 Munson, Seth Public Website B-22 IN-015 Myers, Sarah Public Website B-10 IN-105 Nagy, Pat Public Website B-40 IN-172 Nesbit-Manning, Sandra Public Website B-64 Appendix B Index—Page 6 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-054 Newquist, Zachary Public Website B-28 IN-210 Nichols, Cheryl Public Website B-80 IN-141 Nitzel, Lori Public Website B-54 IN-157 Nordstrom, Clare Public Website B-59 IN-209 Nordstrom, David Public Website B-80 IN-065 O'Brien, Constance Public Website B-30 IN-216 Oppold, Chris Public Website B-84 IN-046 Osborne, Rob Public Website B-26 IN-291 Osborne, Rob Public Verbal B-119 IN-112 Ostheimer, Nancy Public Website B-43 IN-260 Pacheco, Kim Public Website B-103 IN-036 Parker, Matt Public Website B-23 IN-147 Peterson, Jan Public Website B-56 IN-282 Phelps,Thomas Public Website B-112 IN-255 Picard, Patrick Public Website B-101 IN-003 Quinn, Regina Public Website B-5 IN-091 Rachid, Sidna Public Website B-35 IN-217 Rankin, Shorter Public Website B-85 IN-230 Riblett, Charles Public Website B-92 IN-055 Ricks, Megan Public Website B-28 IN-087 Robe, Gwyneth Public Website B-34 IN-298 Robert, Edmond Public Written B-123 IN-092 Ross,Jared Public Website B-35 IN-151 Roy, David Public Website B-57 IN-102 Ruxh, Carol Public Website B-39 IN-237 Salasek, Michael Public Website B-95 IN-078 Sandora, Victoria Public Website B-33 IN-109 Scharf, Melynda Public Website B-42 IN-067 Schleicher, Laniece Public Website B-30 IN-099 Schweitzer, Andrea Public Website B-39 IN-180 Scobey, Mary Public Website B-67 IN-167 Selvig, Maureen Public Website B-62 IN-129 Sethre, Earl Public Website B-49 IN-268 Shaffer, Joan Public Website B-106 IN-177 Shaner, Dan Public Website B-66 Appendix B Index—Page 7 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-193 Shannon, Brad Public Website B-72 IN-219 Shuster, William Public Website B-86 IN-249 Simpson, David Public Website B-99 IN-116 Smith, Terra Public Website B-44 IN-030 Snyder, Darrel Public Website B-20 IN-156 Solano, Judy Public Website B-59 IN-068 Sorber, Rebecca Public Website B-31 IN-002 Spaur, Steve Public Website B-5 IN-170 Sprung, Gary Public Website B-63 IN-066 Stansbury, Daniel Public Website B-30 IN-096 Steen, Garry Public Website B-37 IN-296 Steffes, Lee Public Written B-123 IN-182 Stewart, Betty Public Website B-68 IN-183 Stine, Wendy Public Website B-68 IN-159 Stoner, Craig Public Website B-59 IN-250 Stotts, Bruce Public Website B-100 IN-085 Stotts, Mnarlas Public Website B-34 IN-208 Studer, Rose Public Website B-79 IN-234 Szabo, Steve Public Website B-94 IN-213 Taylor, Carolyn Public Website B-81 IN-184 Taylor, Melissa Public Website B-68 IN-294 Tembrock, Luke Public Written B-122 IN-279 Thiel, Dianne Public Website B-111 IN-028 Thomas, Gary Public Website B-19 IN-144 Thomas, Richard Public Website B-55 IN-192 Thompson, Jillian Public Website B-72 IN-206 Tiger, Paul Public Website B-76 IN-114 Tillson, Matt Public Website B-43 IN-024 Todd, Susan Public Website B-16 IN-202 Towbin, Mike Public Website B-75 IN-191 Trask, Suzanne Public Website B-71 IN-231 Tungate, Susan Public Website B-93 IN-225 Turner, Lucin Public Website B-90 IN-053 Udarro, Katarah Public Website B-27 IN-072 Uhl, Deborah Public Website B-31 Appendix B Index—Page 8 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-083 Uhl, Deborah Public Website B-33 IN-301 Vanderkoor, Ron Public Written B-128 IN-056 von Plutzner,Jolan Public Website B-28 IN-240 Waddell, Ashley Public Website B-96 IN-218 Wade, Carolyn Public Website B-85 IN-049 Wagner, Joyce Public Website B-27 IN-057 Wagner, Wayne Public Website B-28 IN-236 Walton, Jennifer Public Website B-94 IN-300 Wandless, Darrel Public Written B-124 IN-153 Ward, Greg Public Website B-58 IN-016 Ward, Ken Public Website B-11 IN-220 Waters, Linda Public Website B-86 IN-163 Watson, James Public Website B-61 IN-175 Weedin, Eric Public Website B-65 IN-266 Weiner, Cary Public Website B-106 IN-120 Weinzimmer, David Public Website B-45 IN-009 Weis, Gaythia Public Website B-8 IN-010 Wemple, Marian Public Website B-9 IN-020 West, Lisa Public Website B-13 IN-126 West, Paul Public Website B-48 IN-095 Westerop, Gerton Public Website B-36 IN-214 Westerop,Jonnie Public Website B-82 IN-162 White, Amy Public Website B-60 IN-118 White, Nate Public Website B-44 IN-241 Whitley, L. Darrell Public Website B-96 IN-076 Wickam, Vi Public Website B-32 IN-226 Wightman,Jean Public Website B-91 IN-117 Williams, Dolores Public Website B-44 IN-228 Wilmsen, Ann Public Website B-91 IN-252 Wilson, Carolyn Public Website B-100 IN-275 Wockner, Gary Public Website B-109 IN-283 Wolfe,John Public Website B-113 IN-143 Woollen, Irma Public Website B-55 IN-221 Wynne, Maggi Public Website B-87 IN-043 Yauk, Pauletta Public Website B-25 Appendix B Index—Page 9 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Public Comment Index Comment Response Number Name Source of Comment Provided on Page IN-131 York, Nancy Public Website B-50 IN-179 Young, Holly Public Website B-66 IN-245 Zerges,Tiffany Public Website B-98 IN-232 Zierdt, Margaret Public Website B-93 IN-215 Ziesche, Barbara Public Website B-83 Public Organization Comments OR-01 Front Range On Track Written B-129 OR-02 Southwest Energy Efficiency Project Public Website B-130 Appendix B Index—Page 10 NORTH I--25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Final EIS Agency Comment Index Response Name Comment Number Provided on Page(s) Federal Agencies US Environmental Protection AG-01 B-191 Agency Tribal Agencies Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma AG-02 B-193 Northern Cheyenne Tribe AG-03 B-194 State Agencies History Colorado AG-04 B-195 History Colorado AG-05 B-199 Regional Agencies Denver Regional Council of AG-06 B-200 Governments Local Agencies/Governments Town of Firestone LO-01 B-202 City of Greeley LO-02 B-203 City of Fort Collins LO-03 B-206 Larimer County LO-04 B-241 City of Longmont LO-05 B-243 Weld County LO-06 B-247 Appendix B Index—Page 11 This Page Left Intentionally Blank. NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. X10 General FEIS Team INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL RESPONSE: GENERAL RESPONSE-- Response Please note that several similar comments were NEED FOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS: received from the public.In this general response,we Robust transit improvements alone would not meet the have provided an expanded discussion on these topics Purpose and Need.Safety,aging and functionally obsolete to address the common issues. For this reason,this infrastructure,increased freight traffic,in addition to the discussion is used to respond to many of the public growing population contribute to the need for improvements comments. on I-25. General purpose lanes would address the freight and some of the general mobility needs,but eventually congestion would increase because of the growing population. Tolled express lanes(TELs)provide the ability to manage demand and travel time reliability along the corridor for the I-25 express bus service,high occupancy vehicles(HOV) and toll paying users.TELs would provide long-term reliability as tolls can be adjusted over time and relative to congestion to maintain reliable travel times within the TELs. Both TELs and general purpose lanes are included in the Preferred Alternative because they provide the most capacity for freight traffic,the least congestion overall,and a reliable choice for carpools and buses,and cost the least per lane mile. In Phase 1 additional capacity on I-25 is provided.This includes replacement/reconstruction of five interchanges, widening of two segments with TELs,and one segment with auxiliary lanes to incrementally meet the Purpose and Need. NEED FOR MODAL ALTERNATIVES: Robust improvement on the highway alone would not meet the Purpose and Need.The Purpose and Need identifies the deficiency of transportation choices in northern Colorado and the need to provide a multimodal solution.There has B-1 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. been strong need identified by local and regional planners and public stakeholders for an increase in the number of modal options for regional travel other than highway alternatives.Adding transit services primarily fulfills the need for providing modal choices and helps address congestion. Therefore,transit improvements are induded in the Preferred Alternative. As part of the Preferred Alternative,the Commuter Rail provides an alternative mode of travel to the largest population centers along the western side of the regional study area. It extends the North Metro FasTracks rail line to Fort Collins with a connecting station to the FasTracks Northwest rail line in Longmont providing mobility across the entire metropolitan region. Express Bus service on 1-25 provides a regional service connecting northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA. It uses TELs to provide fast,reliable service. US 85 Commuter Bus serves the eastern side of the regional study area between Greeley and downtown Denver. Feeder Bus connects communities to the Commuter Rail and Express Bus services. The decision to provide these rail and bus elements together was made to provide an integrated transportation system that serves the varied needs of the northern front range communities and corridors and meets the project's Purpose and Need to provide a multimodal solution.Commuter rail on the BNSF corridor and Express bus on 1-25 serve each corridor's unique characteristics and travel markets. B-2 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Phase 1 included as many modal options as funding allowed and as prioritized through the planning process to incrementally meet the Purpose and Need.In Phase 1, Express Bus will be initiated with four new stations and six stops. Phase 1 also indudes the US 85 Commuter Bus and ROW preservation for the commuter rail to incrementally meet the Purpose and Need. FUNDING AND PHASING ISSUES: There is insufficient funding available in the 2035 Fiscally Constrained Plans to construct the entire Preferred Alternative by 2035.The available funding allows construction of the Phase 1 elements only.As part of the transportation planning process,any post Phase 1 elements of the Preferred Alternative can be implemented at any time upon identification of funding and inclusion in the long range fiscally constrained plan. Phase 1 has been identified through a collaborative decision making process,which established a prioritization considering public and agency comments,the need to replace aging and obsolete infrastructure,address safety concerns,improve mobility,coordinate with community plans,balance long-term improvements with near-term improvements,and cost-effective implementation in light of funding limitations. Commuter bus and express bus service is included in Phase 1,along with a sub-set of the Preferred Alternative 1-25 improvements to begin to address high priority infrastructure needs.Through the collaborative decision-making process there was agreement to initiate the first steps of commuter rail implementation even though there is no funding for construction or operation.This was achieved by including the preservation of the corridor for commuter rail in Phase 1. Acquisition of the rail right ofway would not be eligible for B-3 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. federal funds without commuter rail construction included in the conforming,fiscally-constrained long range plan.CDOT is committed to the preservation of the corridor for commuter rail using state funds and has include this element in the 2035 fiscally constrained plans. During the collaborative decision-making process, consideration was given to phasing options including constructing and initiating commuter rail service in Phase 1 (implementation of the full commuter rail system would require most of the funding currently identified for Phase 1). It was established that the construction of the commuter rail would be included in later phases for the following reasons: 1) No funding has been identified for capital or operating expenses in the fiscally constrained plan. 2) The timing of implementation of RTD's Northwest Rail and North Metro corridors is currently uncertain, and may occur after year 2035.Completion of at least one of these corridors is needed to be able to provide a commuter rail connection to Denver. 3) The agency transit operator has not yet been identified for the commuter rail system. 4) Implementation of commuter rail would not address project purpose and need elements related to the need to improve safety and replace aging infrastructure on 1-25 and provide for the efficient movement of freight along 1-25,which were identified as high priority needs through the collaborative process. Use of identified funding for commuter rail would greatly limit the ability to begin addressing these other needs in Phase 1. CDOT will continue to pursue funding for future phases such that improvements can be implemented as soon as possible. CDOT will work with local and regional agencies in this pursuit,with the aim of ultimately completing the entire Preferred Alternative. B-4 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Chuck Erwin 8/20/11 In response to your comments regarding the need for Website As a frequent user of 1-25 north of Denver, I am appalled additional highway lanes,please see General Response#0 IN-001 at the congestion at all hours of the day.We need more —Need for Highway Improvements.The Preferred lanes. Not just one,but two in each direction. Alternative includes highway improvements,with a part of Additionally,plans must be made TODAY on alternate the highway improvements included in Phase1. north/south freeways east and west of 1-25.JUST say NO to the commuter rail line!!!You cannot solve The Purpose and Need for this study focused on the 1-25 congestion by expanding capacity for a non-congested highway corridor. During the EIS process,alternative mode.According to a recent newspaper article,funding highway alignments to the east and west were considered, is not available until 2075(1 will be 99 years old!!)Why as described in FEIS Section 2.3.2,however;it was waste well over a billion dollars on a mode less than 2% concluded that these alternative alignments did not divert use while the rest of us sit in traffic?!?Rail lines only sap sufficient traffic from 1-25 to relieve anticipated congestions. needed highway dollars from all of us how sit in traffic. This is highway robbery.Transportation is not about In response to your comments regarding commuter rail, modal options. It is about moving people from point A to please see General Response#0—Need for Modal B in preferred mode of travel.This means more lanes, Alternatives. and only lanes.Otherwise, I propose renaming 1-25 to PL-25(PL for parking lot)Until more lanes are added, myself and countless others will sit in traffic,wasting fuel as our cars belch out a toxic blend of fumes going nowhere. Public Steve Spaur 8/20/11 After receiving this comment,a CDOT Region 4 right-of-way Website We own a farm on the West side of the interstate specialist contacted you to discuss the right-of-way process. IN-002 between the Berthoud&Johnstown exit.We are very concerned about the expansion of 1-25.As of today we Property owners along the corridor can refer to the project have not been contacted by anyone from CDOT on how website for updates,and can contact CDOT Region 4 for this will impact our farm&lively-hood.We would very further information as the improvements proceed to final much like to be informed with specifics. design and implementation. Public Regina Quinn 08/22/2011 The Preferred Alternative indudes new express bus service Website Since it will take until 2075 to complete this project, along 1-25 that will provide service to downtown Denver and IN-003 consider this option IMMEDIATLEY: Provide a Sky Ride DIA.Initial implementation of this express bus service is bus service to DIA from the Northern included in Phase 1.The express bus service will serve Fort Longmont/Loveland/Fort Collins area to DIA.The Collins, Loveland and Longmont. nearest sky ride is at 120th&Wagon Road.At least 20 miles from Longmont,40 miles from Loveland,and over 50 miles from Fort Collins.We need some bus B-5 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. transportation from this part of town out to DIA.There is a big need for this. Public Mark Breimhorst 8/22/11 Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as Website Please make 1-25 six lanes to north of Fort Collins!! described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from IN-004 Needed it years ago... Wellington to Denver.The Preferred Alternative would expand 1-25 to include six general purpose lanes from Highway 66 to Highway 14.Also see General Response#0 —Funding and Phasing Issues-for rationale on the phasing decisions. CDOT will continue to pursue funding for future phases such that improvements can be implemented as soon as possible. CDOT will work with local and regional agencies in this pursuit,with the aim of ultimately completing the entire Preferred Alternative. Public Derek Fritz 8/24/11 Comment noted. Website When I use 1-25 the most pressing issue I see is the IN-005 need for more general purpose lanes from SH 66 The Preferred Alternative would expand 1-25 to indude six northward.The second most pressing issue is flow general purpose lanes to Highway 14 and indudes control.Try to get the accidents out of the roadway and infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS), open frontage road detours when needed.Congestion including electronic signage.The ITS plans indude ramp management begins with flow and is helped with meters at each of the interchanges,which provides proactive electronic signage.Ask those who push for mass transit control of vehicles onto the freeway.The congestion if they would actually use it themselves.The truthful management elements of the Preferred Alternative also answer will be no because everyone has a different include a courtesy patrol to reduce congestion resulting from destination-either before,during or after work/other. incidents. Smart design is to make more lanes.Thanks! In response to your comments regarding transit,please see General Response#0—Need for Modal Alternatives. Public Linda Bersch 8-26-11 Please see General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Website While I understand the need for additional lanes on 1-25, Issues-for rationale on the phasing decision. IN-006 I believe the public would be well served by establishing commuter rail to the Denver area on the existing BNSF lines as soon as possible. B-6 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Dennis Dobbs 8/30/2011 1.Comment noted. Website 1. It's good to see 6 general purpose lanes all the way IN-007 north to SH14. 2. It is true that the demand for the TELs varies between the peak and off peak periods however,our projections indicate 2. I don't know if I really like the HOT lane concept. It's that the lanes will be relatively well utilized even in the off probably more efficient to either have all lanes tolled or peak periods. all lanes free.The HOT lane is probably not the best use of expensive pavement.The HOT lanes are going to be In contrast,tolling all lanes would negatively impact freight empty during off-peak hours,just like in the ridiculous traffic,would notably increase traffic on parallel arterials and California HOV system.Just think,you could eliminate would likely be publicly controversial.Please see General congestion completely by using congestion pricing on all Response#0—Need for Highway Improvements-for more lanes. Maybe during low-volume hours the highway information on the benefits of TELs. would remain free,and you would only charge tolls during high-volume hours.Come on team,think outside 3.The decision to provide rail and bus elements together the box! was made to provide an integrated transportation system that serves the varied needs of the northern front range 3.The express bus looks like an efficient way to get communities and corridors.Commuter rail on the BNSF downtown or to the airport.Having commuter rail in corridor and express bus on 1-25 serve each corridor's addition to the express bus seems kind of redundant unique characteristics and travel markets. It should be noted (and a waste of money).Commuter rail is very however,that Phase 1 includes the Express Bus service as expensive,and pretty slow when put in a freight corridor. an early first phase. Maybe just try the express bus first. 4.The Purpose of the EIS is to address travel demand 4.There is one very large and obvious shortcoming in between the northern Colorado communities and the Denver the EIS:the number of general purpose lanes from metro area. It was acknowledged that the EIS would not US36 to 120th Avenue.The preferred alternative only completely address the travel needs within the Denver metro shows 6 general purpose lanes from US36 to 120th. area.As a result,CDOT has recently undertaken a separate That is woefully deficient! It is obvious to anybody who study along 1-25 between US 36 and SH 7 to provide a more drives this stretch that we are in serious need of 8 comprehensive improvement plan for that stretch of the general purpose lanes today,let alone in the future. corridor. Might as well just make it 8 general purpose lanes from US36 all the way to SH7,to account for future traffic 5.Comment noted. increases. But at an absolute minimum we need 8 general purpose lanes north to at least 120th.And it 6.The plan at 1-25 and US 34 is relatively complex and would be easy to do:the bridges have already been expensive,involving essentially a combination of two rebuilt to handle it,and there is plenty of right of way interchange plans.The proposed interchange improvements B-7 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. 5.The new interchange at SH7 looks nice,with the high address both regional traffic capacity and connectivity,while capacity partial doverleaf design.We should use this also addressing existing commercial access needs in the design more often on the state highway system. Maybe immediate vicinity of the interchange.The alternative even at 120th and 1-25. combination of interchange improvements identified in the comment do not meet 2035 capacity or level of service 6.The US34 interchange looks a little bit overbuilt,and requirements for the interchange operation,and do not very expensive. Maybe just keep the current partial completely address the long-term adjacent commerdal doverleaf,and add the North-to-West and the South-to- access needs identified above.While complex and East flyovers in the future if conditions warrant. expensive,the proposed interchange improvements at 1- 25/US 34 will be built in phases as funding is available and as necessary in terms of addressing the needs identified above. Public Jason Byrnes 9/4/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website It is disappointing to see that adding additional lanes to transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-008 1-25 are the first traffic mitigation techniques proposed in Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need the"North125FactSheet",as it has been demonstrated for Highway Improvements. that the addition of lanes increases congestion: http://bicycleuniverse.infoRranspo/roadbuilding- futility.html I can only assume that adding lanes to 1-25 will be the action taken first,and if the money dries up(if ever secured at all)this will be all that is done. I hope the committee takes a more informed approach to the priority list of traffic mitigation projects. Regardless,thank you for taking on this project,and I hope that you do not encourage more commuting from the Northern Colorado region into Denver,as this is damaging to all parties. Public Gaythia Weis Sept.4,2011 Comment noted. Website I believe that the North-I25 rail project is an excellent IN-009 project.Transportation alternatives are urgently needed In response to your comment regarding project timing, in this area. I believe that the United States is being very please refer to General Response#0—Funding and short-sighted,and will suffer greatly in the world Phasing Issues. economy in coming years,if we do not invest now in B-8 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. 21st century transportation. I am a small business partner whose software business depends on the ability of Colorado and our nation to keep abreast of cutting edge technology and to be competitive in the global economy. I believe that having a modern transportation system is a significant part of these efforts. I believe that it will have a huge positive economic impact in years to come, IF it is implemented.We must invest in our future. Public Marian Wemple 9/4/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I have health issues,and can no longer safely drive prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-010 between Fort Collins and Denver,but have many refer to General Comment#0—Funding and Cost Issues. reasons to need to make the trip. Please put rail service at the top of your front range corridor transportation plans.Thank you Public Lisa Bright Sept.2,2W1 In response to your comments regarding Website Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-011 EIS. I would like to see a higher priority placed on the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing commuter rail component of the plan. I think a concerted Issues. effort to fully fund the rail option and significantly shorten the timeline for establishing this transportation backbone is vital to our region. I would use/benefit from rail service to commute to work, connect with friends and family,and travel to the mountains every weekend. Public Cliff Clusin September 4,2W1 In response to your comments regarding Website I live in Longmont and travel to Fort Collins, Boulder and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-012 Denver several times a week. I strongly support rail as refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing my ideal form of transportation. It has worked well in Issues. other places I have lived such as Chicago,the San Francisco Peninsula and Japan. It works far better than bus service,and provides in the long run a much more energy efficient form of travel.This would benefit the B-9 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. economy of the northern front range in many ways. Running on the existing track would make more sense than going east to 125 for bus service,and then back west in to the towns again.I am 56 and would like to see this up and running within the next 10 years at the latest. Thank you Public Susan James 9/4/2010 In response to your comments regarding Website Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-013 EIS. I would like to see a higher priority placed on the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing commuter rail component of the plan. Let's catch up with Issues. the rest of the world!Commuter rail,please! Public Julie Lechtanski 9/5/2011 Comment noted. Website Please include Lite Rail in the 125 plans. It makes no IN-014 sense to continue paving farmland until we all starve. In response to your comments regarding highway Rail is convenient,economical,fun,and extends expansion,please refer to General Response#0—The independence and mobility for the older and the less Need for Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing affluent in our population. I would use it and so would Issues. everyone I know. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Sarah Myers 9/5/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-015 EIS. I would like to see a higher priority placed on the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing commuter rail component of the plan. I think a concerted Issues. effort to fully fund the rail option and significantly shorten the timeline for establishing this transportation backbone We acknowledge your observations and issues of concern. is vital to our region. Many of these are documented in the FEIS as benefits of the Preferred Alternative. Including: B-10 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. I would use/benefit from rail service to commute, Entertainment travel—FEIS Section 4.2.6. connect with friends,family,travel for entertainment, Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 and ease traffic congestion. I'm concerned about safety, Cost of fuel—FEIS Section 4.2.6. traveling during bad weather,the cost of fuel, Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 congestion,and air quality.Other states are placing Air quality—FEIS Section 3.5 emphasis on public transit and CO should be leading this initiative.The growing populations along the Front Range needs a better transit system for work,our economy,and for the future of our state. Please work diligently to bring this rail service to our region by 2025,not 2075. Public Ken Ward 5 Sept.2011 In response to your comments regarding Website We need to make commuter rail the#1 priority.The prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-016 longer we put it off,the harder it will be to do.The refer to General Response#0—The Need for Highway sooner we do it,the sooner we won't have to keep Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. building more lanes.We need to do commuter rail now. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input Public Suzanne Krueger- 09/05/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Koplin It is vital for Denver,and all the communities in the 1-25 prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-017 corridor to have alternative transportation options.We refer to General Response#0—The Need for Highway need a commuter rail component as our number one Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. priority.As the 1-25 grows larger,so does the traffic, noise,pollution,dependence on fossil fuels and safety issues.Our quality of life in the front range corridor decreases each year that the commuter rail system does not get funded or denied. Please work diligently to bring this rail service to our region by 2025,not 2075. Please listen to the voices of the people whom live,work and travel the front range. Public Ron Bright 9-7-2011 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website please place front range rail system at the top of the and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements, IN-018 list...why do we have to be second in line behind more please refer to General Response#0—The Need for lanes on 25 we want to be able to travel to Denver, Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. B-11 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. airport,and ski areas on trains that are so much more effcient...let's see this before I die!!!! Other projects address potential transit along 1-70 to recreational areas including the sla areas.CDOT is initiating an Advanced Guideway System feasibility study focused on rail service along the 1-70 mountain corridor.CDOT is also conducting Colorado Interregional Connectivity study examining rail service services that would include studying rail service to the 1-70 corridor. Public Robert Michael 6 Sep 2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website The Front Range DESPERATELY needs light rail Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-019 service between Fort Collins and Pueblo.I imagine a Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to German tourist visiting here and thinking what a Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology backward country this is because we don't have this than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail now. corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend south of Denver. The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not included in the FEIS. Other projects address potential transit along the Front Range.CDOT is conducting the Colorado Interregional Connectivity Study examining rail service interoperability. B-12 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Lisa West September 6,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I wish to take this opportunity to comment on the Final prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-020 EIS. I have longed for commuter rail between metro refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Denver and northern Colorado for many years,and Issues. would respectfully ask that you prioritize commuter rail traffic in your plans.As I am decidedly middle-age, I respectfully ask that you work to make commuter traffic available in the next two decades.As the Front Range becomes increasingly populated,we can't afford to wait any longer for commuter rail. I currently live in Fort Collins but grew up in Littleton. I have elderly parents still there and no longer wish for them to attempt to drive up 1-25 to visit.I also no longer wish to make the nightmare commute to Denver to visit them.Since the beginning of this year,I have not had one commute that was not marred by stop-and-go (mostly stop)traffic which extended the length of the commute by half an hour to forty-five minutes. During these trips I am surrounded by thousands of vehides idling their engines,spewing toxins into the air.Three B-13 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. times I have taken alternate routes,which are longer and which cause me to contribute more pollution to the planet. My husband and I no longer plan weekend trips to Denver for entertainment in the winter.The stress of driving on a crowded 1-25 in snowy or icy conditions overshadows the pleasure to be obtained from a concert,play,or dinner. Instead of contributing to the economic vitality of Denver,we stay home. When I was a child my grandmother would travel all the way from Montana to Denver to visit us every year.She always came by train. Now we can't even travel from Fort Collins to Denver on a train. Please reverse the short-sighted decision made years ago to discontinue passenger rail travel,by fast-tracking a plan for commuter rail in northern Colorado. It won't solve my transportation problems today,but hopefully it will solve my children's in the years to come. Public Chuck Erwin 09/06/2011 In response to your comments regarding transit Website Unless transit users pay the full cost of the service improvements,please see General Response#0—Need for IN-021 through fares, I am not for the transit(rail and bus) Modal Alternatives. "improvements"listed in the EIS.CDOT does not have the money.Too many priorities(Powers Freeway, 1-70 In response to your comments regarding congestion,safety in Mountains, 1-25 between Castle Rock and Colorado improvements and air quality,please see the following Springs,etc)to waste over a billion dollars on a mode sections of the FEIS- that carries 2%of trips in the Denver Metro Area.Transit Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 does nothing but sap needed highway funds. Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 Congestion on this corridor is awful! Not only does this Air quality—FEIS Section 3.5 waste time for hundreds of thousands of people every week,it also leads to serious accidents as traffic suddenly grinds to a halt. I personally witnessed two role-overs as drivers tried to avoid other cars that suddenly stopped due to congestion.One person had to be airlifted.The other accident resulted in a fatality. B-14 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Thus,wasting money on transit risks the safety of every motorist in Colorado as needed highway projects go unfunded.You cannot solve congestion by expanding capacity for a non-congested mode. Another thought: How will the increased congestion,and resulting pollution from vehicles sitting in traffic as needed highway projects go unfunded due to rail and transit projects impact the environment?I think this should be studied whenever a rail line is proposed. There is a small vocal minority that pushes transit over highways,but there is a large non-vocal majority who everyday choose to drive,even when there is a bus or train that goes right to their destination. Public John Lewis 09/7/2011 Continuous auxiliary lanes will be added in Phase 1 between Website 1-25 must be widened to 3 lanes north and south without SH 392 and SH 14 to alleviate as much of this congestion as IN-022 any toll stretches to north of Colorado State Highway 14 possible. Mulberry in PHASE 1. If this does not happen,traffic will be going 25 MPH from US Highway 34 to State Highway In response to your comments on toll lanes versus general 14 by 2035. purpose lanes,please refer to General Response#0—Need for Highway Improvements to understand why tolled express lanes are identified in the Preferred Alternative. Public Ingrid Bush 9/7/2011 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements, IN-023 EIS. I would like to see a higher priority placed on the please refer to General Response#0—The Need for commuter rail component of the plan. I think a concerted Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. effort to fully fund the rail option and significantly shorten the timeline for establishing this transportation backbone is vital to our region. We in Northern Colorado would benefit from rail services by being able to travel safely,efficiently and without the worry about who is going to be the designated driver. _.. Please work diligently to bring rail service to our region.. B-15 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. by 2025,not 2075 Public Susan Todd 9-8-2011 CDOT has been making safety improvements at this Website I would like you to fix the lack of a safe entrance to 125 interchange and will continue to as funds allow.The ultimate IN-024 (destination south 125)from HWY 34(heading West). configuration of this interchange as defined in the Preferred This is a very short access on 1 25,where trucks have Alternative will provide a design that meets current operation little time to get out of the way for the on-coming vehide. and safety standards. However,there is not sufficient The entrance from the West from HWY 34 cuts off the funding identified to construct the ultimate interchange entrance from the East of HWY 34(onto 125.). configuration identified in the Preferred Alternative during This is an accident waiting to happen. Everything else Phase 1. has been changed properly. Public Mark Cooper 09/09/11 Comment noted. Website Our family is very supportive of transportation IN-025 improvements along the 1-25 corridor. I commute daily to In regard to your assessment of the need for highway Greeley and often commute to Denver or to DIA. It is a improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need dreaded drive to Denver as two lanes of freeway cause for Highway Alternatives. However,there is also a need for major delays between Fort Collins and Longmont and 1 multi-modal improvements;please refer to General never know how early to leave to avoid traffic Response#0—Need for Modal Alternatives. challenges.The return home from Denver or Greeley in the evening can be just as daunting. In addition, 1-25 is Regarding your comments regarding prioritization/phasing of packed and slowed to a crawl nearly every evening on transportation improvements,please refer to General Southbound 1-25 approaching Hwy 34 either because of Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. an accident or large volume of traffic. If I have a scheduled evening business appointment, I am never We acknowledge your concern regarding land use. For more sure I can make it on time,even considering time for information,please see Section 3.1,Land Use of the FEIS. delays in traffic.I feel the environmental impact of NOT Future land plans include opportunities for new commercial widening the freeway is much greater in the long-term areas all along the 1-25 corridor. Improvements to 1-25 than widening the freeway. In talking with many friends, associated with the Preferred Alternative are compatible with the common theme is they would not ride a commuter these plans. rail as they would have no good way to get around Denver where they are employed or visiting unless it was a sporting event.(We love our cars)In addition,not widening 1-25 would cost Colorado jobs because when the economy improves in 6-8 years,new businesses and existing businesses may relocate to Colorado from other states.They may NOT relocate if 1-25 gridlock is a common problem.Some may move out of Northern B-16 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Colorado or the state if gridlock continues.We understand it takes hundreds of millions if not billions to widen I-25 from Longmont to Wellington.We hope there will be federal funds to get the job done. Public Gwen Cooper 9/9/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I would like to see a train/tram which runs from Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-026 Cheyenne to downtown Denver. It is time. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Other projects address potential transit along the Front Range.CDOT is conducting the Colorado Interregional Connectivity Study examining rail service interoperability. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to _. B-17 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Hugh McKean 09/10/2011 Incrementally making improvements to the transportation Website I have several problems with this plan,the gravest of system is necessary to address the acute safety concerns IN-027 which is the planned phasing of the improvements. If I and aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure and has am to understand the Phases they will consist of various been implemented since the inception of the highway stages of completion on different fronts.Phase 1 will system. Having a dear understanding of the overall include partial infrastructure improvements,securing transportation system provides a much more efficient way to railroad right-of-way and express bus service. Phase 2 invest in the infrastructure in a coherent way to providing the would add lanes to 1-25 and start commuter rail and most benefits over time.Funding is not currently available to Phase 3 would complete the extra lanes and tie the rail construct the entire Preferred Alternative. However, line into Fastracks and provide additional express bus implementation of the improvements identified in Phase 1 services.The challenge I have to this is the discrepancy will provide important transportation benefits to the region, between the projected cost of 2.14 Billion dollars and which justifies selection of Phase 1 in the ROD and the monies likely to be appropriated,688 Million.That is implementation of Phase 1 improvements prior to the more than a 60%difference in the money expected and availability of funding to construct the entire Preferred what would be required to build out all the Phases.What Alternative.Any infrastructure investments can be made that means to a driver of 1-25 and a taxpayer is that it is incrementally in light of the overall cohesive plan as funding very possibly,likely even,that monies would be spent allows. For further information,please refer to General on RR right-of-way or other transit options and deplete Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need the pool of available dollars so that we don't get more for Modal Alternatives. capacity on 1-25 ever,even at the late date of 2075.To pursue these pieces of a whole that is unattainable is malfeasance.The challenge I have for your response is that if the various options are not wholly completed, does this EIS have any merit?If the task was to reduce the congestion on 1-25,bringing with it increased safety and speed to destinations but the commuter rail cannot be afforded past securing the right-of-way,the extra lanes on 1-25 cannot be paid for even though the bridges have been replaced and if there is no way to provide the express bus services across the region but we have built the stops and transfer stations,then I would offer that if there is no funding for a multi-phased project the ROD must be withheld until all the phases can be completed.The discrepancy in funding for this project makes almost certain a colossal waste of B-18 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. taxpayer dollars while doing nothing to improve conditions on the region's most important Interstate highway. Public Gary Thomas 09/10/2011 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website The EIS should place more emphasis on alternate and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements, IN-028 modes(e.g.commuter rail and high speed rail)and less please refer to General Response#0—The Need for on adding automobile lanes to 1-25. Between the Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. growing traffic congestion,the rising cost of fuel,and the need to make meaningful changes to our carbon and In response to your comments regarding congestion,fuel ozone footprints,it is time for real leadership on mode cost,and air quality,please see the following sections of the changes.While the EIS does address alternative FEIS- modes,the phasing choices clearly indicate no real Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 support for passenger rail.CDOT has wisely organized Energy—FEIS Section 3.21 a new Transit and Rail Division to address the state's Air quality—FEIS Section 3.5 future needs,but then ignores that effort with this "business as usual"approach to more automobile traffic. In addition to the public hearing held in Larimer County at The Ranch,a Public Website was available for input of After as much time and cost that this project has comments.The EIS team heard concerns about the length required it is disappointing that there is not more public of time to comment,and responded by extending the time events in Larimer County and more time for comment on period for comments from 30 days to 45 days. this final phase. Public Kevin Lovett 9/12/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Address,City,Zip prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-029 3332 W. Prospect Rd refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Fort Collins,Colo.80526 Issues. Your E-Mail Address kb_mllovett@msn.com The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Comments Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North I would love to have a light rail system from Fort Collins Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to to Denver.The increased traffic on 1-25 is something I Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology would love to avoid. I grew up many years ago on the than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail Eastern seaboard and always used Amtrac trains from corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer New York-Washington D.C. I see how well Light Rail corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for works in Denver and it would be great to be able to have this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail it extended along the Front Range. transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this B-19 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Darrel Snyder 9/12/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-030 EIS.We applaud your efforts in bring about this refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing relatively comprehensive EIS and your Recommended Issues. Preferred Alternative Plan. Like many others in the Fort Collins area,We would like to see a very high priority The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) placed on the commuter rail component of the plan.I recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in think a concerted effort to fully fund the rail option and the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail significantly shorten the timeline for establishing this service considered by this study serves a different purpose transportation backbone is vital to our region. and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude Rail service along the front range is an obvious and long other potential rail services.Throughout the development of overdue step in dramatically improving our public the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in transportation system,reducing the growth of regional coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently vehicular traffic,and significantly reducing our regional initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed transportation energy foot-print,which will also help all rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is connected communities meet their near-term goals for preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide reducing their fossil-fuel energy footprint. guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to The recent extension of TransFort/Flex bus service to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Longmont has been most helpful,but we must still need to depend on expensive shuttle services for transport to We acknowledge your concern regarding energy;please see DIA.We'd love to have a more-or-less direct rail FEIS Section 3.21,Energy for discussion of energy use. connection to DIA,but would be happy to get there using a combination of conveniently scheduled train and connecting express bus service. The Preferred Alternative includes Express Bus service on 1-25 providing a regional service connecting northern Eventually,We'd love to see the front range rail system Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA. Initial extend service further south to Colorado Springs, implementation of the 1-25 Express Bus service in induded Pueblo,and Albuquerque,and north to Cheyenne,but in Phase 1. for the near term,making passenger rail service available between Fort Collins and Longmont, Boulder, and Denver is a critical and urgent first step.We look forward to the day when we can leave our car parked at home(or eliminate it altogether),and use convenient, B-20 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. cost-effective,and environmentally friendly public rail transit,at least in part,for all our front range travel needs. As retired senior citizens,we can't wait until 2075;we urge you to prioritize the rail portion of the plan and finance and implement it as soon as possible,hopefully before 2020 or 2025 at the latest. Public Becca Henry 09-13-2011 Comment noted. Website Commuter train!Commuter train! From Fort Collins to In response to your comments regarding IN-031 Denver! Please! prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Public Hollie Kopp 09/13/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I would like to see a higher priority placed on the prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-032 commuter rail component of your transportation plan. I refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing support any measures necessary to fully fund the rail Issues. option and significantly shorten the timeline for establishing this part of the plan. The Preferred Alternative includes Express Bus service on l- 25 providing a regional service connecting northern My family travels often to and from Fort Collins to Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA. Initial Denver and would enthusiastically support implementation of the 1-25 Express Bus service in induded a rail option.A few years back I was flabbergasted to in Phase 1. find that I could not find public transport to and from Denver. I was attempting to catch a flight out of DIA and had to go with a very pricey private option.Colorado is really behind other cities in this regard-its time we move into the 21st century! Please work diligently to bring this rail service to our region by 2025,not 2075. B-21 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Dana Bartlett 9/13/11 Comment noted. Website Having grown up in Fort Collins,and having my parents IN-033 still live there,I visit often.Currently living on the The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Southeast side of Denver,however,the commute is Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North extremely difficult at times. I am currently 8 1/2 months Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to pregnant with my first child and recently I had my baby Denver. shower up in Fort Collins.Unfortunately,due to traffic and construction it took me nearly 2 1/2 hours to get up there!!This is longer than the recommended amount of time to be sitting for someone at my stage of pregnancy (due to blood dot concerns)and I would have NEVER guessed it would take so long to get there. Having the option of some sort of public train,that would be able to bypass the accidents,construction,etc.would be absolutely phenomenal. I would certainly be a frequent user!! Public Linsey DeBell 9/13/2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website The preferred option should include commuter rail or expansion,please refer to General Response#0—The IN-034 express bus that connects all of the major front range Need for Highway Improvements and the Need for Modal towns: Fort Collins, Loveland,Greeley, Boulder, Denver Alternatives. and larger communities between these entities. Expanding the highway should only happen if it is done The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, in conjunction with offering a public transit alternative. express bus service and commuter bus service in Phase 1. Commuter rail would be included in later phases. Fort Collins, Loveland,Greeley, Denver and intervening communities would be served by the proposed bus and rail transit. Boulder could be reached through transit connections. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0 Funding and Phasing Issues. _. Public Seth Munson 9/13/11 Comment noted. Website Despite ballot initiatives passing in several Front Range IN-035 dties,package A on the EIS is the first effort I've seen to The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, B-22..... NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. move towards a rail system that would bring commuters express bus,commuter bus,and commuter rail. to/from Denver.Expanding lanes on 1-25 is a short-term solution that does not seriously consider the traffic, In response to your comments regarding highway noise,and pollution we will all be stuck with more of in expansion,please refer to General Response#0—The the immediate future. Please do not get rid of the plan Need for Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing for a commuter rail. I also appreciate and would use the Issues. commuter bus service on 1-85 to get from Greeley to Denver and the Plan B proposal to put an express bus from Greeley to Fort Collins. Public Matt Parker 09/13/11 In response to your comments regarding Website A rail connection between the communities along the prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-036 northern front range is critical to health of our state refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing economy. Please place a higher priority on funding rail Issues. connections. Rail transit should also accommodate bicydes as cargo to facilitate multi-modal transportation The commuter rail operations would likely have similar at destination locations.The ability to ride a bicycle to a bicycle accommodations to those currently used by RTD. train station,then travel via rail to Denver,etc.and still RTD currently allows four bicycles per vehide on its light rail have a personal transportation device(bicycle)would vehicles without any time restrictions. RTD has no detailed increase my willingness to travel outside of the Fort policies for bicydes on commuter rail vehicles but is Collins area,thereby spending additional funds.This expected to maintain at least the same accessibility as would also decrease my fuel use,vehicle miles traveled, currently exists on light rail vehicles and carbon emissions. Public Janice Bright 15 September 2011 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements, IN-037 EIS. I would like to see a MUCH higher priority placed please refer to General Response#0—The Need for on the commuter rail component of the plan. I think a Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. concerted effort to fully fund the rail option and significantly shorten the timeline for establishing this transportation backbone is vital to our region. Personally I would use from rail service to Denver to commute for shopping,sports events,other entertainment,and visiting friends.Currently I do little of this b/c 1 do not want to drive to Denver. Please consider giving rail service a higher priority. B-23 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Helen Bushnell September 15,2001 Comment noted. Website I find this plan difficult to comment on because it is IN-038 focuses on highways rather than people,and does not consider how those highways fit into the state's In response to your comments regarding transportation system as a whole. prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing I would like to see more rail service in Colorado. I would Issues. take a train from either Denver or Boulder to Fort Collins and maybe Loveland. I think that we could use bus In response to your comments regarding highway service to better conned the various communities of improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need northern Colorado. I also think that we could improve for Highway Improvements. the economy of those communities if we improve rail hauling service along the Front Range. The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, express bus service and commuter bus service in Phase 1. We do not need any more highway construction in Commuter rail would be included in later phases. Fort Colorado.We do not have the money to maintain the Collins, Loveland,Greeley, Denver and intervening system that we have. Instead we need to provide more communities would be served by the proposed bus and rail choices for people in way that is more economically transit. Boulder could be reached through transit efficient. connections. Note that CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Georgia Locker September 18,2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website I do not think that we can eliminate the congestion on l- improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-039 25 by building more lanes. If another lane is built I for Highway Improvements.The Preferred Alternative would believe that it must become a multiple occupancy lane add Tolled Express Lanes to 1-25 that will allow high- (3 or more passengers)and a public transport lane. In occupancy vehicles and would also provide express bus addition,we need to start building light rail transport on service. the present BNSF line,to conned northern Colorado, and high speed to connect northern Colorado to Denver. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Let's get people out of their cars as much as possible. Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail B-24 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Bonnie Adamson September 17,2011 Comment noted. Website I like the plans that CDOT has come up with. I would like IN-040 to see them implemented a lot sooner,especially the commuter rail part all the way to Fort Collins. In response to your comments regarding prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Wendy Harper 9/17/11 Comment noted. Website I want commuter trains not larger highways and IN-041 interstates In response to your comments regarding highway improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need for Highway Improvements. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Tammy McDonald 9/16/2011 Comment noted. Website This would be great. I definitely would not drive if I could IN-042 use this service. Public Pauletta Yauk 9/16/2011 Comment noted. Website Looking forward to this coming!We would use this IN-043 service. Public Barbara Brown 9/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please move light rail to Phase One of the 1-25 corridor prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-044 mass transit plan... 1-25 is not safe and not functional for refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing the traffic loads that exist Issues. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North B-25 _.. NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Stephanie Heacox 9/17/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I recently moved here from NYC,and I have to say that I prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-045 am somewhat disappointed at the availability of rail refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing transport. I would love to be able to commute,for Issues. example,from Ft.Collins to Boulder,where I work.The current schedule seems designed to serve my grandchildren,however. I would strongly encourage you to move plans for rail into Phase I-I would love to take advantage of rail transport here in my lifetime! _.. Public Rob Osborne 9/17/11 In response to your comments regarding Website The preferred alternative with passenger rail should prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-046 change the passenger rail time line to be completed in refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing phase one.There are many reasons to do this. I think Issues. the most important three reasons are population densities will more naturally occur if the rail is put in In response to your comments regarding safety,construction sooner,it will offer a safe travel option while 1-25 is phasing,and air quality,please see the following sections of under construction,it will reduce carbon emissions. the FEIS: Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 Construction Phasing—FEIS Section 3.23 Air Quality—FEIS Section 3.5 Public Gabrielle Dietrich 09/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I support the N 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-047 and its rail option and believe the implementation refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing timeline should be shortened to 2025. Issues. Public M McCarthy September 17,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please complete this rail as 1-25 is getting worse and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-048 worse,and many of us travel the Cheyenne/Denver refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing route often! Issues. B-26 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Public Joyce Wagner 09-17-2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please make the Commuter Rail Project a top priority as prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-049 funds become available to move forward on each refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing section of this transit system. I have used the Denver Issues. and San Diego commuter Rails and was very happy with their efficiency. I look forward to when it is available between Fort Collins and Denver. Keep up the good work! Public Rebecca Moriarty 9/17/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I would love to see the commuter rail through Loveland, prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-050 Longmont and Fort Collins implemented in the Phase 1 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing plan for the commuter rail. 125 is already so congested Issues. and so dangerous.We need more mass transit options in our area. Public John Flannery 09/17/2011 Comment noted. Website Trains would increase the efficiency,and ease the IN-051 traffic,of the 125 corridor,as well as help ease housing tensions in major and growing areas and connect communities. Public Crystal Bissett 09/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website This would be a fantastic thing if it could get done prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-052 sooner!SO much time,gas,and money to be saved! refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Katarah Udarro 09/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Yes-please make Phase 1 a priority and bring this need prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-053 into a reality now! refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing B-27 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Thank so much for all that you do. Issues. Public Zachary Newquist 09/17/2011 Comment noted. Website Rail development(from my perspective)would seem to IN-054 be more sustainable and supportive of intelligent resource usage Public Megan Ricks 9/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please do this by 2025!! prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-055 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Jolan von Plutzner 9/17/11 In response to your comments regarding Website We would very much like to have the rail put in earlier prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-056 than planned.Thanks refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Wayne Wagner 09/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I want to ride that train from here to Mexico before 2025. prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-057 They have 200 mph passenger trains in china refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Jim Danella 9/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Make it happen!! prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-058 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Bill Jenkins 09/17/11 In response to your comments regarding Website The priorities for any transportation projects/ prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-059 development should be as follows: refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Transportation is the first goal.This would include an extensive bus system,coordinated bicycle trail In response to your comments regarding highway system,and of course,any kind of light rail that runs improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need through the middle of front range cities.The cost not to for Highway Improvements. do this both financially,environmentally related,and health is not nearly to cost if we don't act soon. The Preferred Alternative includes bus transit and commuter rail.The commuter rail would serve from Fort Collins,along B-28 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Automobiles as a transportation mode is un-sustainable. the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of- We have the opportunity to create a healthy,efficient, line in Thornton,to Denver.Note that commuter rail is a and planet considerate way of lift in Northern Colorado different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can by focusing on public transportation. operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail Adding more lanes to I-25 is more about money for a was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to few groups of people and less about good transportation be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been planning. identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Please consider my suggestions and look forward to a new way of transportation development. Public David Fairbank 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Ft Collins should be a commuter train hub because it is prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-060 the main town in northern Colorado. Pushing the time refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing frame up would help with the economic growth of the Issues. whole region. The Preferred Alternative would extend commuter rail from the Metro Denver to Fort Collins,and would provide three commuter rail stations in Fort Collins—Downtown Fort Collins,Colorado State University and South Fort Collins Transit Center. Public Linda Bersch 9-18-11 In response to your comments regarding Website I want to see commuter rail in the phase 1 time frame! prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-061 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing I also know we need the express bus,however,there Issues. needs to be a different stop in Loveland rather than or in addition to Crossroads-that location is too hard to get Express bus service is a flexible mode that can easily to-use HWY 34 or 402 for a stop-it would be more accommodate new or different stations to serve future user friendly!! developments.The station near Crossroads Boulevard was identified through coordination with the City of Loveland;a station at SH 402 could be considered in the future. Public Callahan Jobe Sept 18,2011 Comment noted. Website I think that it would be a valuable thing to have a train IN-062 going across the front range.It would be a value to me Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as because it would give me an opportunity to travel described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from around the front range while saving gas and giving Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in many other people an opportunity to save gas. It would the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley, B-29 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. be beneficial in the near future.Thanks for your time. and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Public Jon French September 18,2011 Comment noted. Website I have reviewed the Phase I plans for the front range rail IN-063 EIS and I would like to voice my support for the installation of a Fort Collins to Denver commuter rail/bus. I personally would utilize the rail to access tourist attractions in Denver and access DIA. Public James Francis 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Commuter Rail Now!Not in 2075! prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-064 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Constance O'Brien 09/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Anyone who has driven back and forth to Denver or prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-065 Boulder knows that a mass transit train is not a luxury, refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing it's a necessity.The current CDOT plans are too far out. Issues. Construction and funding must begin now to ensure our economy and environment is protected. Public Daniel Stansbury 9/18/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website After fighting the traffic on sat getting from fort Collins to Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-066 Denver,the need for a high capacity fast moving train is Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to the ideal means for students and general public.After Denver. fighting traffic and three accidents on the way down to Denver last weekend the traffic problem will strongly change my position on wanting to get on the highway and go anywhere. Public Laniece Schleicher 9/17/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes express and commuter Website We here in the front range would love a better mode of bus services along the 1-25 and US 85 corridors, IN-067 travel between other communities along the front range respectively.The Preferred Alternative includes commuter and to Denver other than driving 125. Please consider rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track developing public transportation along the existing to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service railways rather than destroying green space. It would be continuing to Denver. amazing if this sustainable endeavor was sustainable in development as well as implementation Thank you _. _. B-30 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Rebecca Sorber 09/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website Please STOP expanding the highways.That promotes a improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-068 dying way of life.We cannot keep using and promoting for Highway Improvements. a non-sustainable ways to commute.Trains are the future and running them in a renewable way will be the In response to your comments regarding answer to ALL transportation needs.This NEEDS to prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please take place now not in some distant future.You are refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing ruining our and our children's future stop and think and Issues. I'm sure you will find the absurdity to expanding the highways before providing functional and sustainable transportation. Financially wise there are a growing number of people who cannot afford a car let alone the gas involved with running them.Think of your responsibility to THE PEOPLE. Public Alex Barnett 9/18/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I support commuter rail to Fort Collins as soon as prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-069 possible refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Scott Molinari 9-18-2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please bring commuter rail service to the hwy 287 prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-070 corridor&Fort Collins area sooner than 2055 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Patrick Molinri 09/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website We need rail transportation sooner rather than later, prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-071 please,let's make this a reality! refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Deborah Uhl 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please put the commuter trains in sooner than later prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-072 especially to DIA!!!! refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues.The Preferred Alternative would provide express bus service to DIA and would provide commuter rail service to DIA through a connection in Denver. Public Samuel Fox 9/17/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please prioritize and emphasize commuter rail on the prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please existing lines through downtown Longmont, Loveland refer to General Response#0 Funding and Phasing B-31 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. IN-073 and Fort Collins MUCH EARLIER than 2050/2075-This Issues. would be a huge boon to these communities and the overall quality of life along the Front Range NOW,rather than then.The overall plan looks great,it would be great to emphasize this commuter rail component over the other components,as communities in MN and NM have already done. Public Christina Gressianu 9-18-11 In response to your comments regarding Website I want trains to Denver, NOW!I moved here from NYC 3 prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-074 years ago and was shocked that we can't ride the train refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing lines that run all around. Issues. Public Sarah Gallup 9/18/11 In response to your comments regarding Website Please do whatever it takes to make rail sooner a higher prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-075 priority. It is more important than any of the other refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing modes. Please don't wait a decade or several to bring Issues. commuter rail to Fort Collins. I commute a couple times a month to Denver and I would take rail in a heartbeat if I could Public Vi Wickam 9/18/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I am in support of passenger rail service from Fort prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-076 Collins to Denver and Boulder from Fort Collins. I would refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing definitely make use of it whenever possible. Issues. Please implement this as soon as it is feasible. Public Robin MacDonald 9-18-11 In response to your comments regarding Website Please! Make the front range train a reality in my prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-077 lifetime.I came from a rail-friendly place and have fond refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing memories of taking the train into NYC. Being able to Issues. take a train from Fort Collins to Denver would be ideal. Too many people drive alone.There are too many people on 1-25.Taking a train to commute for work makes good sense.Taking a train for a day or evening out in Denver is an adventure and a green way to go. Hear our voices! Put this rail system as a priority.Fort Collins is a happening place too.Many people will want to come here via train. B-32 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Victoria Sandora 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website I think this rail will be a great opportunity for students and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements, IN-078 like me to get to Denver quickly,and efficiently.The please refer to General Response#0—The Need for sooner we can use it,like within the next several years, Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. the better. Public Mark Horowitz 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website We need this rail project now-the increase in real estate prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-079 assessments will pay for this system refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Driving 125 is awful,would rather take a train into Denver for cultural and other purposes Public Christine Christman 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website We need a train system NOW. Let's look at a plan for prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-080 completion in 2020 or 2025. If every major metropolitan refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing area in our country can do it,why can't Denver? Issues. Public Roy Christman 9/18/2011 Comment noted. Website I support the project for Front Range on Track,the rail IN-081 system from Fort Collins to Denver.We need to start addressing the long range impact of traffic. Please continue the work to address this important issue. Public Judith Goeke 9/18/11 In response to your comments regarding Website ASAP, Please!Our kids future depends on fewer fossil prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-082 fuels and more options. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Deborah Uhl 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please put the commuter trains in sooner than later prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-083 especially to DIA!!!! refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues.The Preferred Alternative would provide express bus service to DIA and would provide commuter rail service to DIA through a connection in Denver. Public Liz Gicharu 09/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I would love to experience the electric train in Fort prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-084 Collins much sooner than 2 decades refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. B-33 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. As described in the FEIS Section 2.2.4.5,Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail,diesel multiple units have been assumed for the commuter rail vehicle technology. However, as also noted in that section in recognition that vehide technologies are rapidly evolving,vehicle technologies will be reassessed prior to implementation of the Preferred Alternative commuter rail. Public Mnarlas Stotts 9/18/11 Comment noted. Website I live along the proposed track and the existing RR. I IN-085 want to use public transportation to head south or north. I find my neighbors wanting the same.We have little opposition in the area around Hwy 34 off of Garfield Avenue. Time to join the movement! Public Jennifer Kohler 9/18/2011 Comment noted. Website We want Public Transportation today!!! IN-086 In response to your comments regarding prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Gwyneth Robe 09/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Commuter Rail between Denver and Fort Collins or prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-087 even farther north is needed immediately,not in 65 refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing years.The energy being expended by folks that Issues. commute between these cities is happening now. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Public John Giordanengo 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I'll most likely be dead by the time your North 1-25 Final prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please B-34 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. IN-088 EIS proposal takes form enough for me to use the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing transit. For so many reasons,besides my own selfish Issues. interests,please bump up the schedule to complete a finished product by 2020. Nice ring to it,eh?I'll be happy to pay for it Public Richard Jones 9-18-11 In response to your comments regarding Website Yes!Passenger Rail on the Front Range-as soon as prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-089 possible. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Robin Mellifont 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I would use a passenger train service to Denver.We just prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-090 moved from central NJ which had regular service to refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing NYC and I just the trains frequently. Please consider Issues. implementing passenger rail service to Fort Collins sooner than later. Public Sidna Rachid 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I am a retired person and would go to Denver much prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-091 more often if an affordable way to get there was refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing available. I think this project is a win win for the Issues. economies all up and down the Front Range since it will make transportation much more pleasant.Who wants to travel at high speeds on crowded highways?Not me. Please get this project completed so that I can enjoy it during my lifetime. Public Jared Ross 9/18/11 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website I support the rail line plans. Rather than doing more of and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements, IN-092 the same,in expanding the highway system,those please refer to General Response#0—The Need for resources should go to making the plan for the rail line Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. happen sooner.Tomorrow is not soon enough to have this project finished! Public Gregory Levandoski 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization and Website I am very much in favor of rail transit along the Front phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to IN-093 Range and would recommend that its implementation be General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. a higher priority than lane expansions to 1-25. Lane expansion with a tiered system of access to express In response to your comments regarding highway lanes caters only to the upper financial dosses Rail improvements please refer to General Response#0 Need B-35 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. would be available to all,is more environmentally sound for Highway Improvements. Please note that bus transit is and takes advantage of existing infrastructure. Let's included in Phase 1.The Preferred Alternative includes grow smart or not at all. Tolled Express Lanes,which would be open to all drivers and free of charge to car pools and transit vehicles;only I am a vehicle owner and reside in Fort Collins,yet I single-occupant vehicles would pay the toll. only visit Denver when it's unavoidable due to the traffic and generally unsafe conditions on 1-25.We need more Regarding your comment about lanes catering to upper public education on safe driving speeds and safe inter- financial classes,please note that the Preferred Alternative car distances,not to mention the dangers of using indudes tolled express lanes as well as general purpose phones while driving. None of these are issues with rail. lanes on 1-25 and a robust network of transit improvements. Together,these improvements provide comprehensive travel alternatives for northern Colorado users. In addition,the tolled express lanes are not intended to serve upper financial dosses but instead encourage carpooling, vanpooling and transit use by ensuring travel time reliability on the lanes. Public William DeMarco 9/18/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website It is critical that we have mass transit from Fort Collins to prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-094 Denver soon.The current plan is inadequate. In an era refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing when oil is becoming increasingly more difficult to Issues. extract,we need to provide alternatives so that Colorado communities are able to stay connected and economically linked. Public Gerton Westerop 09/19/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website The best option would be to re-instate a rail connection Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-095 between Cheyenne and Denver,with stops at Fort Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Collins, Loveland, Longmont and Boulder,ending at the Denver. RTD center in Denver. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. B-36 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Garry Steen Sept 20,2011 Comment noted. Website I would commend the stewards of this massive and IN-096 complex project. I do have two major concerns: 1)the 1)In response to your comments regarding highway time line for the project is painfully slow and needs to be expansion and prioritization/phasing of transportation completed in less than half of the proposed schedule.I improvements,please refer to General Response#0-The recognize the funding is the major hurdle but given the Need for Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing multitude of elements involved and impacts anticipated, Issues. funding priorities need to be addressed immediately.2) Increased global demand for fossil fuels is expected to 2)While the global demand for fossil fuels is expected to rise substantially,resulting in higher prices and possibly increase,the effect on SOV travel is not clear. If fuel prices less congestion,making SOV travel more expensive rise,market forces in vehicle technology may respond, and the needs for greater transit&rail availability a resulting in a cost for personal travel that requires priority over additional roadway lanes. approximately the same general share of annual household income as today. The effect on mobility is therefore Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please unknown. However the Preferred Alternative indudes contact me if I can be of service in the future. commuter rail,express bus,and commuter bus that provide future travelers alternative mode options instead of private vehicles. Please refer to General Response#0,the Need for Modal Alternatives for more information. Public Steve Lynch 09/20/2011 Yes,the rail component has an economic impact.As Website Recommendations found in the North 1-25 Final EIS described in Section 3.3,Economic Conditions,the IN-097 issued on August 2011 suggest residents and economic benefits of the Preferred Alternative include businesses along the north 1-25 corridor would benefit potential for long term growth of the property tax base and greatly from the development of a new commuter rail revenues due to transit-oriented development(TOD);and system between Fort Collins and Longmont Colorado. the transit would expand business access and employment With a significant portion of the infrastructure already in opportunities. place,operation of a commuter rail system offers distinct environmental and economic advantages over As you suggest,development in the regional study area traditional regional highway travel. contributes to the need for transportation infrastructure improvements,as documented in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and According to 2010 U.S.Census Bureau data,population Need.Growth projections specific for the EIS regional study growth in Colorado is projected to increase 20 percent area indicate that the number of households is expected to by 2030,adding nearly an additional one million increase 74%between 2005 and 2035,to over 808,000. residents,and potentially,adding one million more automobiles to Colorado roads.These numbers provide While the implementation of commuter rail in the Preferred B-37 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. dear evidence that costly upgrades and additions to Alternative has many benefits as you dte,the Preferred existing roads and highways will be required over the Alternative also includes highway improvements.Please next 20 or so years. refer to General Response#0-Need for Highway Improvements. Bringing commuter rail to the Northern Colorado region in the near term would provide commuters with a safe In response to your comments regarding and efficient alternative to highway travel while prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please minimizing traffic congestion,vehide acddents and refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing injuries,increased highway construction and Issues. maintenance costs,and numerous environmental impacts assodated with automotive vehicle traffic. Likewise,the addition of a rail system would likely entice future business growth,and economic development to occur in proximity to the recommended rail transit station locations. Using a phased approach and securing funding in similar fashion to New Mexico's Rail Runner Express, creating a safe and reliable passenger rail system is well within Colorado's grasp.CDOT needs to include a contingency plan to develop a commuter rail system in Northern Colorado as part of its short-term transportation goals Public David Graham September 20,2011 Comment noted. Website I liked Package A and the Preferred Alternative. I want IN-098 to see Commuter rail up and down the North Front 1)It is recognized that rail offers a premium service relative Range. I am opposed to Package B. to bus service,and this is taken into account during development of the ridership projections. My reasoning: 2)In contrast to your observations,bus service can be well 1)Suburban Americans see riding by train as up-class. utilized in America. For example, RTD provides regional bus It is something they do in Europe.So you will get them service on US-36 that serves over 6,000 patrons per day. to use the train. 2)Suburban Americans see riding by bus as down- The purpose of the EIS is to address travel demand between dass. It is something they do in impoverished countries. the northern Colorado communities and the Denver metro Americans only right the bus if they have no other area,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need. alternative. Regarding your comment on rail,please refer to General B-38 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Response#0,the Need for Modal Alternatives. If the goal is to get cars off 1-25,it is my opinion that you must have a rail component. Public Andrea Schweitzer Sept 21,2011 Comment noted. Website I love the idea of having commuter rail and/or bus IN-099 service along the Front Range. I live in Fort Collins,and I would enjoy using this service to go to DIA,downtown Denver,and downtown Boulder. It would be easier and faster to visit the other cities,and make me more likely to attend cultural events. I would also use it for my small business,since I have colleagues in downtown Boulder and it would be easier and more productive to attend meetings there via public transportation.Thank you! Public Ada Mishler 9/21/2011 Comment noted. Website It would be wonderful to have an alternative to cars for IN-100 getting to Denver,especially for people who can't afford cars. Public JP McLaughlin 09/21/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website While I find the thought of commuter rail between prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-101 Denver and Fort Collins to be attractive,the timeline is refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing totally inadequate.The report fails to address the Issues. environmental impact of waiting until 2035 to begin running trains and the continued pollution from ongoing In response to your comments regarding highway investments to increase the capacity of highways. I do improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need not believe that gasoline will be affordable long enough for Highway Improvements. into the future to pay back these massive investments in highways.Stop investing in highways and accelerate the investment in rail.Failing to do so will jeopardize our competitiveness as the cost of fuel skyrockets in the future. Public Carol Ruxh 9-22-11 Comment noted. Website I appreciate all of the work and effort that has gone into IN-102 developing this plan.Considering the financial restrictions, I think it is a good idea to move ahead with a Phase 1 stage and then progress as more money is available in the future It is important to me and many of B-39 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. my friends that steps be taken to assure that we have mass transit available up and down the front range, especially commuter rail. Right now,that means buying right-of-ways so that they are available as the project goes forward Public Amy Anderson 9/22/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please move passenger rail project to the north sooner prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-103 rather than later. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Barbara Liebler 9-23-2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please make light rail from Fort Collins to Denver a high prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-104 priority in your plan for North 1-25. It will relieve some refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing congestion on 1-25 as well as reduce the air pollution Issues. generated by cars in the area. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Pat Nagy 9/23/11 While one of the identified elements of purpose and need is Website 1-25 is one of the most dangerous roads in America. the need to improve safety on 1-25,there are many other IN-105 What you are considering for the North is important and highways in the nation with worse safety statistics. necessary. Please also consider lowering the speed limit as the amount of cars on the road is too much for The 75 mile per hour speed limit reflects the facility type and the 75mph.Also consider making trucks stay in one lane its design speed. Note that the prevailing average speed of and one lane only. 85th percentile of the drivers dictates the posted speed limit. Thank you. Lowering the speed limit would correspondingly reduce the capacity per lane. For this reason,it would require more infrastructure to achieve the same improvement in mobility. B-40 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Restricting trucks was not considered as a specific option during the development of the alternatives,but similar alternatives were evaluated,induding truck-only lanes and dimbing lanes.These were eliminated due to relatively low demand for these lane types. In the future CDOT could consider restricting trucks to one lane as a congestion management strategy. Public Alan Apt 9/23/11 In response to your comments regarding highway Website Passenger rail or light rail,or rapid bus service should improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-106 be emphasized,not widening 1-25.The majority of for Highway Improvements. people commenting at forums have suggested this for several years. The Preferred Alternative indudes new express bus and commuter bus services on the 1-25 and US 85 corridors, respectively.This alternative also indudes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail.Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Jeanne Bolton 9-23-11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website The front range from Ft.Collins to Longmont would Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-107 benefit from the availability of Passenger Rail on the Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to BNSF existing rail line now. Please give this option your Denver. consideration.This phasing would speed up the implementation of rail service from Ft.Collins to Denver. In response to your comments regarding The rail service in Denver has been hugely successful prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please by small piece phasing.Rail service for passengers all refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing along the front range Ft.Collins to Colorado Springs Issues. needs to happen before 2025. I am concerned about safety and fuel consumption. Thank you for this comment opportunity. B-41 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public John Long 9/23/11 In response to your comments regarding Website Please move the timeline forward so a light rail service prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-108 between Fort Collins and Denver can become a reality refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing in our lifetimes! Putting this project as a priority will save Issues. millions in avoiding 1-25 expansions.These expansions are NOT NEEDED if a light rail service was available. In response to your comments regarding highway Please think of the future budgets and spend money improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need now,in order to save much more money later.Thank for Highway Improvements. you! The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Melynda Scharf September 23,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I believe this would improve property values in Fort prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-109 Collins,and other communities on the rail line,which refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing would create a series of positive economic impacts for Issues. the front range. Let's make this happens sooner than 2075. Public Elyse Miller 9/23/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website The passenger rail development should be given higher prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-110 priority than the highway lane additions.The rail system refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing will provide an alternative for many people,lessening Issues. traffic on 1-25. Please consider putting the rail system in as soon as possible. In response to your comments regarding highway improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need for Highway Improvements. Public Jim Cox 9/23/11 In response to your comments regarding Website The rail line from Ft.Collins to Denver needs to be built prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please B-42 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. IN-111 NOW,not in 2075. Let's do the right thing and get it refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing going ASAP.Thanks a lot. Issues. Public Nancy Ostheimer September 24,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please bring us light rail as soon as possible--it will be prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-112 used by a lot of people. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Debbie Dixon 9/25/11 In response to your comments regarding Website The passenger rail service between Fort Collins to prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-113 Denver is a project which should be done as soon as refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing possible.This would save wear&tear on 1-25,reduce Issues. traffic problems,and provide a safer,cleaner mode of transportation between the cities. Public Matt Tillson 9/25/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website We need rail travel along the northern front range prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-114 sooner than 2075!This is an investment that would refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing improve Colorado in many ways,the economy and Issues. quality of life being foremost among them. I think 2020, if not 2015,is a realistic and acceptable time frame for rail travel between Fort Collins, Denver and possibly Colorado Springs. Look at New Mexico:the Rail Runner train runs from Santa Fe to Albuquerque and surrounding areas,and is used heavily by the people of New Mexico.We are far behind our compatriots to the south in this respect.Thanks and let's build a better future for Colorado! Public I Hiro Gosden 9/25/2011 In response to your comments regarding B-43 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Website "In CDOT's plan,the passenger rail component will not prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-115 be completed until 2075.I would like to see this happen refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing sooner. I have lived in Fort Collins 16 years and travel to Issues. Denver often.In most instances somewhere on route, improvements or maintenance projects are under way creating bottlenecks,time delays,and often driving hazards. Public Terra Smith 9/25/11 In response to your comments regarding Website Reliable public transportation is crucial for Colorado and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-116 should be a top priority of the state. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Dolores Williams 9/25/11 In response to your comments regarding Website We need to get rail service along the front range now. prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-117 How come the Chinese and others on the East Coast refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing can have rapid rail and all we can get is another lane or Issues. two on I-25?Sure we can get the wars and the Empire finished and build decent infrastructure in the USA with The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort our money. NOW.and put our people back to work! Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Public Nate White 9/25/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I support the passenger rail component of the Preferred prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-118 Alternative Plan for the North 1-25 EIS. I want to see refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing passenger rail serve northern Colorado sooner rather Issues. than later.2075 is WAY too long to wait for passenger rail service in the rapidly urbanizing northern Front Range area.Additionally,passenger rail on existing tracks routed through historic city centers will be less expensive to build,and more beneficial to local economies. Finally,passenger rail holds the greatest promise to move lots of people while generating little emissions relative to other mass transportation options. I found the"Energy Efficiency and Environmental Benefits"fad sheet on Amtrak's website to be helpful in explaining the emissions impact of various mass B-44 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. transportation options. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page& pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1246042626782&cid=124 6042626782 It is clear that passenger rail is the least carbon intensive option,and should thus be prioritized. I will keep close tabs on the outcome of the 1-25 EIS,so please keep mine,and others'comments supporting passenger rail in mind when making the final decision about the best way to proceed.Thank you. Public Corey Everts 9/25/11 In response to your comments regarding Website We need rail and bus Service up and down the front prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-119 range,preferably in this lifetime!!! refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal Alternatives. Public David Weinzimmer 9/25/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I strongly support commuter rail in the North Front prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-120 Range to be completed by 2025.I have lived in another refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing community previously where I could commute by rail, Issues. and I believe it greatly enhanced my quality of life.This is a great idea.Thank you for considering my views. Public Durl Jones 9/25/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I was just in Portland,OR and road the train from the Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-121 Airport to downtown. I thought-Why can a light rail work Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to in Portland but not the front range of Colorado?Please Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology take a harder look at connecting the cities in Colorado than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail by rail. corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail B-45 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Jonas Feinstein 9/25/2011 Comment noted. Website I have been commuting to Denver from Fort Collins,for IN-122 5 years. Prior to that, I was commuting to Laramie WY The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort for one year,and at the end of the day,I have(or at Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North least I hope I have)seen all manner of accident's, Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to weather,good neighborly driving,and easily the biggest Denver. collection of brain dead,automaton or aggressive poor driving,that gives me pause as to why I drive that Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as stretch of road,at the end of the day it's necessity. described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of That being said, I have had the good fortune to witness Wellington.The transit improvements included in the beautiful sunrises,collaborate with peers in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and commute,solving significant problems,and catch-up extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services with work on the way to work. further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. And that is the significant and crucial point to be made here,the value of high density public transit such as the In response to your comments regarding threatened and northern Front Range commuter train is so imperative,it endangered species,historic landmarks,congestion,safety, will become increasingly more(if not impossible)to and air quality,please see the following sections of the develop a project,that is not dissimilar to the Road FEIS- Runner in New Mexico,or the Front Runner in Utah, Threatened Endangered&State Sensitive Species- they present a solution to the mass transit conundrum FEIS Section 3.13 that more and more people will undoubtedly face,as Historic Preservation-FEIS Section 3.15 displaced workers,rapidly changing economic Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 B-46 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. conditions,and real estate scenarios currently,and will Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 continue to play out.Affordable,reliable,and safe mass Air Quality—FEIS Section 3.5 transit is what is Colorado lacks. The environmental and social considerations,for critical habitats,threatened and endangered species,and historic agricultural landscapes are at risk,those are and ought to not be impacted in a significant way for the benefit of mass transit.Those are not mutually exclusive endeavors,and in fact, I would argue that fewer vehicles on the road,fewer accidents,emissions,will create perhaps short term impacts that will be mitigating potentially larger and more detrimental impacts as a result of maintaining the current strategy for commerce and travel on interstates,highways,and side roads. I hope that the EIS selects an alternative that includes a commuter train service from Fort Collins to Denver,and communities beyond as it is deemed necessary. Public Erick Johnson 9/25/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Light Rail is a perfect solution for the overloaded Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-123 corridor of 1-25.This will save on energy and become a Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to safe and comfortable way of travel.This is long overdue, Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology let's catch up with the rest of the nation and world.We than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail will take full advantage of it when it becomes a reality. corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for What about a speed train that would parallel the foothills this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail of the Rockies from Wyoming to New Mexico?THINK transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this BOLD! corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and B-47 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Sivea Key September 25,2011 Comment noted. Website Mass transit is extremely important to Colorado because IN-124 it reduces air,water,noise and light pollution caused by excessive private vehicle use:clean air and water mean a healthier human and wildlife population which translates into money saved and lives improved for generations Public Kristen Colley 9/26/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I would really like a more reliable and stress-free way to prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-125 get to Denver before 2075. I would really like the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing commuter rail to be induded in the phase one Issues. development plan.Thank you! Public Paul West 9/26/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I have been unemployed since the beginning of 2010. improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-126 My search for employment has turned up many possible Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal opportunities in the Denver metropolitan area. However, Alternatives. the horrendous automobile commuting conditions B-48 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. preclude such opportunities unless my family is willing to give up our home in Fort Collins.Fort Collins needs to be connected by rail to Colorado's capital. It is time to broaden transportation to include modes other than just the automobile. It is important that a rail link between northern Colorado and Denver be established quickly. Public Dave Dennis 09/26/11 In response to your comments regarding Website I would like to express my support for accelerating the prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-127 plan to complete light rail to Fort Collins prior to the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing current 2075 projected date. Issues. Northern Colorado residents need a reliable,rapid,and The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort environmentally sound alternative for traveling to Denver Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North and the transportation hubs that it serves in the near Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to term. Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail Thank you for the opportunity to offer an opinion. corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Ken Bennett September 26,2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website I strongly support a commuter rail system in northern improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-128 Colorado to at least the Denver-Metro region.Simply for Highway Improvements. adding more lanes does not solve transportation efficiency,safety or financial issues. In the long run, commuter rail systems are more cost effective, convenient,cleaner and safer. Public Earl Sethre 9-26-2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website Please address the problems we are having with travel improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-129 on 1-25 to northern Colorado. It is a nightmare and very for Highway Improvements. dangerous to drive 1-25 at this time.Also please consider light rail to train service to DIA and to The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort downtown Denver.This is the best solution,although Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North the most expensive one. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to B-49 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Good luck and we appreciate any efforts that will help Denver and connecting service to DIA. Note that commuter make our travel safe and without delays. rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Patricia Fossen September 26,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I would so like to be able to travel to Denver to shop and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-130 see museums,etc.without having to worry about traffic refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing and weather. I would shop more and thereby help the Issues. economy more if I had that option. I would like it to occur in my lifetime----before 2075! Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the Final EIS,including Entertainment travel—see FEIS Section 4.2.6. Public Nancy York September 26,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website The Preferred Alternative needs to speed up prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-131 implementation of public transportation between refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Northern Colorado to Denver.Commuter rail service Issues. needs to be the highest priority.Waiting 75 plus years is foolish. We understand your desire in having a greater discussion on financing strategies(Including the gas tax)to implement *Increase gasoline tax to pay for improvements. transportation improvements. Even though financing *Highway congestion results in more crashes,injuries, strategies were not evaluated as part of this study,it does and deaths. not limit pursuing alternative financing strategies.CDOT or *Currently travel along 125 is marked by stop and go another entity such as the High Performance Transportation and is very dangerous. Enterprise or local agencies can propose financing *As one thing leads to another,public transit,car strategies that could be considered. sharing,and other innovations will follow in the affected communities to compliment commuter rail. In response to your comments regarding congestion,safety improvements and phasing,please see the following sections of the FEIS: Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 B-50 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Phasing—FEIS Chapter 8.0 Public Shane Miller 09/26/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Rail scheduled completion date from Denver to Fort prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-132 Collins needs to be accelerated. It should be a higher refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing priority than lane expansion on 1-25. Issues. Public Scott Mason 09/26/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website We need to accelerate the building of a commuter train prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-133 along the North 1-25 corridor.We are foolish to continue refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing to delay the inevitable transition away from the single Issues. occupant vehicle.Several global forces are coinciding to make oil-based transportation unaffordable and irresponsible. Please move up the commuter train implementation along the North 1-25 corridor by several decades. My children and grandchildren will appreciate it. Public Brie Hawley 9/26/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I moved to Fort Collins from Washington D.C.Around improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-134 the D.C.metro area, I observed how the overburdened Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Highway highway system cost citizens hours of time,spent in Improvements. idling traffic.Too often,the highways'cost was weighed in terms of lives lost or maimed in motor vehicle In response to your comments regarding congestion,safety, accidents.As someone who studies the effects of air and air quality improvements,please see the following pollutants upon human health, I also view highways as a sections of the FEIS: place where humans face daily exposures to pollutants Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 that are known to increase morbidity and mortality. Now Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 is the time,while we still have ample land space along Air Quality—FEIS Section 3.5 the 1-25 corridor,to implement a passenger-rail system from Fort Collins to Denver.A passenger-rail system would spare Coloradoans from the increasingly expensive fuel prices,thereby affording them an opportunity to spend their capital within the local economy. Further,a rail-system would improve the lives and health of Coloradoans by sparing them from exposure to cancer causing air pollutants,as well as sparing them from death in a motor-vehicle accident. B-51 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. We cannot afford to wait until 2075 for a passenger-rail system to be implemented. Public Lynn Alldrin 09/26/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website 2075 is WAY too long.There are creative answers to prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-135 Colorado's Front Range transportation issues(which refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing intersect with our climate change problems big time). Issues. Kicking the can down the road does not really address the economy,the environment,future costs of In response to your comments regarding economics, construction,and all the other etceteras. environmental impacts and costs,please see Chapter 3.0, Environmental Consequences and Chapter 6.0,Financial There are already successful models for regional rail in Analysis of the FEIS. our larger region. Please build on those models. How much extra pollution,additional related health costs, loss of positive community development and other negative factors must we contend with between now and 2075?Counting down:64 years,63,63,61,60. . . . Public Claudia DeMarco 9/26/2011 In response to your comments regarding Website I think it is imperative that passenger rail being prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-136 implemented as soon as possible.The price of gasoline refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing is going to continue to go up and families are going to Issues. find it harder and harder to make ends meet and transportation takes a huge bite out of everyone's We acknowledge your concern regarding air quality;please budgets. I have traveled in other cities and countries see FEIS Section 3.5,Air Quality for discussion of air quality. and have experienced the convenience of getting on a train where I could read,meet new people and arrive refreshed rather than beaten up from battling the traffic. Another consideration is the effect all the traffic on 1-25 has on our air quality. _.. _.. Public Vicky Hansen 26 Sept 2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website It does not make sense to me to spend money to widen improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-137 1-25 when a train could get riders out of their cars- for Highway Improvements. especially if 1-25 continued to be packed.Widening just encourages more cars,which is the opposite of the In response to your comments regarding desired trend.Your current timeline will finally put the prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please train in after I have moved to a nursing home(if I am refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing _.. around at all)instead of allowing me to have a _.. Issues._ B-52 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. comfortable and speedy commute to the many jobs available down south. Public Earl Larsen Sept 26,2011 Comment noted. Website I support the idea of passenger rail being extended to Ft IN-138 Collins.Just look at the highly successful commuter rail around Chicago as justification for the same kind of service between Denver and Ft Collins.Thank You!!! Public Ernie Dupuis 9/27/2011 Comment noted. In response to your comments regarding Website I love the idea of passenger service between Fort prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-139 Collins and Denver!! Bus service is a great idea,but the refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing passenger rail system rocks,we need to move on that Issues. idea right away. If I had any say, I'd go from Cheyenne to Pueblo with a rail system.This weekend, I traveled Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as from Denver to Grand Junction by rail,great way to described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from travel. I would come to Denver much more often if we Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of had rail,as I don't like driving down 1-25,too much traffic Wellington.The transit improvements included in the and too many crazy drivers.Thanks for listening!! Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-53 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public David Little 09/27/2011 Comment noted. Website Mass transit works and is the most environmentally IN-140 sound option to our future. Please look at Europe as an example their Mass transit has worked for decades. I totally support this endeavor. Public Lori Nitzel 09/27/11 In response to your comments regarding Website High speed rail along the Front Range is a necessity prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-141 within the next 20 years to lower congestion,shorten refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing travel times and reduce pollution. Please make it a Issues. reality! The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to _.. _.. support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Dan Gould September 27,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website 1. Please prioritize the express bus and commuter rail prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-142 components so that Northern Colorado residents can refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing have these services as soon as possible.Costs of Issues. driving single occupant vehicles will be rising quickly and public transit demand will need to be met. In response to your comments regarding transportation 2. Regarding the commuter rail link between Loveland improvements,please refer to General Response#0— and Fort Collins planned for phase 3; Please make this Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal B-54 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. part of phase 2. Fort Collins will be the generator of Alternatives. many trips,and it doesn't make sense to push that connection out so far into phase 3.Thanks for your work on this important plan. Public Irma Woollen 09282011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Rail transportation would be a great and much-needed Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-143 form of getting to/from Denver and/or the towns in- Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to between. I would be able to attend the ballet,the state Denver. congressional meetings/discussions of issues of utmost importance to communities in the Denver outlying areas. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as Seniors don't particularly like to drive 1-25 or even drive described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from but would certainly take a day or overnight trip to Denver Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of if Rail Transportation were available. Driving on 1-25 is Wellington.The transit improvements included in the very stressful,particularly in the winter time,which is the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and time for a lot of sports events and concerts,etc. extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services Please consider this serious request in favor of further north or south would not be preduded by the proceeding with Rail Transportation from either Northern Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Colorado/Cheyenne,Wyoming to Denver/Colorado Springs/Pueblo. Public Richard Thomas 9-27-11 In response to your comments regarding highway expansion Website My experience relates highway congestion to vehicle and transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-144 accidents and trucks in the left lanes.Additional lanes Response#0—The Need for Highway Improvements and have been tried in California and they do not reduce Funding and Phasing Issues. congestion.Trucks,buses,and cars contribute to air pollution.We need rail service NOW to reduce the In response to your comments regarding congestion, number of cars and buses on the highways,and to energy,and air quality improvements,please see the reduce greenhouse gases. following sections of the FEIS: Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 Why keep doing the same thing?Widening the roads Energy—FEIS Section 3.21 only leads to more congestion.Oil and Gas industries Air Quality—FEIS Section 3.5 are spending a lot to lobby for more car lanes.We need rail mass transit ASAP. Public Jasmun Hendrick 9/28/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Please move the rail component of the 1-25 improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-145 transportation improvement project to Phase I. Having a Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Highway reliable mode of transportation that doesn't require Improvements. B-55 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. adding more cars to the highway would be such a good thing for this area.There are many people in this area (myself included)that dread making the drive up and down the 1-25 corridor.Whether it is because of traffic or weather or just not wanting to spend that much time dealing with road rage,there are numerous reasons why I limit my Denver trips to once every couple of months. Having a train that runs to Denver would not only encourage more FTC residents to make the trip down, but also Denver residents to make the trip up. Public Elizabeth Elliott September 28,2011 In response to your comments regarding Website Please consider a rail system at a sooner date. Perhaps prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-146 the Denver Symphony would not be in such trouble if refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing one were available.I used to attend all arts venues in Issues. Denver but have become thwarted by the congestion on 1-25. Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS Section 4.2.6. Public Jan Peterson 9-28-2011 In response to your comments regarding Website You need to place a higher priority on enabling prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-147 passenger rail service along the 1-25 corridor. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Development will continue to happen along the edge of Issues. the Rocky Mountains,in a N-S linear fashion that is a perfect fit for effident passenger rail service.Coupled The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) with light-rail and/or bus feeder lines in E-W directions, recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in this would be the single most effident transportation the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail development possible. It should be implemented service considered by this study serves a different purpose immediately! and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed B-56 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Scott Mason 09/29/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I have commented on 09/28/2011 that I wanted to see improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-148 the commuter rail project along the 1-25 Corridor moved Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Highway up in the plan by several decades. Improvements. I would like to correct myself to request the commuter rail project along the US-287 corridor(as described in the Final EIS)be moved up in the schedule.Continuing our dependence on individual vehicles on 1-25 for the next 60 years is neither realistic nor responsible Public Mary Davis September 30,2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Would love to see commuter rail from Fort Collins to Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-149 Denver and DIA! Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver and connecting service to DIA.Service to DIA would also be provided by the express bus. Public Tracy Hoff 09/30/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Please consider the Commuter Rail service from Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-150 northern Colorado to Denver. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Public David Roy 09/30/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Thank you for this opportunity to weigh in.Colorado Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-151 must take advantage of rail to make travel more Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to efficient,less costly,and sustainable for its citizens. My Denver. preference for rail is core to core,going through the communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud,and Longmont,on into Denver.This route ensures that our already built communities stay vibrant,and,with the opportunity to connect to each other on a human scale, present new opportunities to re-invent themselves that we can't even imagine. Let's take care of what we've built,and have already invested in,while creating new opportunities for mobility,environmental protection and _. B-57 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. wealth creation. Public Nancy Kubik 9/30/2011 Comment noted. Website In addition to the documented benefits to NoCo IN-152 communities,a commuter rail would increase the Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented number of trips and amount of consumer$my family in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS spends in Denver. But most important is the Section 4.2.6. preservation of agricultural lands in NoCo. Public Greg Ward September 30,2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I am writing in support of the front range rail project. Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-153 Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to A rail system running from Ft Collins to Denver would Denver. increase the traffic not only to Denver businesses,but also to the Fort Collins establishments.The increased In response to your comments regarding economics,please traffic would swivel additional sales tax revenue up and see Section 3.3,Economic Conditions of the FEIS.Many of down the Front Range. the benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the FEIS,including: Entertainment travel—FEIS Section 4.2.6. Adjacency to a transit station,in particular a rail station, serves as an economic boost to that immediate area.This relationship is described in the FEIS in Section 3.3.2.2 and Section 3.3.2.3. Public Joyce Caufman 9/30/2011 Comment noted. Website I go to 20-25 Colorado Rockies games per year and a IN-154 few CU football and basketball games per year.As I get Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented older, I find the drive more and more difficult. It would be in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS pure heaven to be able to get on the train for these trips. Section 4.2.6. I hope I live long enough to see this project come to fruition. 1-25 is a nightmare at many times of the day. Don't wait! In response to your comments regarding the timing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0 Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Joel Heyman 10/1/2011 Comment noted. Website Bring Colorado into the 21st Century!Good economic IN-155 planning,great social benefit. B-58..._ _. NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Judy Solano 10/1/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Northern Adams County along 1-25 from 120th south to improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-156 the 1-76/270/US 36 junction is one of the most Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Highway congestion stretches of highways in Colorado.Thornton, Improvements. Westminster, Broomfield and Brighton are some of the fastest growing communities. Please build the north light The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort rail line soon. Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Clare Nordstrom 10/01/2011 Comment noted. Website Yes,I would like very much to have a rail option for IN-157 travel along the 1-25 corridor Public Deanna Ball 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I love this rail program;I only wish it could come sooner transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-158 than 2035. It seems to me it would save a lot of cars on Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. 1-25 and less stressful workers and what a great way to get to Denver. Public Craig Stoner 10 01 11 Comment noted. Website Rapid Mass Transit is badly needed in Northern IN-159 Colorado and actually in most major cities in the USA. We have to find a more efficient way of transporting people across America and to and from their jobs _.... Public Linda Hughey 10/01/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I support the Preferred Alternative. I support a improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-160 comprehensive solution that includes rail from Northern Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal Colorado to Downtown Denver and DIA as soon as Alternatives. possible;by 2025. Northern Colorado needs multiple solutions to travel to and from Denver and DIA.A The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort B-59 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. transportation solution is key to economic and tourist Collins to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with development of all communities headed to and in service continuing to Denver and connecting service to DIA. Northern Colorado. In response to your comments regarding economics,please see Section 3.3,Economic Conditions of the FEIS.Many of the benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the FEIS,including: Entertainment travel—FEIS Section 4.2.6. Public Jacqueline Clark 10/1/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I travel to Denver via car at least once every 4 days.We improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-161 are in dire need of an alternative to sitting on 1-25. I Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal totally support a rail system between Fort Collins and Alternatives. Denver,and wish it could be extended farther south than that. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Public Amy White 10-01-2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I support light rail in Northern Colorado,for all the transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-162 obvious reasons,by 2025.We don't have time to wait Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. until 2075. I go to Denver frequently and I would love to take light rail.Thank you. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public I James I Watson 10/1/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation B-60 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Website Finally!Move on it all,especially the rail! improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-163 Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal I am tired of literally taking my life in my hands in the Alternatives. North 1-25 corridor every time I go down to Denver. Most Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented destinations I go to in Denver for business of pleasure in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS are near light rail stations.A way for me to get on the Section 4.2.6. system in Loveland and transfer as needed would be great! A quick,safe,hassle free way to get downtown would be an answer to prayer. Public Elaine Lipson October 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website The lack of commuter rail in the north-south corridor is improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-164 absolutely shameful. I commute from Boulder County to Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal Loveland,and my public transportation options are so Alternatives. limited that it is a hardship to get to and from my job- not to mention dangerous,on congested roadways full of aggressive drivers. Please give me a real option. It should have been planned and completed decades ago. The environment needs it,employers need it(my employer struggles to find talent that is willing to commute to Loveland)and your citizens need it. Public Adele Howard 10/1/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I am very much in favor of a light rail connection to Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-165 Denver! 1-25 is crowded,stressful to drive and Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to dangerous. I would go to Denver much more often if I Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology didn't have to drive it. than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Tim Kubik October 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website To be viable in the long term,a transportation solution transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-166 must be focused on moving through the communities of Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. the North Front Range,rather than past them. Package B-61 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. B,and the 1st Phase focus on Package B solutions in The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort the Preferred Alternative all suggest an emphasis on Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North passing by our communities in the short term,which Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to means the region is unlikely to experience the economic Denver.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors, growth necessary to justify the expenditures. Package and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in A,by contrast,seems more focused on developing an contrast to light rail.Commuter rail has been identified for integrated transportation network that links our this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. communities into a more economically vibrant region. While I'm concerned that Package A does not significantly lower emissions,my'preferred alternative' would nonetheless be Package A. Public Maureen Selvig 10/1/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I am definitely hoping that we can have a light rail in Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-167 place by 2025 at the very latest.This would allow for Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to safe travel,a savings on energy costs,as well as many Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology additional advantages. than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0— Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Ann Harroun October 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I was happy to see that you have included commuter rail transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-168 along the BNSF track from Fort Collins to Longmont in Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. your plans.I just hope that the money will show up long, long before 2075!(...when I will be long dead.) Public Marcia Lewis 10/01/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Just last night a friend in her 70s talked about taking the Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-169 train from Loveland to Denver for a day of shopping Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to when she was a child. I would like to be able to do that Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology too-preferably still in her lifetime!Whether the old than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail tracks are used or new light rail is built in conjunction corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer B-62 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. with 1-25,something has to be done soon.Thank you for corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for allowing my comments. It seems like many years ago this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail when I attended a meeting held at the Loveland Public transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this Library on this topic. Let's see some action! corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS Section 4.2.6. Public Gary Sprung 9/30/2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website I do not support widening 1-25.We should spend our improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need IN-170 limited money on transportation that is more energy for Highway Improvements. efficient,less land consuming,and less traffic inducing-- rail and bus travel.The EIS should prioritize the rail In response to your comments regarding aspect and plan completion of the rail routes by 2025. prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please Other states,such as Minnesota and New Mexico,have refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing proved it can be done that quickly. Issues. Public Camille DeMarco- October 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Hay I really hope we get a north/south train soon. I feel we improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-171 could have one very soon if we could just use the Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal existing rail lines and upgrade them.Why not try this Alternatives. first?I would love to go to Denver,shop,do business, eat and come home. I don't want to take my car The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort everywhere. I want public transport and the way to get it Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North before 2025 is by using existing rail lines.Yes,they Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to would need to be upgraded for passenger travel but it Denver.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors, would be so worth it to have it sooner rather than later. and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere at about a contrast to light rail.Commuter rail has been identified for million tons a day that arctic ice is disappearing at an this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. unprecedented rate.The Ward Hunt arctic ice shelf is almost gone and scientists thought it would be around Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented for many years to come as it was the thickest most in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS stable ice shelf.This data I am giving comes from our Section 4.2.6. own CU Snow and Ice Center.You are in a position to B-63 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. make a really positive change or do the big business,it's We acknowledge your concern regarding energy;please see all about the money/greed thing. If you people have FEIS Section 3.21,Energy for discussion of energy use. children or grandchildren please think about their future and get rail in now on existing lines and start letting us leave our cars at home. Everyone up here feels the same way about upgrading the existing lines now. If you go for a separate lines that have to be built and won't be able to help us by 2025 or 2075 we will know it is about money and big business(as usual)and not the needs of people of Colorado.Things have got to change now in order to avert a climate catastrophe. Rail service north/south is huge and it needs to happen now. Do the right thing,please for our kids and grandI ds! Public Sandra Nesbit- October 1,2011 Comment noted. Website Manning I am writing in support of the commuter rail component IN-172 of the final N-I25 environmental impact study Public Nancy Kain 10.01.2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I want a more reliable,weather-independent,safer,less improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-173 stressful way to travel north-south along the front range Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal by 2025,not 2075. I want commuter rail for excursions Alternatives. to and from Denver and Boulder. I do not like to drive l- 25 and I will like it even less with more lanes. I do like to The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort take advantage of cultural events in Denver. I will spend Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North more money on those things IF I can easily and more Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to safely get to Denver/Boulder. Denver.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors, and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS _... __ _.. Section 4.26 Public Carla Massaro 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Gentlemen:I commute to work near Denver and would improvements,please refer to General Response#0 B-64 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Website jump for joy if there were a cost-effective,timely,snow Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal IN-174 resistant,and friendlier environmentally than my minivan Alternatives. and mostly LESS STRESSful method of dealing with some wild drivers on Hwy.25 constantly,to get to my The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort job! My husband and I have tried to attend evening Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North shows in Denver proper,but have stopped attending Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to because of the traffic jams we encounter heading south Denver.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors, for an evening out.We would rather stay locally and and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in miss the excellent theater a large city can deliver. contrast to light rail.Commuter rail has been identified for Please support a rail transportation system and please this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. do not wait s00000000 long to implement it!We won't live long enough and need a system by 2015 the latest! Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented Just think what a boon to the economy For NOCO this in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS train would be and at the same time preserving our Section 4.2.6. magnificent environment and western tourism!!! Public Eric Weedin Oct 1 2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We need rail now in order to stay competitive in the transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-175 world market. Don't make us wait until 2075. Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Laura Hindman 10/01/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I would like to see safe,reliable public transportation Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-176 along the Front Range as soon as possible.The amount Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to of traffic on 1-25 is insane,as is the 75 mph speed limit. Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology Light rail would ease congestion,pollution,and reduce than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail fatal accidents. It makes sense and we need to do it corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer now. corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. We agree there is a large amount of traffic on 1-25 and this is expected to grow in the future,to about 140,000 vehides per day between SH-14 and SH-52 in 2035.The 75 mile per hour speed limit reflects the facility type and its design speed. Note that the prevailing average speed of 85th percentile of the drivers dictates the posted speed limit. Lowering the speed limit would correspondingly reduce the B-65 _.. NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. capacity per lane. For this reason,it would require more infrastructure to achieve the same improvement in mobility. In response to your comments regarding transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0— _.. _. Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Dan Shaner 10/1/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We need to get very serious about mass transit along transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-177 the front range,now. I am happy to see taxes raised and Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. an aggressive program to"make it real."As a project manager myself, I would be honored to voluntarily assist the development of a program that completes by 2025 or earlier. Public Diana Greer 10/1/2011 Comment noted. Website I support passenger rail service between Loveland and IN-178 Denver.We need a more reliable link which isn't choked by weather-related events or one of the numerous car accidents. Not being Denver-centric, I would personally use more direct,more dependable service between Northern Colorado and Denver International Airport. Public Holly Young 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I've lived in Ft Collins since 1967 and I find it hard to improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-179 believe that in 2011 we still only have one north-south 4- Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal lane interstate route.And State Highway 85 or 287 do Alternatives. not meet the same need. It should be obvious to any state representatives that we have been in dire need of In response to your comments regarding prioritization of mass transit for commuters and weekend travelers for transportation improvements,please refer to General many,many years. I don't understand why the state Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. doesn't recognize the safety hazards that are created on our highways by not expanding the highways to meet Please see FEIS Section 4.6, Safety regarding safety the needs of the people who travel 1-25.I also think the improvements. state patrol must start monitoring drivers on 1-25 more to enforce traffic laws. It's appalling to me the violations I Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented see regularly,but I also can sometimes understand the in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS driver's reasons for violating traffic laws. Frankly, I'm Section 4.2.6. surprised we don't have more traffic accidents and B-66 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. fatalities. PLEASE PUT MASS TRANSIT IN PLACE SOONER THAN 2025, PLEASE!!! Public Mary Scobey 10/01/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Please,we need rail to Denver. I would always opt to improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-180 take public transportation.We need it now. Until rail can Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal be provided,a bus that runs down 1-25 several times a Alternatives. day is a great option.A bus to 120th where RTD picks up would be fine. In response to your comments regarding highway I would buy a monthly pass and use it often.We do not improvements,please refer to General Response#0-Need need more lanes for traffic,we need public for Highway Improvements. transportation. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.This alternative also includes express bus service in Phase 1 in the 1-25 corridor from Fort Collins to downtown Denver. Public Anne Grubb 10/1/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website The Front Range needs a commuter rail to improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-181 accommodate 1)all the aging Baby Boomers who Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal currently live here and those who are/will be relocating Alternatives. and 2)current and future adult workers and students who want to take advantage of the economic and The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) cultural opportunities in Denver and along the Front recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in Range while avoiding the stressful,often dangerous 1-25 the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail commute.A commuter rail would provide an incentive service considered by this study serves a different purpose for companies to relocate here.A commuter rail would and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail improve air quality and probably lower auto insurance proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude rates for the area.We need this within the next 10 other potential rail services.Throughout the development of years,not 2075. the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to B-67 NORai I-25 EIS information cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. support economic growth and environmental sustainability. We acknowledge your concern regarding air quality;please see FEIS Section 3.5,Air Quality for discussion of air quality. Public Betty Stewart 10/1/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Please seriously consider alternatives to improving Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-182 transportation for Northern Colorado that includes light Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to rail/commuter service.As a senior citizen, I often avoid Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology going to Denver because of the heavy traffic on 1-25. than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail While we now have a bus alternative,it involves several corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer transfers before arriving in downtown Denver.A rail corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for alternative would be easier,faster,and would take this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail advantage of existing rails. Please consider light transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this rail/commuter service in plans for transportation to corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. northern Colorado. Thank you. In response to your comments regarding transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need for Modal Alternatives. Public Wendy Stine 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Please don't put this off;our environment can't take transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-183 much more. It's a quality of life issue too! Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Melissa Taylor 10.1.2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website The cost to implement Rail along the Front Range will transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-184 be Tripled by 2075.We need it now and Will help the Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. cities along its route. Please expedite this project! The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally CDOT is B-68 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Jay Jones 10/1/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We support North Front Range Rail&certainly would transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-185 like to see it done by 2025 as opposed to 2075. Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. We would eventually like to see it connect with Wyoming Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as &it's growing populations. described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of Wellington.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Indrani Kelly 10/1/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I think this is a great idea especially if there were Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-186 stations that connected w/transportation to get people in Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to B-6g..... NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Denver where they needed to go. I personally don't go Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor to Denver that often-no need to. and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Sharon Hamm October 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website For all the obvious reasons--environmental,economic transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-187 (especially given the current and likely future economy Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. for years to come),safety--a 2025 rather than 2075 goal date for an operational high-speed rail line connecting The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort the entire 1-25 corridor seems both sensible and Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North feasible. Let's make it happen! Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than high-speed rail. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Mary Beth Buescher October 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We need a more reliable,weather-independent,safer, transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-188 less stressful or more productive way to travel north- Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. south along the front range by 2025,not 2075.Thank you. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail B-70 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Donald Morris 10/1/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website We need a light rail system to Denver,at least.After Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-189 having lived in Singapore,it is embarrassing to come Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to home to our decrepit transportation systems! I waste too Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology much time traveling between Fort Collins and Denver. than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Cara Blake 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website It's already extremely irresponsible that we don't have improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-190 mass transit along the 1-25 corridor.SO PLEASE MAKE Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal MASS TRANSIT A REALITY SOONER RATHER THAN Alternatives. Please note that Phase 1 of the Preferred LATER.As a tax payer and resident of this state, I Alternative includes new express bus and commuter bus would gladly pay higher taxes to make this a reality. services on the 1-25 and US 85 corridors,respectively— Thank you! _.. _.. commuter rail would be added in later phases. Public Suzanne Trask 10-1-2011 Comment noted.The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Website Interstate 25 at 75 mph is a nerve-wracking way to (rockymountainrail.org)recently completed a feasibility study IN-191 make the trip along the Front Range,not to mention the of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain consumption of fuel and creation of air pollution.Quality corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a of life would be greatly improved by the addition of a rail different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The component to travel from Fort Collins to Denver. I commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not support the development of rail service along the Front preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the B-71 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Range. development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Jillian Thompson 10/1/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I am in full support of a public corridor passenger train improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-192 along 1-25. It is disappointing that it has taken this long Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal to see the need and value of public transportation,and Alternatives.While financing strategies were not evaluated also disappointing that I won't be able to use it in my as part of this study,CDOT,another entity,or local agency lifetime.But it needs to happen and I will pay taxes to could propose a financing strategy(including sales or support it. property tax increases)to implement the Preferred Alternative sooner. Public Brad Shannon 10.01.11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We need rail service on the 1-25 corridor--and we need transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-193 it before 2075.A plan to have it in place by 2025 would Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. be much better,and would support growth,jobs, commerce,tourism and more. Public Stephanie Bublitz 10/1/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website By the time 2075 is here I will be 96 years old. If I am transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-194 still driving, I will be thrilled you folks finally fixed the 1-25 Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Corridor.Wouldn't it be even better if you could fix it while I am still in my 30s Public Tom Griggs 10/1/11 A broad range of transportation improvements have been Website Pursue Front Range on Track proposal NOW,before it considered throughout the EIS process,including rail transit. IN-195 gets any later.The air,water,our children,and our The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort children's children will thank you! Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Please refer to Comment OR-01 below regarding Front Range On Track. In response to your comments regarding prioritization or timing of transportation improvements, B-72 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. In response to your comments regarding air quality and water,please see the following sections of the FEIS: Air Quality—FEIS Section 3.5 Water Quality—FEIS Section 3.7 Public Jill Kuhn October 2,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I want a more reliable,weather-independent,safer,less transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-196 stressful or more productive way to travel north-south Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. along the front range by 2025,not 2075. Public John Kefalas 10/1/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website We must develop a multi-modal transportation system improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-197 by 2025 that includes commuter rail,which connects the Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal downtown areas of Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont Alternatives. and Denver.We also need to develop a parallel regional high-speed rail system along the 1-25 and 1-70 corridor. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort It is feasible in phases,which the Rocky Mountain Rail Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Authority has demonstrated through its various analysis. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-73 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Michael Gillette 10/1/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Please move up light rail implementation.We really Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-198 need it and there's no reason we can't start working on it Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to right now.Thanks. Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0— Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Thelma Burgonio- 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Watson A safer commuter system is long overdue.Strongly transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-199 support rail system even sooner than 2025,if at all Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. possible,to save more lives and to have a healthier, more economical and environmentally sound way to travel north 1-25. I am a voter in Larimer County. I am counting on you all to support this life-saving project Public Amber Anderson 10-1-11 Comment noted. Website Personally, I would use public transportation to Denver IN-200 frequently--monthly at the very least.As a teacher, I would be able to take kids on field trips which currently cost me$500 a trip with our school bus system.What a benefit to lads!! Public Virginia Carnes 10-01-2W1 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Though we are retired,we still drive to Denver and to improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need IN-201 the airport. It would more advantageous if we had for Modal Alternatives. commuter rail to ride since the driving is getting more B-74 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. difficult.Also,with the ACE project coming aboard in A broad range of transportation improvements have been Loveland, I believe we will have more and more considered throughout the EIS process,including rail transit. commuters into this area which will definitely snarl The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, traffic. I have a grandson who works in downtown express bus,commuter bus,and commuter rail from Fort Denver,he now must drive to Longmont to catch and Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North "express bus"-we need that service extended to Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Loveland especially since it will take some time to get Denver and connecting service to DIA. rail built. Public Mike Towbin 10/1/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Please do not wait until 2075 to build a mass transit rail transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-202 system between Denver and Fort Collins.We need a Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. better transit system long before. My family and I would gladly utilize mass transit for our trips to Denver to visit Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented family and for shopping trips approximately once a in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS week.Thanks! Section 4.2.6. Public Dale Cisek 10/2/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website light rail only makes sense to the future of the front Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-203 range,if only to keep the growth in check Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Mary Detweiler October 2,2011 Comment noted. Website Having a rail link along the north 125 corridor is IN-204 important both for efficient,affordable transportation for our residents,but also for protection of our precious Colorado environment. Public Bob Massaro 10/2/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I have been following the 1-25 EIS project and would like improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need IN-205 to thank everyone that has worked on the project. for Highway Improvements, Funding and Phasing Issues The Preferred plan seems to be a sound approach; and Need for Modal Alternatives. however,the overall plan leans too heavily towards cars and concrete rather than encouraging rail as an The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) B-75 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. alternative.Waiting till 2050 to implement commuter rail recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in is entirely too long.What is needed is rail by 2015 or the the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail latest 2020.By implementing rail by 2020 the entire service considered by this study serves a different purpose Front Range will change. and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude The economic impact to the cities along the BNSF other potential rail services.Throughout the development of corridor will be significant. New development from the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in housing to businesses will move into the area coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently anticipating a dependable transportation system.Sprawl initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed may be minimized and both business commuting and rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is pleaser trips will increase. preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways Ultimately we can only install so many lanes of concrete to enhance passenger and freight rail development to before the Front Range begins to look like Los Angles. support economic growth and environmental sustainability. The faster alternative modes of transportation become a reality the better it will for our economy and the environment. Public Paul Tiger Oct 02,2011 Please note that the Preferred Alternative includes Website My comments specifically address rail commuter rail from Fort Collins to Longmont along the BNSF IN-206 corridor(not along 1-25)and connecting to Denver via RTD's The interest of our family and neighbors is passenger- Northwest Rail. However,new track from Longmont to the rail alternatives.We support north-south passenger-rail North Metro end-of-line in Thornton will be needed for the as either heavy or light rail.As Fastracks is planned to rail service continuing through to Denver and will cross 1-25 end its service in Longmont,on BNSF trackage,a but will not be along 1-25.Commuter rail has been identified connection to a continuation of north-south passenger for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Passenger rail should be close to the'end-of-track'in Longmont. transfers between the Preferred Alternative and separate We believe that putting the rail parallel and close to 1-25 RTD rail services in Longmont would be at a shared will create a hardship on passenger users. End-of-line downtown station. for northbound travelers finding themselves in Longmont and wanting to continue north will have to find a way to The Preferred Alternative also includes express bus service the 1-25 trackage to continue to travel north.The same along 1-25 that would be available to Longmont residents. would be true of southbound travelers. Feeder buses and park-and-ride lots would be available to passengers to access the express bus service on 1-25. This likely means Bus Rapid Transit connections However, RTD already provides bus service to Longmont so between downtown Longmont and 1-25.The same it would not be necessary for Longmont passengers to board would be true of cities located on BNSF-Fastracks south at 1-25 for either rail or bus service. B-76 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. of Longmont.There are many users of public transportation who do not own a vehicle,or wish to use In response to your comments regarding the need for it less. Rail next to I-25 forces them to find a way out to transportation improvements,please refer to General the highway to use public transportation.It is seven Response#0—Need for Highway Alternatives and Need for miles from central Longmont to exit 240(I-25&CO Hwy Modal Alternatives. 119).It is a long walk,or an arduous bicycle ride through a river valley. In response to your comments regarding costs,please see FEIS Chapter 6.0,Financial Analysis.Please note that While it is not objectionable to have multiple north-south funding for the proposed improvements has not been passenger trackage,the one issue appears to be identified,but is not available from the American Recovery& investment.The BNSF trackage and rights-of-way exist, Reinvestment Act. In response to your comments regarding compared to a new build-out of rail along I-25.While the economic and environmental impacts,please see FEIS initial construction may be paid for with federal funds Chapter 3.0. from the American Recovery&Reinvestment Act,the maintenance will rely on Colorado taxpayers and system The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) users. recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail Beyond the added costs,and more pertinent to the EIS, service considered by this study serves a different purpose I believe that adding passenger rail to the 1-25 individual and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail vehicle increase the urbanization of the 1-25 corridor. It proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude will create urban sprawl with the 1-25 corridor at its other potential rail services.Throughout the development of center.This is a disservice to existing employers who the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in are concentrated west of 1-25 and closer to existing rail coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently that has served industry and passengers for over a initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed century. rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide That said,an advantage for mass transit users who do guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways own vehicles is more open land to be developed into to enhance passenger and freight rail development to parking lots(Park-n-Ride lots). In existing urbanized support economic growth and environmental sustainability. areas,that may not be possible,or be a great deal more expensive.As the 1-25 becomes increasingly more Comments noted. urban,the land values will rapidly rise and the costs to build Park-n-Ride lots will may be just as expensive or more than ones in existing urban areas.Primarily we are concerned with this corridor creating urban in-fill between 25 and the foot hills. Espedally between the... B-77 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. existing BNSF trackage and 1-25.These areas north of SH7 tend to be residential and agricultural,with small pockets of light industrial. The expansion of this transportation corridor will have a negative impact on the established environment of the area.Existing residents leave the area that is developing commercially;the socio-economic will rapidly change. From human to concrete and steel.Advancing blight. N-S rail exists on the BNSF line close to 287 and UP lines dose to US85.Given that these rail lines have over a century of experience,and their lines pass though existing communities who need direct passenger services, I advocate for sharing existing rights-of-way with RR companies. I do not support a government railroad along 1-25. Public Sarah McGregor 10-2-11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website It's high time we had commuter rail on the Front Range. Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-207 1-25 traffic is a nightmare. Fuel sources are diminishing. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to We are harming the climate.An aging and poor Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor population needs transportation. It should have been and is consistent with RTD plans. built 30 years ago. Build it ASAP! If you make it by 2025, I'll only be 75. If you continue with your current In response to your comments regarding prioritization of projection of 2075,my granddaughter will be 70! transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in B-78 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Rose Studer 10-02-2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Let's get moving on this light rail and adding two more Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-208 lanes to the freeway 1-25.This should have been done Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to 25 years ago from Cheyenne to Colorado Springs. Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology Wake up to the 21st Century people!!! than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver,and does not extend to Cheyenne or Colorado Springs.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail B-79 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public David Nordstrom 10/02/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Please act on the continued action to build and expand transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-209 public transportation along the front range. I believe that Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. the immediate action on this investment in our future is the most important issue to insure the future growth of Colorado.Planned targeted growth of population based on transportation availability similar to the Portland Oregon plan is what our goals should be. Public Cheryl Nichols 10-2-11 In response to your comments regarding the timing of Website I do not remember the last time I drove to Denver from transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-210 Fort Collins(which I must do at least several times each Response#0—Need for Highway Improvements,Funding week)and did not see at least one accident. More often and Phasing Issues and Need for Modal Alternatives. there are several. It doesn't matter the time of day or day of the week anymore,it is always a nightmare of a The Preferred Alternative includes safety improvements to drive. I implore the responsible entities to move forward 1-25 and also includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along immediately and quickly with a commuter rail solution. the BNSF corridor,with new track to the North Metro end-of- 2075 is unacceptable as a timeline. line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Janice Livesay October 2,2011 The Preferred Alternative includes safety improvements to Website We need better means of travel between Fort Collins& 1-25 and also includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along IN-211 Denver now. I travel this route often&the traffic the BNSF corridor,with new track to the North Metro end-of- congestion is usually very heavy.A rapid transit(light line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that rail)would be great.3 lanes on 1-25 from Fort Collins to commuter rail is a different technology than light rail. around Longmont(where it goes to 3 lanes now)is Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can needed immediately.This can't wait until 2025,it is achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to B-80 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. desperately needed now! light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Don Cox 10/02/2011 Comment noted. Website Anyone who has traveled to many of the great cities of IN-212 the world(and even smallish cities)is amazed at the benefits of a well planned working mass transit.There is a health benefit in pedestrian cultures that has a clear value for future economies.As our population ages without a safe means to humanize/socialize with house- bound seniors,we will certainly become more fearful and cable news indoctrinated. Public Carolyn Taylor 10/01/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I have lived in Loveland for seven years and heard that transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-213 commuter rail was not planned to be implemented until Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. 2075. I thought surely that can't be true.What region would wait that long to set things in motion to provide, Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented dean,efficient,safe,reliable transportation for the in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS needs of the Front Range? Section 4.2.6. A commuter transportation plan should have been The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) accomplished already. recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in Nobody likes to hear bragging about the transportation the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail accomplishments of other cities. I mention these two service considered by this study serves a different purpose examples just to show that transportation alternatives and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail have been created before-it's possible to do,and proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude expected by citizens.Washington DC Metro subway other potential rail services.Throughout the development of provides transportation into the city and to the airport. the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in Munich Germany has a most amazing hub of coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently transportation opportunities:subway and trains(both to initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed airport)buses,taxis.Amazingly efficient,fast,safe, rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is B-81 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. dean. preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways I think the Front Range should get cracking on a to enhance passenger and freight rail development to commuter train.We(your first riders)would use it to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. travel to DAM, MCA, Botanic Gardens, Nature and Science,to name a few.We are members of the above- mentioned museums. Thank you for considering my comments. Public Jonnie Westerop 10/2/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website We need other transportation choices,ASAP(2025?). improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-214 Let's do rail down the front range,using existing rail Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal lines(downtown Fort Collins to Centerra,for example). Alternatives. Let's do bikeways and walkways next to the railways. If there were safe bikeways/walkways-we would remove The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort large amounts of cars from the roads because people Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North would be able to travel between cities by bicycle and/or Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to train.Great climate,healthier people,and a modern Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor community transportation system-companies will be and is consistent with RTD plans. "dying"to set up business in our communities,which means more tax revenues to use for schools and such. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-82 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Barbara Ziesche October 02,2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Northern Colorado along the Front Range definitely improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-215 needs a commuter rail system.The roads and 1-25 are Funding and Phasing Issues and the Need for Modal totally congested and in need of constant repair,not to Alternatives. mention the air pollution the number of vehicles cause. I rarely go to Denver or the outlying cities because of the The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort traffic. It is nerve wracking and dangerous the way Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North people drive. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor We should have invested in commuter rail in the 1970's and is consistent with RTD plans. when it was first discussed;now it is 2011 and we are still discussing it. Let's do it and move the timetable up In response to your comments regarding solo-economic to 2020. I would think that this would also greatly and air quality,please see the following sections of the enhance our employment issue,and we will get some FEIS: sanity to our lives,by not knuckle driving on the way to Social conditions—FEIS Section 3.2 Denver. Economic conditions—FEIS Section 3.3 Air quality—FEIS Section 3.5 The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-83 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Chris Oppold 10/01/11 Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as Website I have been researching and a rail system between FTC described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from IN-216 and Denver has been"thought about"since 1973 it is Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of time to get off our highway building binge and do Wellington.The transit improvements included in the something that will help all,and benefit the planet at the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and same time.A rail system between FTC Denver and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services Colorado Springs needs to happen now. further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. "Text now reads: In response to your comments regarding highway expansion and prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—The Need for Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT will soon be conducting an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Shorter Rankin October 2,2011 Comment noted. Website I would use commuter rail from Fort Collins to Denver IN-217 for shopping trips and visits to sporting,cultural events. I Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented am a senior,retired,and have no car. I hope that one in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS B-84 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. could take a bicycle along like the Capitol Corridor in Section 4.2.6. California. Northern Colorado could develop a serious air pollution problem if we continue to over-rely on The commuter rail operations would likely have similar automobile transportation. bicycle accommodations to those currently used by RTD. RTD currently allows four bicycles per vehide on its light rail vehicles without any time restrictions. RTD has no detailed policies for bicydes on commuter rail vehicles but is expected to maintain at least the same accessibility as currently exists on light rail vehicles. Public Carolyn Wade 10/2/2011 Please note that the Preferred Alternative includes Website I am totally in favor of rail transportation along 1-25.It commuter rail from Fort Collins to Longmont along the BNSF IN-218 reduces pollution,is safer for travelers,and will save corridor,not along 1-25. New track from Longmont to the Colorado money on road closures and repairs. Please North Metro end-of-line in Thornton will be needed for the implement this asap! rail service continuing through to Denver and will cross 1-25 but will not be along 1-25.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT will soon be conducting an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Many of the benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the FEIS,including air quality—FEIS B-85 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Section 3.5,Air Quality. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public William Shuster 10/2/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I would like to see more emphasis given to rail transit improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need IN-219 options with much earlier implementation dates.Just for Highway Improvements, Funding and Phasing Issues widening 125 will not substantially address the problems and Need for Modal Alternatives. presented by front range growth. Establishing a effective commuter rail system and benefiting by transit oriented The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) (compact)development will give us a better chance of recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in reducing vehicle miles traveled while keeping more the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail money in the local economy. service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Linda Waters 10/02/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I support of the commuter rail component of CDOT's transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-220 Final Environment Impact Study. I want a more reliable, Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. weather-independent,safer,less stressful or more productive way to travel north-south along the front The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) range by 2025,not 2075. I would use commuter rail to recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in get to and from work,to expand my ability to work the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail throughout the region,or for events and excursions to service considered by this study serves a different purpose and from Denver and Boulder. It's long overdue. Please and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail get us commuter rail as soon as possible. proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude B-86 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Maggi Wynne 6/16/1966 Comment noted. Website We are SO supportive of this initiative.WE can't wait. IN-221 My children,my parents,my neighbors,my friends and I Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as all want this commuter rail to travel north-south along described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from the front range.We love living here,but this would make Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in it so much more livable and workable.Thanks for all the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley, you're doing. and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Michael Losonsky Oct. 1,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of B-87 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Website 2075 is not much of a commitment--that looks transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-222 more verbal and political rather than a real Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. and serious commitment.2025 is a real commitment to something that has been discussed since 1990. Already in 1990 I was part of a group of Fort Collins citizens that was interviewed by CDOT about the need for such a corridor!Time to act now for a more civilized,sustainable and profitable Front Range! Public Gailmarie Kimmel Oct 2,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Please ACT NOW for a reliable,weather-independent, transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-223 safer,more productive way to travel north-south along Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. the front range.With family and friends in Denver,we'd use mass transit over driving anytime,and want to see Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as this in next 10 years.Thanks for your attention. described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley, and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-88 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Paul Alaback 10/2/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I strongly support a rail option for the I-25 corridor,and improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need IN-224 secondly enhancement of bus service with park and ride for Highway Improvements;and the Need for Modal options. I do not support widening of I-25 because this Alternatives. will only be a very temporary solution,since this will encourage even more traffic and development along the Please note that the Preferred Alternative includes corridor and ultimately will create more problems than it commuter rail from Fort Collins to Longmont along the BNSF can solve.The DOT should also consider how to corridor,not along I-25. New track from Longmont to the coordinate with land-use planning and open space North Metro end-of-line in Thornton will be needed for the programs to limit"strip"development along the I-25 rail service continuing through to Denver and will cross I-25 corridor which will complicate any efforts to improve but will not be along I-25.Commuter rail has been identified traffic and traffic flow efficiency. For example a for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. "parkway"could be very effective,as has been done in other states. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley, and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. Both CDOT and FHWA have policies in place to coordinate with local governments in support of compatible land use planning next to transportation facilities.The EIS project is an example of this. However,the final land use decisions are made by the local governments and not CDOT or FHWA. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of B-89 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability Public Lucin Turner Oct 2,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I want commuter rail all along the front range and I think transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-225 it should be implemented immediately!The rails are Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. already in place!Commuter rail is safer,it is less stressful and it is far less susceptible to adverse weather Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as conditions. Rail is accessible to everyone and will described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from facilitate jobs,education and recreation all along the Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in front range. Please go with commuter rail and do it the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley, NOW! and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-90 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Jean Wightman 10/2/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Just home from visiting DC via the metro.We need transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-226 mass transit here.Soon.Train from Ft Collins, Loveland Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Longmont, Boulder, DIA, Denver. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Nola MacDonald 10/2/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I want and we NEED a more reliable,weather- transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-227 independent,safer,less stressful and more productive Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. way to travel north-south along the front range by 2025. There is every reason to establish rail transport now, and NOT wait until 1975. Public Ann Wilmsen 10-02-11 While one of the identified elements of purpose and need is Website I have lived in Fort Collins since 1966,and we often the need to improve safety on 1-25,there are many other IN-228 travel the stretch of 1-25 from here to Denver. It always highways in the nation with worse safety statistics. has been a dangerous and heavily traveled strip.As the metro areas in Northern Colorado grow,the traffic The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort becomes worse and more dangerous.After driving Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North many interstates in the country, I believe our stretch to Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to be one of the worst. Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail Light Rail now,would give many of us another option for corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer getting to Denver,so unless the end destination is corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for beyond Denver metro,there is not a necessity to drive. this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this Light rail has been on the table for many years,hasn't corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. moved an iota. Please make it happen now. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Thank you. transportation improvements,please refer to General B-91 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues and Need for Modal Alternatives. Public Lyle Hobbs 10/2/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website We definitely need light rail to connect our local Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-229 communities and Denver by 2025. It is necessary to Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to allow local business access to markets and to decrease Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology the amount of individual vehide in the corridor. 1-25 is than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail already approaching saturation and will only get worse corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer costing time and money. corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for Thank you. this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need for Highway Improvements and Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Charles Riblett 10/02/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I strongly support multiple transportation paths using improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need IN-230 multiple transportation technologies.The current single for Modal Alternatives. highway system is brought to a halt by any collision on either side of the highway.The driving current The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) population displays very limited driving skills and is quite recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in prone to collisions.A multiple path system would be the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail much more fault tolerant. service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail A parallel rail system would provide a transportation proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude option for the distracted or uninterested drivers in other potential rail services.Throughout the development of addition to increasing the transportation system the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in throughput. coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-92 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Susan Tungate 10-2-2011 Comment noted. Website I enthusiastically support mass transit on the North 1-25 IN-231 Corridor. I would use it. I would pay higher taxes for it. Public Margaret Zierdt 10/2/2011 Comment noted. Website I am very favorably impressed by the hard work and IN-232 careful planning to bring our area multi-modal Many of benefits of the Preferred Alternative are transportation. I prefer the Alternative plan because it documented in the Final EIS,including air quality—see FEIS seems to incorporate all that is good in Program B. Section 3.5,Air Quality. It is heartening to see that future transportation planning can be done in phases. It is smart that rapid commuter buses will be employed while commuter rail planning takes place. I am amazed at the savings in commuter times by the proposed buses and trains.Air pollution will be improved.While area population grows,we do not want to be packed together like sardines.Hopefully the roads will be less congested. We need our space and having choices in transportation is good. However,it appears that people will be choosing to live near transportation hubs and that is a good thing. Housing shouldn't spread out too much if we want to decrease travel time. Thank you again for all your work. I look forward with great anticipation to the implementation of your plans. Public M. L. Johnson October 2,2011 In response to your comments regarding highway Website At a$million per mile for surfacing and periodically re- improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Need IN-233 surfacing 1-25,it would seem more cost efficient and for Highway Improvements. environmentally efficacious to install a commuter rail. Look at California's BART system and the Greater Salt Lake rail system in Utah. B-93 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Steve Szabo 10/02/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We need to get this done as quickly as possible. transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-234 Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Sue Beck-Ferkiss October 2,2011 Comment noted. Website I am in favor of pursuing train access between Denver IN-235 and Fort Collins.We need to build more mass transit all around. Public Jennifer Walton 10/2/11 Comment noted. Many of benefits of the Preferred Website I have spent the past three years commuting to Boulder Alternative are documented in the Final EIS,including air IN-236 first from Fort Collins,then from Longmont. I have many quality—see FEIS Section 3.5,Air Quality. work colleagues and friends who have noted that they would gladly trade their daily commute,expense of gas, The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort and upkeep of a vehide for a train ride to work--and Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North that it would give them the flexibility to live wherever Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to they chose on the front range,rather than in a place Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor they did not like as much. I also understand that several and is consistent with RTD plans. studies have been conducted that prove a train would halve the level of emissions resulting from commuters The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) on the front range.Given that there is already an recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in existing track and dearly pollution is already a major the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail problem in this area,it seems there's no reason not to service considered by this study serves a different purpose put in passenger rail. Please help us out and make and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail travel on the front range easier and deaner for proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude everyone! other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. B-94..... NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Michael Salasek 10-02-11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I am a Ft Collins resident who for many years drove to Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-237 Centennial for work. During that time the T-Rex project Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to took place which was suppose to help with traffic flow. It Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology may have in Denver but it did nothing for N.Colorado. than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail CDOT is still doing bridge work in Denver but Ft Collins corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer gets nothing.We need a multi system approach along l- corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for 25 that included light rail and it needs to be done NOW this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail not after I am dead. transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Stephen Byers 10/3/2011 Comment noted. Website I support the preferred alternative package as the most IN-238 sensible path forward to meeting the growing demands upon the transportation infrastructure. Public Randy Fischer October 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization or Website I strongly support the commuter rail component timing of transportation improvements,please refer to IN-239 described in the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study. General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. I urge CDOT to adopt the preferred alternative outlined in the EIS which includes commuter rail along the CDOT is committed to continuing coordination with local existing BNSF right-of-way through Fort Collins, communities and interested citizens in advancing the Loveland, Berthoud,and Longmont.Additionally, I urge improvements described in the Preferred Alternative. Even CDOT to begin a process of working with commuter rail though financing strategies were not evaluated as part of advocates in Larimer County to accelerate the this study,it does not limit pursuing alternative financing timeframe for build out of the commuter rail component strategies.CDOT or another entity such as the High from Fort Collins to its proposed connection with Performance Transportation Enterprise or local agencies Fastracks in Boulder. can propose financing strategies that could be considered and accelerate implementation. Thank you, Randy Fischer,State Representative B-95 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. House District 53 Public Ashley Waddell 10/03/2011 Comment noted.The Preferred Alternative includes Website Please,please install commuter rail as a part of the commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor IN-240 North 1-25 project!Such a move is long overdue,and with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton, would enhance the economies of all front range cities, with service continuing to Denver. not to mention reduce congestion on the highway. Please construct Package A or the"Preferred Alternative."Commuter rail can make a huge difference --and a very positive one--to northern Colorado's future. Public L. Darrell Whitley 10-3-2011 Comment noted.The Preferred Alternative includes Website I support having rail/trains as a form of public commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor IN-241 transportation in Northern Colorado and along the Front with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton, Range.Given the concentration of the population along with service continuing to Denver. the Front Range,public transportation by train makes enormous sense. I would go to Denver more often. 1-25 Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as is horrible and unpredictable. I would support taxes to described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from do this. Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley, and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways B-96 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. While financing strategies were not evaluated as part of this study,CDOT,another entity,or local agency could propose a financing strategy(induding sales or property tax increases)to implement the Preferred Alternative. Public John Freeman 10/3/2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Give us light rail!!! Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-242 Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Janet Latona 10-3-11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I support a commuter rail project along the north south transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-243 corridor to Denver to occur as soon as possible.The I- Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. 25 traffic volume is crowded,dangerous,and not in support of environmental consciousness. I currently travel the route often to visit family,and attend classes and other events in Denver. Previously my work was in Denver,my odd schedules and locations did not allow me to access a ride group-so my single daily drives were not good for myself or the community. Please move toward accomplishing the commuter rail as soon as it can be done. Public Jody Eidsness 10/03/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We can't wait until'65. Let's shoot for'25,shall we? transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-244 Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Tiffany Zerges 10/3/2011 Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as Website Please fund mass rail transit along the 1-25 Corridor described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from IN-245 from Cheyenne to New Mexico.This is essential for Wellington to Denver,and does not extend north of public safety and the environment.Thank you. Wellington.The transit improvements included in the B-97 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be preduded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the I-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Jane Anetrini 10/03/2011 Comment noted. Website I would like a reliable,weather-independent,safer,less IN-246 stressful or more productive way to travel north-south along the front range.I would participate more in the activities in the Denver area knowing I could get there and back more easily Public Milan Karspeck October 3,2011 Comment noted. Website I'm impressed with all the work and careful thought that IN-247 went into the North 1-25 EIS. I strongly support the preferred alternative that was developed,particularly the rail component on the BNSF line that connects the cities between Ft.Collins and Longmont to Denver Union Station. Public Roger Clark October 3,2011 Comment noted. In response to your comments regarding Website I support the commuter rail component of the N 1-25 prioritization of transportation improvements,please refer to B-98 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. IN-248 Final Environmental Impact Study. Northern Colorado General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. needs a reliable,safe,environmentally sensitive,more productive way to commute as soon as possible. Thank you Public David Simpson 10/3/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website Hello. I think it is great that CDOT is considering rail improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-249 travel for the northern Front Range. However,I find it Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway more than a little insulting that implementation of this Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. alternative is not scheduled until 2075-64 years from now! I would love to be able to ride the train to Denver Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented and watch a Rockies game or visit a restaurant or two, in the Final EIS,including entertainment travel—see FEIS but from the look of this current plan the only way I'll get Section 4.2.6. to ride the rails is in a pine box. Am I the only one who finds it absurd that my great- The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) grandfather had more options for going to Denver by recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in train than I do?The West was literally built around the the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail train! service considered by this study serves a different purpose Though communities have grown around the automobile and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail since the 50s,if CDOT were to take a firm position proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude favoring rail for the near future(10 years,not 60+), I am other potential rail services.Throughout the development of confident that future growth would coalesce around the the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in lines,just as they did one hundred and fifty years ago. coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently Consider stories of folks in Denver choosing a home initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed based upon proximity to Light Rail. I know I would live rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is near a train station up here in Ft.Collins if only I had the preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide option. guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to 64 years is too long to wait,especially considering the support economic growth and environmental sustainability. massive developments planned for the interim- The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort additional lanes for 1-25,toll roads,etc. It almost seems Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North as if rail were included as an option but with no intention Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to of ever following through with it. Frankly that is Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology unacceptable. I welcome real progress regarding rail than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail development-affordable,often,and soon. corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer B-99 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for Thank you for your time. this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Bruce Stotts 10/03/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website The front range has a desperate need for commuter rail improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-250 as soon as possible! I-25 has become a snarled mess, Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway and adding more lanes will simply add to pollution in Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. Colorado and add to the death toll from highway accidents. Public Jane Kneller 10/3/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website We need mass transit to and from Denver much sooner. transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-251 Surely northern Colorado can move into the 21st Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. century by 2025.We can't afford not to! Public Carolyn Wilson 10/3/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website There needs to be a mass transit system to and from transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-252 the Denver area! I've either been in or seen the results Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. of too many car collisions on 1-25. Having a train/railway would lessen these occurrences and abate the growth of the smog cloud that blankets Denver and is spreading to the entire Front Range. Please make this project happen! Public Linda Greaves 10-3-11 Comment noted. Website I've been waiting for this day when I wouldn't have to IN-253 deal with traffic on 1-25!However, I wish that this rail line will not disturb our natural environment. Public Irene Fortune 10/3/2011 Please note that induding commuter rail as a component of Website This is a written copy of my verbal comments made at the Preferred Alternative will allow North Front Range IN-254 public hearing. residents to benefit from its safe operations. In regards to motor vehicle accidents, -25 will undergo capacity I support the commuter rail component of the study for the reliable transportation it brings and the improvement enhancements as well as design upgrades that will improve in air quality and road congestion but especially for the the safety of the freeway.CDOT safety statistics indicate health and safety benefits it would bring to people in this that these planned safety improvements will reduce the region. accident rate on 1-25 by three percent over the No-Action _... __ B-100.... _.. _.. NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. After working 30 years in highly hazardous chemical Alternative. In addition,the Preferred Alternative will reduce manufacturing,I'm convinced of the rewards received the VMT on arterials throughout the study area which have a from planning for safety. higher accident rate than 1-25. This will improve roadway I see population projection for many more people,roads safety across the entire study area. getting busier regardless the number of lanes added on We acknowledge your concern regarding air quality;please 1-25,287,85 and connecting roads in between. see FEIS Section 3.5,Air Quality for discussion of air quality. From the National Safety Council, I learn that as of 2009 In response to your comments regarding transportation the average American had a 1 in 90 chance of getting improvements,please refer to General Response#0—the injured in a motor vehide accident to the extent they Need for Highway Improvements;and the Need for Modal need medical attention,each year. Further motor vehicle Alternatives. crashes are the leading cause of death for ages 2-39 and ages 50-72.Total cost of accidents in 2009 was Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented $245B. NFR hit—$170 M per year. in the FEIS,induding safety—FEIS Section 4.6, Safety. Then I read in CDOT's study that actual injury rate for rail passengers is better than 3 times LESS than the rate for motor vehide occupants. I predict that if we had a significantly less risky way to travel, PLUS the quieter and safer road crossing improvements that commuter rail construction would bring,then families and employers in this region would far beyond the dollar investment for commuter rail. Thank you for this public comment period! Public Patrick Picard 10/3/11 In response to your comments regarding the timing of Website I support the commuter rail component of the North 1-25 transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-255 Final EIS. I would like to see investment into rail,and Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for would like rail to be as a regional transportation option Highway Improvements;and the Need for Modal for traveling between cities in the Front Range of Alternatives. Colorado sooner rather than later. If we don't invest in other modes besides driving,our streets will continue to The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort be clogged,and our environment,our economy,and our Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North poor,young,old and disabled will continue to suffer. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to B-101 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Denver. Please note that the regional study area for this EIS, as described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from Wellington to Denver.The transit improvements included in the Preferred Alternative begin in Fort Collins and Greeley,and extend to metro Denver.The extension of transit services further north or south would not be precluded by the Preferred Alternative,but is not induded in the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Julie Liggett 10/3/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I go to Denver every other week for hospital transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-256 appointments,and to Children's Hospital in Aurora every Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. week(I raise my grandson)for appointments. Please build the north-south rail ASAP.Thank you Public Ariana Friedlander 10/3/2011 Comment noted. Website It would improve quality of life,air quality and make IN-257 traveling between Denver and fort Collins more The Preferred Alternative includes express bus service on accessible! I strongly support mass transit along 125 1-25 providing a regional service connecting northern north corridor! Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA. Initial implementation of the express bus service along 1-25 and commuter bus service along US 85 is included in Phase 1. B-102 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Public Stacey Baumgarn Oct 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Please include commuter rail goals and considerations transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-258 for the North 1-25 corridor.Costs to study,and Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. implement will not be cheaper in 2075 than now,today is the best time to act and help to make a project The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort happen. Let's make commuter rail a reality on the 1-25 Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North corridor before 2025!Thanks so much for your hard Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to work and consideration. Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Michael Foote 10/3/2011 Comment noted. Website I am in support of a rail extending from Denver to IN-259 Loveland and vice versa. I live in Loveland and work in The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, Denver. It would be a more feasible and safer option to express bus service and commuter bus service in Phase 1. do this,especially during the winter. My trip usually Commuter rail would be included in later phases along the consists of me driving down to Longmont,parking at the BNSF. Fort Collins,Loveland,Greeley,Denver and Longmont Park n Ride,and catching the LX bus from intervening communities would be served by the proposed Longmont to Denver.To me,it's annoying that there's bus and rail transit. Please note that RTD buses do not no RTD buses that go directly from Loveland to Denver. serve Loveland because it is outside the RTD district;the If the Regional Longmont bus can do it, I think RTD RTD district is a special tax district providing funding for RTD could take the extra 15 minutes it takes to get up to through a sales tax. Loveland and get it down. Do I believe it will happen, probably not...but at least this possible rail gives me hope. Public Kim Pacheco 10/3/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I would very much like a more reliable,greener, transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-260 weather-independent,safer,less stressful and more Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. productive way to travel north-south along the front range by 2025, NOT 2075.I think this is essential for Northern Colorado to progress forward and become a destination for sustainable businesses and to look toward become"greener"in the area of transportation...... Public Andrew Bartlett October 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization and Website I thoroughly approve of the commuter rail aspect of the timing of transportation improvements,please refer to IN-261 North 1-25 EIS.As the population of northern Colorado General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues;the ...grows it is important to understand how large an effect Need for Highway Improvements;and the Need for Modal B-103 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. transportation alternatives have on urban development Alternatives. patterns.Commuter rail,as soon as it is operational,will We acknowledge your concern regarding land use;please encourage new development around the stations,which see FEIS Section 3.1,Land Use for discussion of land use are in the towns of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud,and issues. Longmont. Improvements to 1-25,on the other hand, encourage development around interchanges,and in any open land within a couple of miles of an interchange. Highway-oriented development(usually called"sprawl")will be increasingly ill-suited to the American economy as our population ages,and as the price of gas continues to rise.Sprawling development is not the desire of the vast majority of northern Colorado residents. For those of us familiar with southern California,it is not hard to imagine Fort Collins as San Bernardino and Denver as Los Angeles,not an appealing prospect for most of us. 1-10,the highway that connects San Bernardino with L.A.,was once an open road as much of 1-25 still is. In California,regional planners in the 1950s and 60s felt that highway improvements were the only cost-efficient way of improving travel along the 1-10 corridor.The result of their short-sightedness is that L.A.has had to belatedly build a commuter rail system at much greater expense than it would have had it been built as part of the original plan. Commuter rail is an important part of the North 1-25 EIS. I hope it is the first priority in the overall build-out of the plan. Public Richard Jurin October 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website When thinking about a more reliable,weather- improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-262 independent,safer,less stressful or more productive Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway way to travel north-south from Denver to Fort Collins Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. (via Loveland)along the front range we need a mass transit option like most of the areas in the nation-not For further information on some of the identified benefits of unlike Portland,Oregon.We need this now although the the Preferred Alternative please see the following sections B-104 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. proposed option by 2025 is still a long way off-it needs of the Final EIS: doing now,not 2075. Road traffic is always a danger Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 and a hassle even if the freeway system is enlarged- Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 travel in the front range needs a mass transit option. I Air quality—FEIS Section 3.5 would rather take a train to down town Denver from Environmental Consequences Affecting Economic Loveland on a more regular schedule-driving is Conditions—FEIS Section 3.3.2 something I rarely consider unless I have to. Not only Entertainment travel—FEIS Section 4.2.6 will it save valuable oil resources for more urgent needs (other than driving)it will greatly reduce the emissions The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) problem in this whole Front Range area and make recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in transport across the Front range safer and more the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail desirable.Mass transit works in other major cities and service considered by this study serves a different purpose the surrounding suburbs,we can make it work here. and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude other potential rail services.Throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to _.. support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public John Bisbee Oct.3,2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website We need a better alternative to car travel on 1-25;we improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-263 need some form of mass transit by 2025 or sooner.This Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway will help reduce pollution,stress,accidents and road Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. costs. Public Elliot Cooper 10/3/2011 Comment noted. Website I appreciate the work that has already been put forth in IN-264 this report,and the recommendations of not only'no In response to your comments regarding the timing of plan',but also Plan A, Plan B,and the Preferred Plan. transportation improvements,please see General Response Having lived in northern Colorado for nearly 30 years,I #0—Funding and Phasing Issues. am ready to see the implementation of an advanced transportation system such as noted in the Preferred Plan.This plan appears to have the least amount of B-105 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. environmental impact and focuses on the quickest turn around. Let's get this plan approved and on-the-move! Public Tamie Baggett 10-03-2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website We need a mass transit system on 1-25 before 2075. improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-265 There is already too much traffic on 1-25 today and Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway waiting until 2075 is unacceptable.We need it as soon Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. as possible. Public Cary Weiner 10-3-2011 Comment noted. Please see FEIS Section 4.6,Safety Website Please make traveling to/from Denver safer!!!So many regarding safety improvements. IN-266 accidents! Rail like in New Mexico between Albuquerque and Santa Fe would be most welcome even through an additional tax.Thanks! Public Barry Floyd 10-3-11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I want a more reliable,weather-independent,safer,less improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-267 stressful or more productive way to travel north-south Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway along the front range by 2025,not 2075. I want Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. commuter rail to get to and from work,to expand my ability to work throughout the region,or for excursions to and from Denver and Boulder, Public Joan Shaffer 10-03-11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I am writing to support the North 1-25 Environmental transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-268 Impact Statement"Preferred Alternative."I am Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. particularly supportive of the rail component and see it as a vital transportation option for the region.Given that In response to your comments regarding land uses and the track is largely in place and that the Burlington economics,please see the following sections of the FEIS: Northern/Santa Fe,owners of the track,are likely willing Land use—FEIS Section 3.1 partners in the operation of commuter services,the Social conditions—FEIS Section 3.2 costs for implementing this service are more minimal Economic conditions—FEIS Section 3.3 than any other rail project in the state. I think this project should be given top priority for implementation. As a resident of Loveland,and from my perspective as a City Councilor, I am also very supportive of rail services because of the economic benefit,in the way of jobs,that the construction project,along with the long-term _.. operations will bring to our community and region. I also B-106 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. believe that a backbone rail transportation system such as this will also serve greatly in the redevelopment of our downtown.We currently have projects underway and in planning to significantly increase the housing density of our downtown and a strong multi-modal transportation system will only enhance success. All of this can only happen,however,if this project is given the priority it warrants and is implemented no later than 2025. Should you have any questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, Joan Teresa Shaffer Please note my comments are personal and do not necessarily reflect the full membership of the Loveland City Council Public Matthew Chudacoff 10/3/11 In response to your comment regarding transportation Website I would like to see commuter rail established on the improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-269 existing BNSF line in Phase 1 of the preferred alt of the Funding and Phasing Issues. N125 EIS. Public Julie Chudacoff October 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Please establish commuter rail on the BNSF line as transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-270 soon as possible. Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Public Robert Bersch 10-03-11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I would like to see the commuter rail portion of the N125 improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-271 study operational in the first phase of this project. I Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway would be safer travel to Denver and help ease the Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. congestion on 1-25 in a more cost effective way than just adding more lanes to 1-25. Public Janice Jacobsen 10/3/2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website The light rail proposition for the Fort Collins to Denver improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-272 Corridor is really needed as soon as possible.I drive Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway B-107 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. this route frequently and it is always busy. I find that Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. cars are driving too fast and leave very little clearance between themselves and the car in front of them.There Please note that the Preferred Alternative does include are also many trucks on this highway as well.The 3 Tolled Express Lanes on 1-25.Tolls would be collected for all lanes from Westminster to Longmont ahs helped single occupant vehicles traveling in the tolled express somewhat.This state is always on the tail end of lanes.The tolled express lanes are intended to encourage highway technology!We need to find innovative ways to carpooling,vanpooling and transit(no toll would be collected increase the revenue for this project. How about for these users)by ensuring travel time reliability on the highway tolls in this 1-25 corridor for a while. I will be lanes. Under the tolling scenario identified in the FEIS,the dead by 2075 so having this project delayed this long is tolls collected would be used primarily to cover the cost of ridiculous. If I am going to help pay for this now, I want operating and maintaining the lanes. to be able to use it in my lifetime. I am sure that most of the commuters between the northern towns and Denver The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort feel the same way.Let's all work together to make this Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North happen in the next 10 years at the latest. Many people Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to will die on this highway before light rail is completed and Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology that is too high a price to pay! I feel like the northern part than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail of our state is being overlooked!Let's get it done NOW! corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer Thanks for letting voice my concerns. corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. In response to your comments regarding funding,please see General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented in the FEIS,induding safety FEIS Section 4.6. Public Anna Meck 10/3/2011 Comment noted. Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative Website This would be so helpful to have,and I believe essential. are documented in the Final EIS,including Entertainment IN-273 It would make it easier for me to go for excursions into travel—see FEIS Section 4.2.6. Denver for meeting clients,shopping,games,meeting friends,maybe even eventually make it easier to get to The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort the airport?In other words, I'd spend way more money Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North in Denver if it were easier for me to get there. I could Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to expand my business there. Denver and connecting service to DIA.The Preferred Alternative also includes express bus service to downtown B-108 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. I Denver and DIA,which would be initiated in Phase 1. Public Mary Humstone 10/3/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website We need rail service along the 1-25 corridor now-not in improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-274 60 years. Having commuted to Denver for 15 years, I'm Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway well aware of the dangerous and crowded conditions on Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. 1-25-and it's only getting worse.Civilized societies around the globe have been offering safe,reliable rail transportation to citizens for generations-in fact,we had it here 100 years ago!We need an alternative to the private automobile,one that can operate safely in all lands of weather. Public Gary Wockner 10-3-2011 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I support commuter rail which is a more reliable, improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-275 weather-independent,safer,less stressful or more Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway productive way to travel north-south along the front Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. range by 2025,not 2075. Please accelerate the timetable for building commuter rail by 2025 _.. Public Evelyn Bingham Oct 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website This all is a good idea,except the time frame--I think transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-276 with some focus,we should be able to implement the Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. plan within the next 10-15 years.That is, implementation by 2025. Public Layton Bersch 10/03/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website I strongly encourage CDOT to move up passenger rail improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-277 project priority and timetables for completion of phasing Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway ihru Fort Collins.As a Civil Designer, I have had many Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. opportunities to observe from a professional stand point that:Adding lanes to roadways and commuter bus CDOT believes that investments in transportation service are transportation solutions that do not return infrastructure of both rail and highway return value to the value for the taxpayer/municipal/agency investment as local economies.The relative return on investment is difficult well as passenger rail can. to calculate because the assumptions for calculation require some subjectivity. Adding passenger rail diversifies our transportation solutions.This will benefit communities in this EIS CDOT believes that all the modes of the Preferred region through cottage industries and tourism Alternative would benefit cottage industries and tourism B-109 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. opportunities that rail travel uniquely and efficiently opportunities. presents. Please reevaluate the stated Phasing plans that state project objectives thru 2075 on a cost benefit Phase 1 includes numerous investments in transit including standpoint to the entire region. Focusing the plan on the preservation of commuter rail right of way. This commitment 1-25 corridor limits benefits to the regions communities is intended to establish the region's future plans for transit and individuals whom are immediately involved with investment to guide development and investment along the travel on 1-25.This planning addresses budget corridor. limitations but does little to allow additional funding to be encouraged from non 1-25 commuting parties(basically In response to your comments about the focus of the study, you eliminating potential funding solutions by design). please note that multiple corridors(induding 1-25, US 287, The phasing schedule effectively limits population US 85 and multiple rail corridors)were included in the growth to automotive based commuters,distinctively regional study area(see Figure 1-1 of the Final EOS)and handicaps our region's communities from attracting highway and transit improvements to these corridors were individuals and businesses that value non roadway evaluated during the EIS alternative screening process,as based transportation and are attracted to our described in Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered of preservation of open space and promotes irresponsible the Final EIS and the Alternatives Development and urban sprawl. Having municipalities focus resources Screening Report(which was incorporated by reference into around undeveloped transportation centers and away the Final EIS).The Preferred Alternative includes highway from developed transportation centers(which the rail improvements to 1-25,as well as transit improvements on system is)has repeatedly been shown to devalue the multiple corridors.With regard to phasing of these community long term and will dramatically have a improvements,please refer to General Response#0— negative effect on future commerce opportunities Funding and Phasing. beyond the short term benefit that may come from road side development and industries.Thank you for your attention. Public Bruce Johansing October 3 In response to your comments regarding transportation Website There are so many timely and compelling reasons for improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-278 the state to further this program now and not 65 years Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway from now. Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. Let's Target the Year 2020! The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) There is enormous demand for rail service through recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in northern Colorado.The freight lines can lend much the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail expertise and guidance so as to help rail passenger service considered by this study serves a different purpose system be efficient and profitable.Such demand is and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail now,...not 50 years on. proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude B-110 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. other potential rail services.Throughout the development of Eliminating the heavy stifling 1-25 traffic from Denver to the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in Longmont to Loveland to Fort Collins is means of coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently creating new jobs and creating local wealth. initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways to enhance passenger and freight rail development to support economic growth and environmental sustainability. Public Dianne Thiel 10/3/11 Comment noted. Website I appreciate the inclusion of a rail corridor for Northern IN-279 Colorado in the preferred alternative for this study. In response to your comments regarding transportation Colorado needs to develop more rail transportation improvements,please refer to General Response#0— options,especially along the Front Range.We should Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway speed up the rail component of this project to complete Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. it much sooner than described in the FEIS-by no later than 2025.All avenues should be used to find funding to The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort expedite rail and other mast transit aspects of this Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North project. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor It is important to run the rail service through the major and is consistent with RTD plans. Front Range cities to support economic redevelopment in downtowns along the line,rather than put a rail line The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) along 1-25,where it would encourage sprawl and recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in destroy downtowns.Our communities also need the the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail good paying jobs this rail project will create. service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail I am 62 years old,and want to have rail travel as an proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude option when I can no longer drive.Since I am part of the other potential rail services.Throughout the development of baby boomer generation,my needs are likely typical of the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in many,many people in our state. coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed The type of analysis in Robert Yuhnke's presentation at rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is the ColoRail meeting in Longmont on Saturday,October preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide 1,2011,should be included in all future CDOT guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways highway/bus/rail projects. Mr.Yuhnke discussed ways to to enhance passenger and freight rail development to B-111 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. reduce VMTs,calculate avoided fuel costs,and how support economic growth and environmental sustainability. mass transit and other measures can keep money in the state's economy. I encourage CDOT to study this Please refer to response to the SWEEP comment SWEEP analysis and include such information in all (#OR-02). future CDOT project studies.SWEEP=Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIS. Public Janet Armstrong Oct.3,2011 Comment noted. Website Definite need for mass transit on 1-25 corridor. IN-280 The Preferred Alternative indudes new express bus and commuter bus services on the 1-25 and US 85 corridors, respectively.This alternative also indudes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Public Rita Lucero 10/03/2011 Comment noted. Website We have family in Denver so travel 125 much.This has IN-281 gotten to be such a horrible drive I nearly get sick The Preferred Alternative indudes new express bus and whenever we have to go.There is way too much traffic commuter bus services on the 1-25 and US 85 corridors, and a solution is much needed. respectively.This alternative also indudes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Public Thomas Phelps 10/03/11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I support light rail by 2025(or sooner) transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-282 Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail B-112 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public John Wolfe 10/03/11 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website I support rapid transit,specifically light rail,along the Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North IN-283 northern 125 corridor. Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver. Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. The Preferred Alternative indudes new express bus and commuter bus services on the 1-25 and US 85 corridors, respectively.This alternative also indudes commuter rail from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail. Public Leonard Kellogg 10-3-2011 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail from Fort Website Yes we want light rail in Northern Colorado. Driving on Collins,along the BNSF corridor through Loveland and IN-284 1-25 is nutz.Save resources,and have less pollution by Longmont with new track to the North Metro end-of-line in building light rail that comes to Longmont, Loveland, Thornton,with service continuing to Denver.Commuter rail Windsor,and Ft Collins. would not extend to Windsor.Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but was determined not to be the best rail transit choice.Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Public Suzanne Janssen 10-3-11 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website Would love to see commuter rail service to Northern transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-285 CO.Truly,reliable transportation options along the 125 Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. corridor are needed sooner,rather than later.Very important environmentally,as well as,economically for Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented B-113 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Northern Colorado.Attracting Denverites into our lovely in the Final EIS,including Entertainment travel—see FEIS City to see our art offerings and visit our galleries is vital Section 4.2.6. to the economic growth and prosperity of our citizens. Thank you! Consistent with your suggestion,the Preferred Alternative includes tolled express lanes on I-25. Demand on these lanes will be managed through tolling to ensure reliable travel times for express bus service,high occupancy vehicles,and single-occupant vehides paying tolls. Public Jerry Gerber October 3,2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I applaud your efforts and assessment of the North I-25 transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-286 EIS.CDOT should be commended for induding an Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues;and the Need option for commuter rail.The BNSF railway is the ideal for Modal Alternatives. transit project for Northern Colorado for many reasons: increased economic development along the corridor, CDOT believes that investments in transportation increasing fuel prices due to decreasing supply, infrastructure of both rail and highway return value to the increased commuter options and convenience, local economies. We agree that a multimodal solution increasing road congestion,increased safety at existing provided need transportation solutions.CDOT believes that rail crossings,increased cost-effectiveness over other all the modes of the Preferred Alternative would benefit proposals,and the possibility for future electrification of cottage industries and tourism opportunities. the rail system. Phase 1 includes numerous investments in transit including I am impressed with New Mexico's commuter rail preservation of commuter rail right of way. This commitment system,the Rail Runner.This project was completed is intended to establish the region's future plans for transit very quickly and paid for by state and private funding, investment to guide development and investment along the exclusively.What I want to stress is the urgency of the corridor. need for an effective transit system along the Front We recognize that oil is a non-renewable resource and its Range.We cannot wait any longer.Your proposal,while supply will peak someday.We also recognize that the data laudable,must be implemented in Phase One!You must on the supply of oil is imprecise and therefore there is much become aware of peak oil and its implications for uncertainty regarding when'peak oil'will occur. By providing resident mobility in the very near future.Also, a multi-modal solution,the Preferred Alternative offers Colorado's most valuable industry,tourism,absolutely mobility options for future travelers. Please refer to General depends on a viable and economical transportation Response#0,the Need for Modal Alternatives. Regarding system. Imagine an airline passenger arriving at DIA travel from DIA to Loveland,please note a future traveler taking RTD light rail to Thornton or Longmont,taking would board an RTD East Corridor commuter rail train from commuter rail to Loveland and riding on a public van or DIA to Denver Union Station,and transfer at DUS to an RTD bus to Rocky Mountain National Park without using any North Metro commuter rail train,which would provide a one- B-114 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. expensive private transportation whatsoever. seat ride to Loveland. Please do what it takes to push forward your timeline for Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented commuter rail on the northern Front Range and in the Final EIS,including Entertainment travel—see FEIS complete it by 2025,preferably sooner.As fuel costs Section 4.2.6. increase,Colorado residents and tourists alike will much appreciate your visionary leadership on this vital service. Thank you for your serious consideration! Public Buddy Meyers 10/03/2011 In response to your comments regarding prioritization of Website I like the rail component very very much.We need to transportation improvements,please refer to General IN-287 leverage our existing rail infrastructure owned by the Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Class 1 railroads,specifically the BNSF. BUT,we cannot wait,we need to move the date up to 2025. Thank you Public Dave Lindsay 9/12/11 Comment noted. Verbal My name is Dave Lindsay. I'm the town engineer for the IN-288 Town of Firestone. I was at the very first TAC meeting many years ago.We really do appreciate the effort that CDOT and the consulting staff has gone through.We appreciate the participation that we've been allowed to have in the input towards the solution. Mayor Chad Auer wanted to be at this meeting tonight, but he had a conflict and just was not able to come.We had prepared a letter that we've already sent actually with comments and support for the project. I would like to read that into the record very quickly. It's a brief letter. It was addressed to Tom Anzia at Felsburg Holt& Ullevig. "Mr.Anzia,the Town of Firestone has reviewed the north 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement and supports the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative.The final EIS,seven years and$22 million in the making,presents a thorough and complete B-115 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. evaluation of alternative solutions to the northern Front Range's pending transportation needs in compliance with need for requirements. Some of the key elements of the Preferred Alternative that garner our support are: The Plan addresses the major issue of I-25 congestion with a blend of improvements to the interstate to increased capacity and travel efficiency. The Plan will also provide a safer travel corridor. The Plan will replace critical infrastructure that is rapidly deteriorating or is technologically inferior,which also provides a safer travel corridor. The Plan incorporates innovative managed lanes for vehicular traffic,bus service,as well as a future commuter rail system,which combines to give commuters a full venue of transportation options currently not available throughout most of the northern Front Range. The Plan accommodates the least impact to existing wetlands and wildlife habitat of the alternatives that address the traffic problem on I-25. The Phrase 1 improvements address the most immediate and critical issues in the I-25 corridor while laying the groundwork for future phases that will fully develop the Plan's well-rounded transportation solution. I-25 is the main street of the Northern Front Range,and the Preferred Alternative preserves this critical component of the region's continued success. Business leaders frequently list efficient and effective transportation as being a key element in determining where to locate,relocate or expand.The addition of alternative transportation modes can also enhance the quality of life of residents of the region which helps retain and recruit the best and brightest workforce. We look forward to the Record of Decision and CDOT's expedient completion of the Phase 1 improvements. B-116 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Sincerely,Chad Auer, Mayor." Thank you. Public Linda Bersch I'm Linda Bersch from Loveland,Colorado,private In response to your comments regarding transportation Verbal citizen. I also thank you for your efforts in completing improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-289 this study. I'm very happy to see the final draft. I have a Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway couple of comments. I would very much like to see the Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. commuter rail established sooner rather than later and moved into Phase 1. I spent almost 30 years commuting The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, from Loveland to Denver to work,so I have some express bus service and commuter bus service in Phase 1. experience on 1-25.As soon as you build another lane, Commuter rail would be included in later phases;please it's full. Fortunately,most of my commuting I was able to refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues carpool or vanpool and noticed that most of the traffic is for the reasons that commuter rail implementation is in one person per car,so I think alternatives to car travel is induded in later phases. sorely needed so that people can do something besides use their own car. Express bus service is a flexible mode that can accommodate new or different stations to serve future Commuter rail in Phase 1 would be a good alternative to developments.The station near Crossroads Boulevard was cars and more cars.The railway would also serve identified through coordination with the City of Loveland.A people along the 287 corridor.A lot of people do station at US 34 or SH 402 could be considered in the commute long that corridor for work as well as along 1- future. 25 and would also serve the people living and working in that area and for people even going on into Denver. It doesn't force those people to use the feeder roads out to 1-25.They can stay in the core areas of our cities along 287 and the rail route. I have one other comment on the express bus.The stops,as I see it on the map,go from Windsor--Fort Collins,Windsor,Crossroads Boulevard,and then Berthoud. It seems to me like a stop at 34 or 402 would be more conducive to the commuters that would be using that bus rather than on Crossroads Boulevard. I live along 402,and that 402 park-n-ride is overflowing almost every day.The more you build,the more overflow it creates,so 1 would think that 17 considering the congestion at Crossroads Boulevard and the lack of B-117 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. available vacant land there,that a bus stop using the existing park-n-rides at 34 or 402 would be better served for the people. Thank you so very much Public Artie Elmquist 9/12/11 The comments have been noted. Please contact CDOT if Verbal Good evening.As a tenant farmer that lives along I-25 you have any continued concerns regarding these issues. IN-290 next to Stevenson Lexus, I'm here tonight to talk about a few issues that remain from the reconstruction of I-25 CDOT attempts to be careful and thorough in our recently in which one lane was added in each direction. construction projects and remains committed to working This is just a word of--some good comments that I dosely with affected property owners to ensure satisfactory want to relay to some of the CDOT staff here in which outcomes.With regard to the Preferred Alternative,CDOT I'm concerned about in the design phase of that project, will coordinate with affected property owners during future that adequate designing and efforts were not made to design and construction. work with landowners and tenant farmers in addressing some of the irrigation reconstruction issues,and some of those issues still remain today.And this is a word of warning to some here in the audience that I will be contacting them yet to see what can be done about some of the lingering issues. I'm concerned about the consultant that was hired to redesign the irrigation system and would hope in the future as you go about doing future projects to the north that you find somebody that is much more competent in designing irrigation systems,because the consultant that was hired certainly wasn't.We still have remaining issues.What I think is important also in the process then is also working more closely with the County and the towns in which when you reconstruct these roads and make changes to drainage ways and such,you're not always actively coordinating and cooperating with the counties and towns,and they need to be aware of some of the impacts that those changes along I-25 will have to the adjacent roadways. So I appredate your opportunity to allow me to speak B-118 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. on those issues tonight and thank you,and I do support, obviously,the project and think it is very much needed; that we need to do upgrades obviously but have these concerns and think it is important that they be given some weight. Thank you _.. _.. Public Rob Osborne September 13,2011. In response to your comments regarding transportation Verbal MR.OSBORNE: My name is Rob Osborne. My address improvements,please refer to General Response#0- IN-291 is 207 West Mrytle Ct., Fort Collins,Colorado,and I'm a Funding and Phasing Issues;the Need for Highway restaurant owner. I'm not a traffic engineer by any Improvements;and the Need for Modal Alternatives. means,but I do have the railroad come by my business every day,day in and day out,time and time again.So it Even though financing strategies were not evaluated as part certainly has made me think about rail transportation. of this study,it does not limit pursuing alternative financing And now that this EIS report has come out for final strategies.CDOT or another entity such as the High comment period, I wanted to express my wish to speed Performance Transportation Enterprise or local agencies up the passenger rail component and see if there was can propose financing strategies that could be considered any way that that could be put in the Phase 1 project and accelerate implementation of the Preferred Alternative. development. And I imagine financing,money is the For more information on the financial analysis,please refer main issue with that.And as a citizen I wonder what to FEIS.Chapter 6.0,Financial Analysis. citizens can do to help bring that about,expedited in a quicker fashion so that we don't have to wait until our The Preferred Alternative does include new bus transit lads'kids see passenger rail along the Front Range. services,but the proposed express bus would use 1-25. And the other concern that I have is, I've been in There currently are other public bus services that connect Colorado for almost 35 years now,and it seems to me Fort Collins to Longmont on US 287,where passengers can the good part of the time 1-25 is under construction, connect to Denver with RTD. which is well it should be,it needs to be maintained,but in the process,of course,it is a hazardous drive when a lane is reduced and so on and so forth. And if there is going to be 94 structural improvements and repaving the highway and adding lanes,it sure would be great to have an alternative to having to take the highway,and certainly,you know,a bus option going down 287 might be something. But if I had my wishes,it would be developing that passenger rail component sooner,and I think that the benefit that B-119 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. would come from that would be tremendous. I also realize that passenger rail is something that needs to be subsidized by government in one form or fashion in order to maintain it. It's rare that ridership will pay for the actual cost of running a passenger rail system,and so I realize that's a big concern,too. I would hope that there is a way that the public could get involved in that,and there would be a way that we could increase that--improve on that timeline,and so I would certainly be open and wanting to hear what the department,CDOT would have as far as suggestions there. Thank you Public Irene Fortune September 15,2011. Please note that induding commuter rail as a component of Verbal My name is Irene Fortune. I live at 4830 Avon Avenue in the Preferred Alternative will allow North Front Range IN-292 Loveland 80538,and I support the commuter rail residents to benefit from its safe operations. In regards to component in this study for the reason that it provides motor vehicle accidents, 1-25 will undergo capacity reliable transportation,and if the ridership turns out to enhancements as well as design upgrades that will improve be much larger than what the numbers we see here are, the safety of the freeway.CDOT safety statistics indicate which is my prediction looking at other rail systems in that these planned safety improvements will reduce the the country,then I would also expect to see accident rate on 1-25 by three percent over the No-Action improvement in air quality and road condition.But Alternative. In addition,the Preferred Alternative will reduce mostly I support it for health and safety reasons for the the VMT on arterials throughout the study area which have a people in this region. higher accident rate than 1-25.This will improve roadway safety across the entire study area. I've worked in the highly hazardous chemical production industry for 30 years,and I am completely convinced of We acknowledge your concern regarding air quality;please the rewards that I've gotten are won by planning for see FEIS Section 3.5 for discussion of air quality. safety.And so I do defensive driving on the roads. I do defensive driving times ten on my bicycle,and I'm In response to your comments regarding transportation worried because I see population projections continuing improvements,please refer to General Response#0—the to arise around here,and I foresee that the roads will Need for Highway Improvements;and the Need for Modal get busier and busier regardless how many lanes are Alternatives. added on 1-25 and 287 and 85 and the roads in between. And then I consulted the National Safety Many benefits of the Preferred Alternative are documented B-120 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Council and learned that as of 2009 the average in the FEIS,induding safety—FEIS Section 4.6, Safety. American had a 1 in 90 chance of getting injured in a motor vehide accident,to the extent they need medical attention,and that's each year. Worse,the motor vehide crashes are the leading cause of death from ages 2 through 39 and ages 50 through 72,and according to the National Safety Council,the total cost of accidents in 2009 was 245 billion.And I was horrified.And then I thought,hey,let me try to ratio that down to,like,the north Front Range area because we've got about 200,000 people here,give or take. I didn't know how to factor in the Fort Collins with the safest driving record,so I just did a straight calculation, and I came up with a hit for our region of 160, 170 million each year,and to me that's a horrifying number. And I'm land of looking at CDOT people and the transportation people to see if I'm right or an order of magnitude off.Okay. I'm sticking with it. Then I went to a CDOT study,and that the actual injury rate for rail passengers was better than three times less than the injury rate for motor vehicle occupants,and that's good news.So I predict if we had a significant--if the people here had a significantly less riskier way to travel,plus the quieter and safer roads that you could get with the computer rail construction,according to this chart here,then the benefit that families and employers would get in this region will go far beyond the dollar investment for computer rail. Thank you. Public Laura Coale 8/22/11 Comment noted. Written I fully support 1-25 expansion from Fort Collins, IN-293 Loveland, Longmont, Erie,etc.to Denver and DIA. My in-laws live in Loveland and would use public transportation.One day I would like to move to that B-121 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. area,but my commute to DIA for work currently makes that dream difficult. I would use public transportation from North Colorado to DIA.My current location could also use public transportation to DIA and Denver and I would certainly take advantage of it as well(Highway 7 and 125). Public Luke Tembrock 9/13/11 In response to your comments regarding transportation Written I am very excited about the preferred alternative. Please improvements,please refer to General Response#0— IN-294 push for the rail portion as quickly as possible.Thank Funding and Phasing Issues;and the Need for Modal you also for not considering building a separate rail line Alternatives. but rather using the existing line—good work! Please integrate bicycles as much as possible. I am not Section 4.8 of the Final EIS describes the specific concerned about environmental impacts;the area is so accommodations being made for bicycle facilities,including developed no virgin lands will be destroyed.Again,the connecting to bus and commuter rail studies,interchanges use of railcars DMU's is great,push first for rail and trail crossings at 1-25.Although a transit vehicle has not development.Rail!Thanks for your efforts—please feel been chosen,it is likely it would accommodate bicycles free to contact me for more details or endorsements. similar to the RTD regional bus routes or rail vehides. Bicycle access and bicycle parking will be provided for transit stations with specific details to be determined during design. Public Dan Dean 9/13/11 Access and egress ramps to/from the TEL would be located Written Town of Mead is concerned that drivers in the in the vicinity of the Mead interchanges. For a southbound IN-295 express/toll lanes will be precluded from exiting at the traveler originating from Mead,an access ramp to the TEL Mead exits, Exits 243 and 245. will be located south of the SH-66 Interchange#243.A northbound traveler in the TEL destined to Mead would have an egress from the TEL south of the SH 66 Interchange #243.For a northbound traveler originating from Mead, access to the TEL could be either north of SH 66 Interchange#243,or north of SH-56 Interchange#250. For a southbound traveler in the TEL destined to Mead,they could use an egress from the TEL either north of SH 56 Interchange#250 or south of the CR-34 Interchange#245. Please note that refinements and modifications will be B-122 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. considered through final design of the improvements. Public Lee Steffes 9/13/11 The Preferred Alternative would expand 1-25 primarily to the Written Because we live on the east side of 1-25 we hope all west from its current position,but there are exceptions for IN-296 construction is done on the west side where 110 houses individual situations. Please refer to FEIS Section 3.4, exist,also we need noise mitigation like they have in Right-of-Way.The noise impact and abatement strategies Denver and on other roads like 287 has. are described in Section 3.6,Noise and Vibration of the Final EIS. Public Pat Jordan 9/14/11 Please note that the regional study area for this EIS,as Written Before viewing the program I want to comment on described in Chapter 1.0,Purpose and Need extends from IN-297 locations where such programs are held.Why are they Wellington to Denver and from US 287 to US 85.The held at locations only you can only get to if you drive? intention was to spread the limited number of public hearing Not exactly environmentally good. If you want to locations across the EIS regional study area.We understand promote transit and alternative means of transportation that all of the hearing locations may not have been have them where a lot more people can attend. convenient for everyone in the regional study area.One of the hearings was in downtown Longmont,which is accessible by public transportation.The Final EIS and comment submittals were also provided via the internet which did not require driving. Public Edmond Robert 9/18/11 We agree there are some advantages,induding your five Written Bus"transit"stops along 1-25 should be located on a points,to median stations. Median stations were fully IN-298 widened"median platform"as a station that buses can evaluated in Package B,to provide a competitive transit easily access and quickly handle passengers safely. service to the commuter rail of Package A. In the development of the Preferred Alternative,which also The platform would be accessed to one side of the includes commuter rail service on the BNSF corridor, overpass using stairs and an elevator from a sidewalk median stations were eliminated to reduce the need for along that side of the bridge.Advantages: additional 1-25 right-of-way,reduce impacts to the environment and to reduce cost.The stations for the express 1. Improved Safety—buses do not have to leave the bus are located at interchanges and have a slip ramp to the NOV lane,traverse three lanes of fast moving traffic, bus platform off the exit or entrance ramp,to minimize off- pass through the adjacent signal system,and returned highway travel time. It was also recognized that it would be via same unsafe route. harder to initiate express bus service with median stations 2. Reduced time-0 buses would stop in same inside due to the need to reconstruct 1-25 at station locations lane and easily pick-deliver passengers within two before the bus service could begin. minutes,saving 10 minutes or over 100 minutes along the 13 station route. It is possible that bus stations that are initially built along B-123 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. 3.Convenience—Easier load and unloading on level interchanges ramps could be converted to median stations platform and riders would have an easy option to cross at a later date. the platform for a return. 4. Experienced and Successful—Central platform a standard. 5. Less Business Maintenance—Leaving inside roadway to exit to park-n-ride station is more wear and tear on the buses and drivers. More maintenance. Public Robert Michael 9/19/11 In response to your comments regarding Written A German tourist visiting Fort Collins would be appalled prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-299 at the backward country we are. It would be refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing inconceivable to him that he couldn't take a train from Issues. Fort Collins to downtown Denver. The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements, Therefore, I enthusiastically support the proposed bus transit and commuter rail.The commuter rail would preferred alternative to address this situation. Not only serve from Fort Collins,along the BNSF corridor with new do we need train service,utilizing BN tracks which are track to the North Metro end-of-line in Thornton,to Denver. already there,but 1-25 desperately needs to be three Note that commuter rail is a different technology than light lanes all the way to Colorado Highway 14. Driving south rail.Commuter rail can operate in freight rail corridors,and (as you are forced to do),you can just feel a sigh of can achieve faster speeds over longer corridors in contrast relief when you hit the current widening point.And these to light rail. Light rail was considered for this corridor,but improvements need to start right away,not decades was determined not to be the best rail transit choice. from now. Commuter rail has been identified for this corridor and is consistent with RTD plans. Please note that the Preferred Alternative would expand 1-25 to six general purpose lanes in each direction from Highway 66 to Highway 14. Public Darrel Wandless 10/01/11 Written 1-25 Proposal IN-300 I support all of the proposed Improvements to the 1-25 highway. My support is based on the following reasons. 1)The preferred method of travel is by vehicle 1)Comment noted. especially in rural and urban areas. 2)Please note that there are many costs associated with B-124 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. 2)The automobile manufacturing companies are use of the private automobile besides the cost of gasoline. currently working on the details to raise the CAFE This was considered in the FEIS as described in Section 6.5. (corporate average fuel economy)to the area of 56 3)The Express Bus on TEL provides a competitive travel miles per gallon by 2025.This would mean that a time to private automobiles(when the private automobile vehicle could go from Wellington to Denver and back on travels in the TEL)and would be quicker than private 3 gallons of gasoline which would cost far less than the automobiles in the general purpose lanes.Additional cost of the proposed public transportation cost,bus or information on travel time statistics is in Section 4.3 of the rail. FEIS. 3)The vehicle also will be faster and more convenient than the public proposals. 4)The improvements to 125 will be a one time expense for the improvements. Maintenance will then be funded 4)As a point of clarification,improvements to 1-25 require by the now established taxing sources of income. No additional funding for capital,operations,and maintenance. new taxes. A dedicated funding source for operating and maintaining either the highway or transit service needs to be identified. I do not support the proposed public bus plan for the Financing options were not evaluated in the FEIS. following reasons. 1)As stated above the public bus transportation proposal cannot compete With the private vehicle 1)In response to your comments regarding transit,please transportation for cost,time and convenience. see General Response#0—Need for Modal Alternatives. 2)Public commuter bus service is not generally 2)While public transit service requires public subsidies,it operated profitably and therefore has to be should be noted highway facilities also require public supplemented with new taxes to keep it operating funding. 3)The main reason for my opposition is there is already 3)The regional transit services induded in the Preferred a private company providing bus service to DIA from Alternative offer a different land of transportation service Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont,Greeley and metro than the door-to-door shuttles serving DIA.There are many Denver.The company is Super Shuttle.The government examples of public transit services and shuttle services co- should never be allowed to compete with a established existing in the same area,for example in metro Denver. private company since the government will put the private company out of business because they do not have to be profitable.This means the tax payers have to make up the difference with new taxes. I do not support the proposed commuter train addition 1)As a point of clarification,improvements to 1-25 require for the following reasons. additional funding for capital,operations,and maintenance. 1)Unlike the improvements to 25 which does not A dedicated funding source for operating the highway or the B-125 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. require additional funding for the operation of the transit needs to be identified. highway other than the maintenance,the rail proposal 2)Actually,passenger rail vehicle technologies are rapidly has a built in requirement for new taxes to supplement evolving as mentioned in FEIS Section 2.2.4.5.These newer the operation of the train. technologies are much more efficient than the original 2)I have not seen improvements to efficiency of the rail diesel-electric units. system.The last major change was when it changed 3)Consistent with the corridor's western communities'desire from coal fired steam engines to diesel powered electric to revitalize their core city centers,the commuter rail engines. provides an alternative mode connecting these dense 3)The rail proposal has many problems,it is slow,it is population centers to metro Denver.The Preferred expensive,it is routed thru high occupancy areas within Alternative would implement quiet zones at grade crossings, city limits with many grade level roads,it runs thru high reducing the noise from both freight and passenger rail. concentration residential areas and trains are noisy. 4)A dedicated funding source for operating the transit needs 4)There are not sufficient regular commuters to pay for to be identified. the operation of the trains. 5)The commuter rail operating plan indudes passing track 5)There are not two rails for travel in both directions at at critical locations to allow trains to pass each other.The the same time. Between Fort Collins and Denver there passing track locations are based on a study that took in to are seven stations and rail side lines to allow trains to account preliminary rail service frequencies,travel time and pass each other all requiring the trains to stop. How can station locations of the North Metro service as well as this that be anything but slow? project's extension of that service to Fort Collins. Summary Summary As I have stated above, I support all of the improvement As a point of clarification,improvements to 1-25 require of the 1-25 highway.This is a onetime expense for the additional funding for capital,operations,and maintenance. infrastructure and then the maintenance costs are paid A dedicated funding source for operating the highway or the for by existing taxing. transit needs to be identified. I assume that the commuter rail proposal was initiated Commuter rail was one of several transit options thoroughly due to a federal government program to promote evaluated in both the DEIS and FEIS. Rail was found to commuter rail construction. support the purpose and need of the overall project,improve transportation in the regional study area and have strong The proposed area to support the commuter rail is a support among the local governments and citizens. For narrow strip of communities consisting of the area south these and related reasons,commuter rail was induded in a of Wellington to Denver and west of 125 to the foothills package of improvements comprising the Preferred of the mountains plus the cities of Windsor and Greeley, Alternative,and not due to federal mandates. Since most of the potential rail commuters would have to drive to get to the rail station,why not drive another 3 We agree that the majority of the travelling public will use the B-126 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. or 4 miles to get onto I 25?The commuters in Windsor highway facilities. However,there has been a strong need and Greeley would In fact have to cross over 125 to get identified by local and regional planners and public to a rail station. stakeholders for an increase in the number of modal options for regional travel other than highway alternatives.This need Why wouldn't they take 125 instead of the rail?It would was not identified through a federal government program. cost less,be faster and they would not have to find As described in the FEIS Chapter 6.0,Financial Analysis the transportation to their final destination in Denver from cost estimates for commuter rail do comprehensively the rail station. account for all expenses,including employees,insurance, maintenance,fuel,vehicles,land,and facilities.Section 6.1 The improvements to 125 will increase the volume of covers capital costs and Section 6.2 covers operating and traffic it can handle which makes it harder to justify the maintenance costs. construction of the commuter rail. There is a common misunderstanding that the gasoline tax Unlike the 125 improvements which has a onetime covers operating and maintenance costs of the highway construction cost the commuter rail cost will go on system. However,gasoline tax funding shortfalls in recent indefinitely. years have resulted in a progressive decline in the condition of the highway infrastructure. Increasing lanes on the facility These costs Include. will require additional maintenance funds. Revenue from the 1)The cost of land,cost for construction of the railroad, TEL is anticipated to cover some of the operations and stations and the purchase cost of the engines and rail maintenance costs. cars. 2)Costs for the maintenance of the railroad,rail engines,rail cars,rail stations and the cost of the fuel to operate the trains. 3)Cost of employees Including insurance. All of these costs after the construction of the rail system are not currently accounted for. Unlike the highways there is no source of revenue to pay for the operation of the commuter rail.There probably is not any guarantee from the federal government to subsidize the operating costs. Just because someone thinks the commuter rail is a good idea does not mean it is a good idea everywhere. It is the responsibility of CDOT and everyone working on B-127 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. this proposal to evaluate this proposal for what is best for Colorado and not just approve it because some money was offered. DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Don't build a commuter rail system that very few will use. Thank you, Public Ron Vanderkoor 10/01/11 In response to your comments regarding Written Push the economy of"steel on steel". prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please IN-301 And it will be more costly the longer we wait. refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Also,stress the fact that all forms of transportation,air, Issues. highway&railway are heavily subsidized and Amtrack and commuters take the least. We agree that many forms of transportation and the transportation facilities receive some level of public funding. B-128 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Written Joan Shaffer Front Range On Track In response to your comments regarding OR-01 Joan Shaffer,President prioritization/phasing of transportation improvements,please 218 East Sixth Street refer to General Response#0—Funding and Phasing Loveland,CO 80537 Issues. (970)669-0030 We agree with your observations on the benefits of The Front Range on Track Board of Directors supports commuter rail. For further information on some of the the Preferred Alternative recommendation to be identified benefits of the Preferred Alternative please see induded in the N125 Environmental Impact Statement the following sections of the Final EIS: (EIS).Out organization is dedicated to the re Congestion—FEIS Section 4.4 establishment of commuter/passenger rail along the Safety—FEIS Section 4.6 Front Range,and we are particularly interested in the Air quality—FEIS Section 3.5 implementation of commuter rail services as described Environmental Consequences Affecting Economic in the study.We are,however,concerned with the 2075 Conditions—FEIS Section 3.3.2 timeline identified for the rail component of the EIS that Entertainment travel—FEIS Section 4.2.6. is simply too long a wait to bring such a critically needed backbone transportation opportunity to the region. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority(rockymountainrail.org) Commuter rail should be given priority to become recently completed a feasibility study of high-speed rail in operational in Phase 1 of the project and by no later the 1-25 front range and 1-70 mountain corridors.The rail than 2025. service considered by this study serves a different purpose and need than the North 1-25 EIS.The commuter rail Commuter rail service would provide the following proposed in the Preferred Alternative does not preclude benefits: other potential rail services.Throughout the development of •Safe,weather-independent,alternative transportation the Preferred Alternative,the EIS team has been in to commuters who live and work along the Highway 287 coordination with the RMRA.Also note that CDOT recently corridor. initiated an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed •Relieve congestion along the 125 and the neighboring rail that includes the Front Range. Finally,CDOT is feeder roadways. preparing a statewide rail plan that is intended to provide •Reduce the number of commuters dependent on the guidance for investing in future rail needs and present ways 125 corridor.As the population grows,it is easier to add to enhance passenger and freight rail development to passenger cars to a train than to ad lanes for passenger support economic growth and environmental sustainability. cars on the interstate and other regional corridor roadways. Regional and statewide economic vitality will also be well served by rail transportation along the. B-129 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Burlington/Santa Fe(BNSF)track.Colorado tourists and destination providers would benefit from strategic transit option facilitation participation at the numerous attractions along the North Front Range and into the Denver metro and greater Colorado area. In addition, the opportunity for significant short-and long-term job creation exists through the capital project period and on- going operations and maintenance of the service. Equally important to the region is the economic opportunities for revitalization and redevelopment of the downtown areas of the communities along the existing rail line. Commuter rail must be a priority in the implementation of the Preferred Alternative of the NI25 EIS. Sincerely, Joan Shaffer,President Public Bob Yuhnke October 3,2011 Website COMMENTS BY THE SOUTHWEST ENERGY OR-02 EFFICIENCY PROJECT ON THE I-25 PROJECT EIS,CONFORMITY DETERMINATION AND STATEWIDE PLAN REVISIONS. Submitted October 3,2011 By Robert E.Yuhnke Director,Transportation Program Michael Salisbury Transportation Policy Analyst B-130 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. SUMMARY. This EIS considered a reasonable range of alternatives and adequate mitigation measures.See the responses below. The FEIS for the proposed 1-25 Corridor does not The alternatives,impacts and mitigation evaluated are indude the analyses and demonstrations required under adequate and no supplement is required. federal and State law to authorize approval of the preferred alternative.The EIS is not adequate under The description of state and federal requirements in your NEPA,the Federal-Aid Highway Act,the FASTER letter is not accurate.Given that this is not the appropriate amendments to the State transportation planning forum for comments on the transportation planning process, process and the Environmental Stewardship Guidance we have not corrected each mischaracterization of the adopted by the Transportation Commission because of transportation planning process. For informational purposes the failure to consider adequate alternatives and we have tried to create a more comprehensive picture of the mitigation measures to minimize fuel consumption, planning process throughout our response. Decisions by minimize fuel consumption,and reduce GHG emissions. USDOT concerning the transportation planning process are The EIS does not support a conformity determination not considered federal actions subject to NEPA(see 23 that complies with EPA's transportation conformity U.S.C§§134(p)and 135(j),and 23 CFR§§450.222 and requirements because the project does not come from a 450.336),and are not subject to NEPA review through the conforming fiscally constrained transportation plan and project-level review process.A project level conformity TIP for the nonattainment portion of the project corridor determination is not required until issuance of the final that demonstrates that funding is available to build and environmental documents(categorical exclusion(CE), operate the emission-reducing portions(rail and BRT)of finding of no significant impact(FONSI),or record of the preferred alternative.The EIS also fails to provide decision(ROD)). In order to be eligible for Federal-aid the information relied upon to estimate project costs, funding,at least one phase of the project must be in an provide a rational explanation for estimated toll approved STIP(23 CFR 450.220(a)),TIP(23 CFR 450.330), revenues,and provides no evidence to show that the and Plan(23 CFR 450.322 generally).Although FHWA and preferred alternative is reasonably feasible with the CDOT intend to work toward implementing the Preferred resources that are available. Alternative in its entirety,due to current funding limitations and federal requirements that the project be in the fiscally A ROD for the proposed 1-25 corridor project may not be constrained plan and TIP before a NEPA decision document signed until the EIS is supplemented to remedy these can be approved,only a portion of the Preferred Alternative, deficiencies. identified as Phase 1 and discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of the Final EIS,can be selected for implementation. Phase 1 is"the project"for purposes of applying fiscal constraint requirements. Phase 1 is included in the fiscally constrained, air quality conforming long range plans and TIPs.The portion of Phase 1 that will take place in the near term is included in the TIPs of the metropolitan planning B-131 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. organizations(MPO)and the STIP for the state.The appropriate forum to raise concerns regarding the transportation planning process is with the appropriate MPO or the state.The transportation planning process offers the opportunity for interested parties to become engaged in the process,and provide comments when long-range planning and program documents are being developed. It should be noted that this decision(ROD)does not indude the Statewide Plan Amendment.The amendment that induded portions of this project was approved by the Colorado Transportation Commission in May 2011. Toll revenue is not relied on as a funding source for the capital improvements. In this EIS,revenue from users in the tolled express lanes was estimated to be sufficient to cover the operations and maintenance of those lanes.Cost estimates were included in the Final EIS in Chapter 6 and in the North I-25 Project Cost Estimate Reviews Final Report circulated with the technical reports in Volume 4 of the Final EIS.The assumptions behind the tolling revenues are documented in the Final EIS within supporting technical reports. A technical report by Wilbur Smith Associates(part of the consultant team;responsible for the traffic and revenue estimates)is induded in Appendix G(Travel Demand Forecasting Memoranda)of the Alternatives Development and Screening Report. I. NEPA Requires Consideration of Alternatives that NEPA,per the CEQ regulations,requires that all reasonable Avoid Adverse Impacts,and that Enhance the Human alternatives be evaluated.There is no requirement under Environment. NEPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or select an alternative with any specific characteristics.To be NEPA requires consideration of alternatives that avoid considered a reasonable alternative,the alternative must B-132 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. or minimize adverse impacts to the human environment, meet the Purpose and Need for the project.This NEPA and that enhance the quality of the human environment. process considered many transportation improvements that 40 C.F.R.§1502.1. Here,the EIS shows that all the alone would not meet the Purpose and Need,but combined alternatives contribute to more energy use and greater with other improvements met the Purpose and Need.These GHG emissions than the no-build scenario.SWEEP combinations of improvements were evaluated in the Final believes that the failure to consider project alternatives EIS. in the EIS that reduce GHG emissions violates NEPA. The development of alternatives and discussions of what was eliminated and what was carried forward can be found in the"North 1-25 EIS Alternatives Development and Screening Report", FHU and Jacobs,October 2011.This report documents the process used for evaluating and screening alternatives,and was circulated with the Final EIS. The types of alternatives that you recommend(below)as having the best potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they did not include any widening of 1-25 or any other highway or arterial road for general purpose use were considered in the Level 3 screening.These alternatives included various combinations of rail transit,bus rapid transit and/or high occupancy or tolled express lanes.Specifically, three packages considered in Level 3 screening were not advanced for full analysis because they did not fully meet the project Purpose and Need by not addressing mobility on 1-25.These were: • Package 2,which included adding two new toll lanes on 1-25 in each direction along with commuter bus in these lanes. In addition,commuter bus service would be added in mixed traffic along US 287 from Fort Collins to Longmont and along US 85 from Greeley to Denver Union Station. • Package 3,which included adding two new high occupancy/toll lanes with bus rapid transit on 1-25 from US 36 to SH 14.This alternative also induded commuter bus service in mixed traffic from Fort Collins to Longmont and on US 85 from Greeley to Denver Union Station. • Package 8,which included commuter rail along the B-133 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. BNSF ROW from Fort Collins to Longmont where it would connect to the FasTracks Northwest Rail line;an extension of FasTracks North Metro commuter rail service connecting to the Northwest Rail line in Longmont;one buffer separated HOV lane along 1-25 with BRT service in the lane;commuter bus service on US 85 from Greeley to Denver Union Station and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport. In addition, Package B,fully evaluated in the Final EIS, included only tolled express lanes and BRT. Package B was not identified as the Preferred Alternative because it does not respond as well to the Purpose and Need of the project (including regional safety,reducing congestion,and provision of alternate modes)and does not meet the land use goals,livability principles,or system connectivity objectives as well as the Preferred Alternative. The 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment(and In addition,the failure to actually achieve reductions in CDOT's response to SWEEP on their comments on the GHG emissions violates the obligation in FASTER to amendment)acknowledged the FASTER requirement that adopt a transportation plan that reduces GHG the plan"address reduction of GHG emissions". FASTER emissions. Finally,the failure to consider and select does not explicitly require plans to reduce GHG emissions. projects for the Statewide plan that minimizes fuel CDOT is currently developing methodology to address GHG consumption fails to satisfy the requirement in the reductions in advance of the next statewide transportation Federal-Aid Highway Act requiring that plans must plan.The Energy Smart Transportation initiative is being accomplish the national goals enacted by Congress for used by CDOT and the Governors Energy Office as a forum federal funding of transportation plans and projects. to assemble planning partners and stakeholders to collaboratively work on the methodology.The obligation under FASTER for the transportation plan is not directly applicable on a project basis.The requirement in Colorado Revised Statutes(CRS)43-1-1103(5)is that the state plan shall address but shall not be limited to the following factors: B-134 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. • emphasis on multi-modal transportation corridors • emphasis on coordination with county and municipal land use planning • development of area-wide multi-modal management plans • targeting of infrastructure investment induding preservation of the existing transportation system commonly known as"fix it first" • safety enhancements • strategic mobility and multi-modal choice • support of urban or rural mass transit • environmental stewardship • effective,efficient and safe freight transport • reduction in greenhouse gas emissions The obligation in FASTER 43-4-802(3)(a)(II)is to provide the state and local governments with the resources and flexibility to explore and invest in modern multi-modal and demand-side transportation solutions that will help reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.As stated, the Statewide Plan shall address all of the factors listed which requires a balancing of multiple criteria.There is no obligation in either of these pieces of legislation to adopt a transportation plan that reduces GHG emissions nor does FASTER rank the various factors in importance when developing a balance of the multiple criteria. As noted above,opportunities for public comment to regional and state plans are provided by 23 CFR 450.210 and 450.316.These comments are applicable to the planning process and are more appropriate there.Attempts to mix the requirements of the planning process with the requirements of NEPA are not consistent with 23 CFR Part 450 or 23 USC 134(p).To voice your concerns with the regional planning process'compliance with planning regulations,the proper B-135 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. forum is the planning process and not in this NEPA document. NEPA is"our basic national charter for protection of the The NEPA process for the North 1-25 EIS developed and environment,"enacted for the purpose of"promot[ing] analyzed alternatives that could result in less VMT,air efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the pollutant emissions and GHG emissions. These include environment."40 C.F.R.§1500.1(a)and 42 U.S.C.§ Packages 2,3 and 8,which were developed and evaluated 4321. Furthermore, NEPA 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a), in Level 3,but did not meet the Purpose and Need for the requires an agency to"[r]igorously explore and project. However,these packages had some merit and were objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." used to develop Packages A, B and the Preferred Alternative. Package B does not indude general purpose When significant impacts on the human environment, lane capacity and was fully evaluated in the Final EIS.The such as public health or climate change are identified, components of the Preferred Alternative are similar to NEPA then requires that the EIS 1)compare Package 8 except that it includes a mixture of tolled express alternatives with respect to these impacts("present the lanes and general purpose lanes while Package 8 assumed environmental impacts of the proposal and the high occupancy vehide lanes on 1-25. In considering impacts alternatives in comparative form,thus ...providing a to human health,the project analysis showed that current clear basis for choice among options by the decision- year total emissions on the corridor are 2,112.909 tons per maker and the public."40 C.F.R.§§1502.14,1502.16), day.The total emissions per day in 2035 of the alternatives and 2)"include appropriate mitigation measures not evaluated ranged from 1,700.033—1713.98 tons per day. already included in the proposed action or alternatives." The lowest being the No Action and the highest being 40 C.F.R.§§1502.14(f), 1502.16(h).The final action Package A.Total CO2 production showed increases over taken by the agency must also"state whether all the No Action of 0.8%for Package A,0.4%for Package B, practical means to avoid or minimize environmental and 0.9%for the Preferred Alternative.As discussed in the harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, Record of Decision(in the Basis for the Preferred and if not,why they were not."40 C.F.R.§1505.2(c). Alternative),one of the reasons the Preferred Alternative These operative procedures that inform the action- was identified was its superior ability to,over time,reduce forcing nature of NEPA are not fully implemented if the energy consumption.This is due to the ability to easily initial assessment of impacts fails to consider relevant expand the people-carrying capacity of both rail and bus information that identifies the adverse effects of the transit and the potential for transit-oriented development to proposal that must be used to compare alternatives,or occur around both rail and bus transit stations.The details of the alternatives fail to include options and identify the development of alternatives and discussions of what was mitigation measures that will prevent or eliminate eliminated and what was carried forward can be found in the damage to the environment. "North 1-25 EIS Alternatives Development and Screening B-136 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Report", FHU and Jacobs,October 2011.This report Here,the analysis of alternatives is inadequate because documents the process used for evaluating and screening it fails to include reasonable alternatives that could alternatives,and was circulated with the Final EIS. reduce fuel consumption,air pollutants and GHG emissions from vehides in the corridor.Where all of the proposed alternatives contribute to increased VMT,air pollutants and GHG emissions,variations of the proposed alternatives could achieve significant reductions in these impacts of vehicle use. Reasonable alternatives not considered include 1)a rail-only option, 2)rail plus BRT in an additional lane,or 3)operating BRT in an existing general purpose lane converted to a HOT lane. Each of these options offers the benefit of reducing VMT by serving travel demand with alternatives that require less energy,less fuel,and produce lower emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. Another option authorized under FASTER is the Consideration of applying user fees to all drivers of SOVs or application of user fees to all drivers of SOVs,or to all to all users of the new highway capacity is authorized under users of the new highway capacity to create a price the FASTER legislation.Such authorization also dictates signal designed to reduce VMT,fuel consumption and that in order for such projects to be implemented,agreement emissions. But none of these options were considered. must be obtained from every local government in which all or The obligation of NEPA to consider alternatives that any portion of the highway segment or highway lanes are eliminate damage to the environment,and that enhance contained or that will be substantially impacted.Various the human environment was not met.The EIS is not tolling options were considered during the alternatives adequate and must be supplemented with adequate development process. Use of tolled express lanes was consideration of such alternatives. selected as the best option to develop in more detail, through the public and agency involvement process that included elected officials from the cities and counties in the study area,as well as representatives from resource agencies such as EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The obligation of NEPA is to rigorously explore and B-137 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.The NEPA process for the North 1-25 EIS project has met these obligations. NEPA is a procedural statute that requires a "hard look"at the environmental consequences of proposed action but there is no obligation to elevate environmental considerations over other factors. Stryckers Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen,444 U.S.223, 110 S.Ct. 497,500(1980). II.Federal and State Transportation Planning SWEEP is asserting that the project must be included in the Requirements. Statewide Transportation Plan.This is incorrect.There is no federal requirement that a statewide plan contain individual Before the preferred alternative may be included in a projects,although it may do so.CDOT has chosen to ROD and receive a commitment of federal funds,the reference MPO plans and to include corridors in the proposed project must be induded an EIS that complies Statewide Transportation Plan. However,the STIP has to be with NEPA,and be adopted into the MPO regional consistent with the long range transportation plan,and it is transportation plans for the Denver metropolitan and consistent. North Front Range planning regions,and be added to the Statewide transportation Plan and STIP. Phase 1,of the Preferred Alternative,is selected in this Record of Decision and is included in the fiscally constrained,air quality conforming Regional Transportation Plans for DRCOG(dated February 16,2011)and the NFRMPO Plan(dated September 1,2011)as required by 23 CFR 450.322,450.324.While the Statewide Transportation Plan is not required to be project-specific, Phase 1 is also included in the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment,which incorporates by reference the DRCOG and NFRMPO Plans per 23 CFR 450.214. Initial portions of Phase 1 (design and right-of-way acquisition)are also included in the fiscally constrained,air quality conforming NFRMPO and DRCOG TIPs and the STIP,for the period 2012 to 2017. NEPA does not apply to USDOT planning process decisions,and any attempt to impose NEPA requirements on such decisions is inappropriate.If the B-138 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. SWEEP seeks to comment on the planning process,that opportunity is provided by 23 CFR 450.210 and 450.316. Both DRCOG and the NFRMPO met the requirements of the planning regulations at 23 CFR Part 450. Each of SWEEP'S issues as raised in these comments would have had the opportunity for analysis,review,comment and any remedy required to address such issues.The regulations ensure that consultation,including opportunity to comment,on plans is provided(see 23 CFR 450.210,450.2140),450.216(f), 450.316,450.322(g),450.324(b)).This planning consultation and comment process is the legally appropriate and effective forum to address SWEEP'S concerns about the planning process. NEPA project level review cannot and does not provide a forum to resolve such planning concerns. Planning level issues are addressed at the planning level, and so SWEEP'S challenges to the plans during this NEPA process are misplaced. In order for a ROD to be signed,the project or a phase of the project must be included in the fiscally constrained,air quality conforming Regional Transportation Plans and TIPs and the STIP.Consistent with this requirement,the DRCOG TIP,the NFR TIP and the STIP include preliminary design as defined by FHWA Order 6640.1,October 1,2010 along with ROW plans and ROW acquisition for portions of Phase 1. The NFR TIP applies from WCR38 to SH56 and SH392 to SH14 for preliminary design,preparation of right-of-way plans and ROW purchase.The TIP reference number is NF4019 and the STIP reference number is SR41001.The NFR TIP is available via the internet at http://nfrmpo.org/RcsourccsDocumcnts/Transportationlmpro vcmcnt.aspx. The DRCOG TIP covers approximately 4 miles from SH66 to B-139 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. WCR 38 for preliminary design,preparation of right-of-way plans and ROW purchase.The TIP reference number is 2008-081 and the STIP reference number is SR41001.The DRCOG TIP is available via the internet at http://www.dreog.org/indcx.cfm?pagc=Transportationlmprov cmcntProgram(TIP). In the STIP,the project listed under reference number SSP4028 funds the completion the EIS,along with initial preliminary design work and will end at the dose of State fiscal year 2012(June 30,2012). Beginning in State fiscal year 2013(July 1,2012)project funding is listed under SR41001 for preliminary design,developing right-of-way plans and ROW acquisition amounting to$3.35 million(M) per year through fiscal year 2015 for a total of$10.05 M. In addition, DRCOG completed an administrative amendment to add$1.9 M in FY12,$1.035 M in FY13 M and $1.035 M in FY14 to advance preliminary design, preparation of right-of-way plans and ROW purchase.The DRCOG TIP amendment was completed on December 15, 2011 and is reflected in the STIP under SSP4028 for FY12 and SR41001 for FY13 and FY14. Amendments to Colorado's transportation planning law Both DRCOG and the NFRMPO met the requirements of the in 2009,and amendments to federal transportation planning regulations at 23 CFR Part 450. Phase 1,of the planning law together establish directives for the Preferred Alternative,is selected in this Record of Decision development of a statewide transportation plan that are and is included in the fiscally constrained,air quality not met by the proposed 2035 Statewide Transportation conforming Regional Transportation Plans for DRCOG Plan Amendment.These include numerous planning (dated February 16,2011)and the NFRMPO Plan(dated factors added by FASTER to C.R.S.§43-1-1103(5),and September 1,2011)as required by 23 CFR 450.322, requirements added by SAFETEA-LU to 23 U.S.C. 450.324.While the Statewide Transportation Plan is not §135. required to be project-spedfic, Phase 1 is also induded in the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment,which SWEEP submits these comments to propose an incorporates by reference the DRCOG and NFRMPO Plans B-140 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. analytical methodology for application as part of the per 23 CFR 450.214. Initial portions of Phase 1 (design and statewide planning process that integrates the new right-of-way acquisition)are also induded in the fiscally legislative authority added by FASTER for the use of constrained,air quality conforming NFRMPO and DRCOG user fees as a source of funding for major corridor TIPs and the STIP,for the period 2012 to 2017. NEPA does investments with implementation of the planning not apply to USDOT planning process decisions,and any objectives required by both State and federal attempt to impose NEPA requirements on such decisions is transportation planning laws. inappropriate. If the SWEEP seeks to comment on the planning process,that opportunity is provided by 23 CFR 450.210 and 450.316. Both DRCOG and the NFRMPO met the requirements of the planning regulations at 23 CFR Part 450. Each of SWEEP'S issues as raised in these comments would have had the opportunity for analysis,review, comment and any remedy required to address such issues. The regulations ensure that consultation,including opportunity to comment,on plans is provided(see 23 CFR 450.210,450.2140),450.216(f),450.316,450.322(g), 450.324(b)).This planning consultation and comment process is the legally appropriate and effective forum to address SWEEP'S concerns about the planning process. NEPA project level review cannot and does not provide a forum to resolve such planning concerns. Planning level issues are addressed at the planning level,and so SWEEP'S challenges to the plans during this NEPA process are misplaced. A. IMPLEMENTATION OF FASTER FUNDING Both DRCOG and the NFRMPO met the requirements of the AUTHORITY AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. planning regulations at 23 CFR Part 450. Phase 1,of the Preferred Alternative,is selected in this Record of Decision The proposed 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan and is included in the fiscally constrained,air quality Amendment makes painfully clear that current funding conforming Regional Transportation Plans for DRCOG sources from federal,State and local sources are not (dated February 16,2011)and the NFRMPO(dated sufficient for Colorado to adequately maintain,much September 1,2011),as required by 23 CFR 450.322, less improve,its transportation system.Over the time 450.324.While the Statewide Transportation Plan is not B-141 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. horizon of the 2035 Plan there is a projected shortfall of required to be project-specific, Phase 1 is also induded in $53 billion to simply maintain the current transportation the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment,which system.To achieve the more expansive system incorporates by reference the DRCOG and NFRMPO Plans contained in the Vision Plan for 2035 and maximize per 23 CFR 450.214. Initial portions of Phase 1 (design and economic development and quality of life in Colorado right-of-way acquisition)are also induded in the fiscally would require an additional$126 billion above current constrained,air quality conforming NFRMPO and DRCOG funding levels. TIPs and the STIP,for the period 2012 to 2017. NEPA does not apply to USDOT planning process decisions,and any The Legislature in 2009 authorized a new source of attempt to impose NEPA requirements on such decisions is funding for the transportation system,i.e.,user fees inappropriate. If the SWEEP seeks to comment on the authorized by FASTER. In FASTER,the Legislature planning process,that opportunity is provided by 23 CFR enacted authority for"user fees"to be assessed in a 450.210 and 450.316. Both DRCOG and the NFRMPO met corridor to fund new transportation infrastructure in that the requirements of the planning regulations at 23 CFR Part corridor.C.R.S.§43-4-808(3)(b). FASTER also 450. Each of SWEEP's issues as raised in these comments authorizes the investment of those user fees on would have had the opportunity for analysis,review, "multimodal transportation projects that promote comment and any remedy required to address such issues. mobility,reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, The regulations ensure that consultation,including and energy efficiency."C.R.S.§43-4-808(3)(c). opportunity to comment,on plans is provided(see 23 CFR 450.210,450.2140),450.216(f),450.316,450.322(g), User fees can provide a funding source that can be 450.324(b)).This planning consultation and comment used to improve transportation choices in corridors by process is the legally appropriate and effective forum to improving and expanding transit and rail service,bicycle address SWEEP's concerns about the planning process. and pedestrian travel as well as roadway networks.User NEPA project level review cannot and does not provide a fees are an important funding tool that provides the forum to resolve such planning concerns. Planning level resources needed to maintain mobility and economic issues are addressed at the planning level,and so SWEEP's vitality,as well as a strategy for implementing the other challenges to the plans during this NEPA process are planning objectives identified by the legislature.The misplaced. application of user fees should be integrated into the statewide planning process to identify the transportation The 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment is a needs and other planning objectives that can be met supplement to the 2035 Statewide Plan adopted by the with this source of funding.SWEEP proposes a Transportation Commission in 2008.The amendment was methodology for the evaluation of the benefits of user intended to maintain consistency with the regional planning fees in each major transportation corridor of the State. processes and serve as a bridge between the 2035 plan and the 2040 Statewide Plan,set for adoption in 2015. 1. Evaluating User Fees As A Tool For Achieving The Multiple Planning Objectives Added By Faster. The response to SWEEP comments on the 1-70 Mountain B-142 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Corridor PEIS was specific to that corridor and was not Transit and rail services in a corridor are essential if the intended to be a suggested methodology to be used transportation planning objectives in State and federal statewide.CDOT agrees that in order to meet its obligations law are to be met.A transit alternative that is for statewide planning,all ten factors identified in CRS 43-1- comparable in travel time and convenience,but allows 1103(5)must be addressed. travelers to avoid the expected future increases in fuel costs could help maintain access to the corridor and CDOT,in its 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan economic activity associated with discretionary travel to Amendment dated May 2011,specifically incorporates corridor destinations.The Statewide Transit and Rail consideration of air quality.The Transportation Commission Plan required by S.B.94 is not reflected in the 2035 in May 2009 adopted the Air Quality Policy Directive 1901, Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment.When it is which defines a collaborative,working agreement to developed there will be an opportunity to incorporate programmatically address unregulated mobile source air detailed transit options into corridors across the state. toxics and greenhouse gases produced from Colorado's state highways,interstates and construction activities.CDOT In anticipation of the development of the Statewide is also preparing an Air Quality Action Plan,which promotes Transit and Rail Plan,the 2035 Statewide a number of measures intended to reduce transportation Transportation Plan Amendment should identify the related greenhouse gases and air toxic emissions as well as opportunities for the use of FASTER user fees to identify strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and develop integrated highway and transit/rail facilities in vehide hours traveled.CDOT is also partnering with the major transportation corridors of the State.The agencies and other stakeholders to develop a framework for Statewide Plan should recognize that FASTER user incorporating a method to address reductions in greenhouse fees provide a revenue source to fill the funding gap gas emissions into planning processes in advance of the between current revenues and the many needs next update to the Statewide Transportation Plan.As noted described in the Plan Amendment,both to maintain the previously,the Statewide Plan must factor and balance ten current system,and to achieve the objectives described different criteria set forth in C.R.S.43-1-1103(5)and is not in the Vision Plan. limited to consideration of air quality issues. In the future,each corridor level analysis performed for the statewide plan should provide information on how options considered for the plan achieve the State and federal planning objectives.The objectives defined by C.R.S.§43-1-1103(5)include— (e)SAFETY ENHANCEMENT; (f)STRATEGIC MOBILITY AND MULTIMODAL CHOICE; (g)THE SUPPORT OF URBAN OR RURAL MASS B-143 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. TRANSIT; (h)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP; (i)EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT,AND SAFE FREIGHT TRANSPORT;AND (j)REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Federal planning objectives require a plan that 1) improves mobility,2)fosters economic growth and development,3)minimizes fuel consumption,and 4) minimizes air pollution. Federal law also requires that the Plan consider measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the Plan. An analytical methodology for the development of user fees must also include consideration of how user fees can be applied to achieve these objectives of the statewide planning process. These objectives can best be achieved by reducing VMT while improving mobility. Investment in transit and rail are critical elements of a plan that reduces VMT while improving mobility.The statewide planning process needs to incorporate an analytical methodology to identify the mix of highway,transit,rail and other modes that optimally achieves these goals. In its comments on the PEIS for the I-70 mountain corridor, SWEEP suggested a methodology for evaluating options,and identifying the optimal investment mix between highway and transit in a corridor.SWEEP provided an example of how user fees can be optimized to provide transit services in a corridor along with highway investments that provide strategic mobility for the 30%of the traveling population who do not drive personal vehides,enhance multi-modal choice for all travelers,support urban and rural mass transit,ensure environmental stewardship by reducing vehide B-144 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. emissions of air pollutants and contaminants that contribute to surface water pollution,help promote effective,efficient and safe freight transport by freeing up congested highway capacity for freight vehicles,and reducing GHG emissions by reducing VMT. CDOT responded to these comments by applying a methodology for estimating the level of user fee per mile that would be necessary to fund different levels of corridor maintenance and improvement.The methodology below was proposed by CDOT to determine appropriate user fee levels: 1.Consider different levels of user fees 2. For each level of user fee,calculate what percentage increase from the base auto operating cost of$0365 per mile it represents 3. Multiply the percent increase in auto cost per mile from Step 2 by the national VMT elasticity of-0.45 or a locally-derived value to get the percentage change in VMT 4.Calculate the VMT under that user fee by multiplying the VMT with no user fee with the percentage change from Step 3 5.Calculate the total user fee receipts by multiplying the VMT from Step 4 by the user fee 6. Examine the user fee receipts from each fee level to find the user fee that returns enough funds to pay for construction and operation costs,or to find the revenue- maximizing user fee. SWEEP does not fully support this CDOT approach because it places primary emphasis on resolving funding shortfalls in a corridor without addressing the other specific objectives of the statewide planning process defined by the legislature.To incorporate all the B-145 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. statutory planning objectives into the methodology,other variables need to be induded. 2.Analysis of Proposed Projects for the Statewide Transportation Plan Must Implement All the FASTER Planning Objectives. Critical factors omitted from the CDOT methodology are 1)the impact that future fuel price increases will have on the cost of driving,and the resulting suppression of travel demand in a corridor,2)minimizing air and water pollution,3)minimizing fuel consumption,and 4) reducing GHG emissions.These factors must be integrated into the methodology to address all the applicable planning objectives in State and federal law. At the same time that user fees provide a funding source for corridor improvements,including transit,they will also have other positive and negative impacts. User fees send a price signal to users that will encourage use of alternative modes of transportation and reduce VMT, air pollution and GHG emissions. In a corridor where transit alternatives are not provided,user fees(along with increased fuel prices)are expected to reduce travel demand in the corridor along with likely suppression of economic activity in the corridor.The negative economic impacts of user fees can usually be off-set if transit services are provided that offer the potential to stabilize travel costs as fuel prices rise during the next decades. Fuel prices have risen more than 25%within the last 12 months. Under EIA's estimated upper range of fuel prices by 2030($5.61/gal)fuel costs will rise another 70%above current levels.When these increases in the costs of driving are accounted for,the value of transit investments to the state's economy is brought sharply into focus. B-146 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. A corridor analysis that properly accounts for all the statutory criteria that must be addressed through the statewide plan would show the VMT and related pollutant reductions(GHG,air pollutants,water pollutants)that the user fee would achieve from increasing the overall cost of driving,the VMT and pollutant benefits of adding or improving transit service along the same corridor,and how the provision of transit service at a comparatively stable price would help the corridor maintain levels of mobility and economic activity that would otherwise be adversely effected by rising fuel prices.This will allow corridors to determine what the optimal pricing alternative would be for reducing VMT and pollutants while maintaining access and promoting economic development along the corridor. SWEEP conducted a detailed analysis for the 1-70 Mountain and East Corridors showing the level of user fee that would need to be collected per mile to pay for the Preferred Alternatives for the two corridors.The impacts of that level of user fee(and the impact of increased fuel prices)were then examined with respect to VMT and GHG reduction(reductions in other pollutants were not considered,but should be included in any protocol adopted for the statewide planning process to address the environmental stewardship objectives in§1103(5),and the"minimize air pollution" and"minimize fuel consumption"objectives in federal§§ 134(a)and 135(a)). As CDOT develops the proposed investments for the 1- 25 corridor that must be added to the current Statewide Transportation Plan,alternatives must be identified that consider how access to major destinations can be improved while minimizing VMT by reducing VMT B-147 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. growth to levels near the rate of population growth in the corridor,minimizing air and water pollutants and reducing GHG emissions.As CDOT moves forward with incorporating user fees into the analysis of funding sources available to meet the State's transportation needs,user fees must be fully assessed as a tool for making the investments that achieve the legislative directives to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector,ensure environmental stewardship,enhance mobility and multimodal choice and strengthen the State's economy by slowing the increased costs of transportation that will result from higher fuel costs,and retaining in the State's economy a significant portion of the cost of petroleum fuels that are now lost as a result of dependence on imported fuels. B. FEDERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. 23 USC 134(a)states: (a)General Requirements.-(1)Findings.-It is in the For the preferred alternative to be federally approved national interest to encourage and promote the safe and and funded,it must be added to the MPO RTPs for the efficient management,operation,and development of corridor and the Statewide Transportation Plan required surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility by federal law. Until the project is added to these plans, needs of people and freight and foster economic growth it may not be added to the State Transportation and development within and through urbanized areas, Improvement Program(STIP)as required by 23 U.S.C. while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption §135(f)and(g),and cannot satisfy federal requirements and air pollution.(2)Development of plans and programs. that must be met to support a Secretarial planning -To accomplish the objective stated in paragraph(1), finding under 23 U.S.C.§135(g)(7),or a Conformity metropolitan planning organizations designated under Determination under§176(c)of the Clean Air Act and subsection(b),in cooperation with the State and public 40 C.F.R. Part 93. transit operators,shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State.(3)Contents.- Until information is provided to show that the regional The plans and programs for each metropolitan area shall MPO plans that indude the 1-25 corridor minimize fuel provide for the development and integrated management consumption and air pollution as required by 23 USC§ and operation of transportation systems and facilities 134(a),and that the numerous adverse impacts (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation B-148 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. associated with the 1-25 project are fully evaluated, facilities)that will function as an intermodal transportation alternatives considered,and necessary mitigation system for the metropolitan area and as an integral part of required,the 1-25 project cannot be added to the an intermodal transportation system for the State and the Statewide Plan. United States.(4)Process of development.-The process for developing the plans and programs shall provide for consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing,cooperative,and comprehensive to the degree appropriate,based on the complexity of the transportation problems to be addressed. Transportation planning is fundamentally a process to enable decisions to be made as to the allocation of limited financial resources to address the greatest transportation needs,while reflecting public input,local context and addressing environmental and other important considerations.The majority of the available funding is dedicated to system preservation before improving mobility or attempting to address planning objectives;with remaining funds planning objectives are balanced.The intent of the batch of projects resulting from the planning process is to balance the planning objectives.There is no requirement that an individual project must address the planning objectives. SWEEP is asserting that the project must be included in the Statewide Transportation Plan.This is incorrect.The STIP has to be consistent with the statewide long range plan, which it is. However,there is no federal requirement that a statewide plan has to be based on the listing of individual projects. The USDOT plan-level conformity determination is not subject to the environmental review process under NEPA (23 CFR 450.222,450.336),and cannot be indirectly subject to NEPA review through the project-level environmental review process.A project level conformity determination is B-149 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. not required until issuance of the final environmental documents(CE, FONSI or ROD). In order to be eligible for Federal-aid funding,the project must be in an approved STIP(23 CFR 450.220(a)),TIP(23 CFR 450.330),and Plan (23 CFR 450.322 generally).Although FHWA and CDOT intend to work toward implementing the Preferred Alternative in its entirety,due to current funding limitations and federal requirements that require the project to be in the fiscally constrained plan and TIP before a decision document can be approved,only a portion of the Preferred Alternative, identified as Phase 1 and discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of the Final EIS,can be selected for implementation. Phase 1 is included in the fiscally constrained,air quality conforming long range plans and TIPs.The portion of Phase 1 that will take place in the near term is included in the TIPs of the metropolitan planning organizations and the STIP. In order for a ROD to be signed the project or a phase of the project must be induded in a fiscally constrained,air quality conforming plans and TIPs and in the STIP.Consistent with this requirement,the DRCOG TIP, NFR TIP and the STIP include preliminary design as defined by FHWA Order 6640.1,October 1,2010,along with ROW plans and ROW acquisition for portions of Phase 1. The NFR TIP applies from WCR38 to SH56 and SH392 to SH14 for preliminary design,preparation of right-of-way plans and ROW purchase.The TIP reference number is NF4019 and the STIP reference number is SR41001.The NFR TIP is available via the internet at http://nfrmpo.org/RcsourccsDocumcnts/Transportationlmpro vcmcnt.aspx. The DRCOG TIP covers approximately 4 miles from SH66 to WCR38 for preliminary design,preparation of right-of-way plans and ROW purchase.The TIP reference number is B-150 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. 2008-081 and the STIP reference number is SR41001.The DRCOG TIP is available via the internet at http://www.dreog.org/indcx.cfm?pagc=Transportationlmprov cmcntProgram(TIP). In the STIP,the project listed under reference number SSP4028 funds the completion the of EIS,along with initial preliminary design work and will end at the dose of State fiscal year 2012(June 30,2012). Beginning in State fiscal year 2013(July 1,2012)project funding is listed under SR41001 for preliminary design,developing right-of-way plans and ROW acquisition amounting to$3.35 M per year through fiscal year 2015 for a total of$10.05 M. In addition, DRCOG completed an administrative amendment to add$1.9 M in FY12,$1.035 M in FY13 and $1.035 M in FY14 to advance preliminary design, preparation of right-of-way plans and ROW purchase.The DRCOG TIP amendment was completed on December 15, 2011 and is reflected in the STIP under SSP4028 for FY12 and SR41001 for FY13 and FY14. Phase 1 is included in the fiscally constrained long range plans and TIPs and meets the air quality conformity requirements. In addition,an illustrative run of emissions was performed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment considering the whole Preferred Alternative.This demonstrates that if there were enough money to implement the entire Preferred Alternative,it would also meet conformity requirements. Prior to approval of additional elements of the Preferred Alternative in subsequent ROD(s),each element would have to demonstrate independent utility,conformity,and be included in fiscally constrained,air quality conforming plans and TIPs. The consideration of transportation improvements with the B-151 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. magnitude of the Preferred Alternative is a reflection of the Purpose and Need elements of providing multi-modal transportation options.The commuting patterns in the regional study area,the future population and employment growth and the needs identified by the public and local elected officials reinforced a need to connect the northern Colorado communities to the Denver metropolitan area through a system of highway and transit improvements. This regional connectivity could not be accomplished through relatively short segments of fundable projects.The Preferred Alternative responds to the regional connectivity needs by connecting to two planned RTD commuter rail lines,the managed lane facility along 1-25 and US 36, connecting to RTD bus service along US 85 and connecting to RTD bus service along 1-25.All of the other alternatives considered in the Final EIS,except the No Action,had elements of regional connectivity in them to meet the Purpose and Need. Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is selected in this Record of Decision and is included in the fiscally constrained,air quality conforming Regional Transportation Plans for DRCOG(dated February 16,2011)and the NFRMPO Plan(dated September 1,2011) as required by 23 CFR 450.322,450.324.While the Statewide Transportation Plan is not required to be project-specific, Phase 1 is also included in the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment,which incorporates by reference the DRCOG and NFRMPO Plans per 23 CFR 450.214. Initial portions of Phase 1 (design and right-of-way acquisition)are also induded in the fiscally constrained,air quality conforming NFRMPO and DRCOG TIPs and the STIP,for the period 2012 to 2017.NEPA does not apply to USDOT planning process decisions,and any attempt to impose NEPA requirements on such decisions is inappropriate. If the SWEEP seeks to comment on the B-152 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. planning process,that opportunity is provided by 23 CFR 450.210 and 450.316. Both DRCOG and the NFRMPO met the requirements of the planning regulations at 23 CFR Part 450. Each of SWEEP'S issues as raised in these comments would have had the opportunity for analysis,review, comment and any remedy required to address such issues. The regulations ensure that consultation,including opportunity to comment,on plans is provided(see 23 CFR 450.210,450.2140),450.216(f),450.316,450.322(g), 450.324(b)).This planning consultation and comment process is the legally appropriate and effective forum to address SWEEP'S concerns about the planning process. NEPA project level review cannot and does not provide a forum to resolve such planning concerns. Planning level issues are addressed at the planning level,and so SWEEP'S challenges to the plans during this NEPA process are misplaced. Transportation planning offers the opportunity for interested parties to become engaged in the process and provide comments when long-range planning and program documents are being developed.These documents generally are crafted over an extended period.There is no record of SWEEP providing comments to DRCOG on the 2011 Cycle 1 2035 Metro Vision RTP Amendment or the NFRMPO Updated 2035 RTP.As noted above,CDOT responded to SWEEP on comments made on the Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment May 13,2011. In addition, CDOT has had multiple meetings with SWEEP regarding various aspects of planning,rail,potential performance measures,air quality and emissions. Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative for the North 1-25 project is included in the recently approved DRCOG and NFRMPO fiscally constrained,air quality conforming RTPs and TIPs,and the Statewide Transportation Plan and the STIP.The necessary mitigations for the impacts incurred by Phase 1 are included B-153 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. in the cost of implementing Phase 1. 1.Accomplishing The National Planning Objectives The requirements of the regional MPO, DRCOG and NFRMPO,plans have been mischaracterized in this Sections 134(c)and 135(a)require the development of comment.The requirements are clarified in the following transportation plans for metropolitan areas adopted by responses. Metropolitan Planning Organizations(MPOs),and statewide transportation plans adopted by the States, The information below is provided to present a more that will"accomplish the objectives"defined in section comprehensive picture of the planning process. However, 134(a)(1). Despite these statutory provisions making the the planning process is not subject to NEPA.The accomplishment of the statutory objectives a appropriate forum to raise concerns regarding the requirement of the planning process,the proposed transportation planning process is with the appropriate MPO Amendment to the Statewide Plan does not satisfy or state.The transportation planning process offers the these requirements because the revised MPO RTPs for opportunity for interested parties to become engaged in the the Denver metropolitan region and the North Front process,and provide comments when long-range planning Range planning region fail to mention these objectives, and program documents are being developed.These and fail to explain how each MPO RTP,as revised, documents generally are crafted over an extended period. demonstrates compliance with the federal statutory There is no record of SWEEP providing comments to directives.The failure to address these requirements in DRCOG on the 2011 Cyde 1 2035 Metro Vision RTP the 1-25 EIS means that the preferred alternative cannot amendment or the NFRMPO Updated 2035 RTP.As noted lawfully be added to the MPO or Statewide plans. above,CDOT responded to SWEEP on comments made on the Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment. DRCOG adopted an update to its 2035 Metro Vision RTP on February 16,2011.A significant level of effort was put into incorporating and considering sustainability principles. Specific long range goals related to vehide miles traveled and greenhouse gas reduction,single occupancy vehicle travel and growth in urban centers were established.The Plan Amendment was approved in August 2011 that incorporated the Phase 1 transportation improvements. Similarly,the 2035 North Front Range RTP Update adopted on September 1,2011 included a technical analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. B-154 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. And CDOT,in its 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan Amendment dated May 2011,specifically incorporated consideration of air quality.The Transportation Commission in May 2009 adopted the Air Quality Policy Directive 1901, which defines a collaborative,working agreement to programmatically address unregulated mobile source air toxics and greenhouse gases produced from Colorado's state highways,interstates and construction activities.CDOT is also preparing an Air Quality Action Plan,which promotes a number of measures intended to reduce transportation related greenhouse gases and air toxic emissions as well as identify strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehide hours traveled.CDOT is also partnering with agencies and other stakeholders to develop a framework for incorporating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions into planning processes in advance of the next update to the Statewide Transportation Plan. The statutory language directing Metropolitan Planning As noted above,this is not the appropriate forum to raise Organizations(MPOs)to adopt regional plans that concerns regarding the planning process,which is not "accomplish the objectives"of the planning process subject to NEPA.Section 134 of 23 USC sets the requires analysis and a determination that these congressional intent for a framework of national surface objectives will be accomplished by an RTP that is transportation related goals at the metropolitan and revised by adding the preferred alternative for the 1-25 statewide levels and are guided by planning factors.The corridor.Section 134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act planning factors are to be considered in the transportation indudes language establishing general objectives for planning process when projects,strategies and services are the planning process,and requiring consideration of implemented. However,since the planning process itself is projects and strategies that will achieve more detailed the venue for the consideration of the planning factors,there planning factors: is no requirement that every project or program in the transportation plan address the factors.The failure to (a)Policy.--It is in the national interest to-- consider any planning factor shall not be reviewable in court (1)encourage and promote the safe and effident (23 USC 134(p)). management,operation,and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs DRCOG and NFRMPO both developed visions,goals and B-155 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. of people and freight and foster economic growth and objectives for their regions as the foundation of their development within and between States and urbanized respective planning processes. Building on these visions, areas,while minimizing transportation-related fuel goals and objectives,each MPO has unique transportation consumption and air pollution through metropolitan and needs and resources reflected in the choices made on the statewide transportation planning processes identified in mix of transportation projects and programs selected for this chapter;and inclusion in the transportation plan.The variations between (2)encourage the continued improvement and evolution MPO regions are also reflected in which planning factors of the metropolitan and statewide transportation take on greater importance than others. DRCOG has planning processes by metropolitan planning considered the planning factors in both the DRCOG 2035 organizations,State departments of transportation,and Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan and the 2011 public transit operators as guided by the planning Cycle 1 Amendment—see: factors identified in subsection(h)and section 135(d). http://dreog.org/documents/FINAL-2035%20MVRTP- 2010%20Updatc%20with%20App%202-9.pdf In the Title 23,section 134(c),as amended in 2005,the Act requires that MPOs adopt transportation plans that DRCOG also documents how transportation planning is "accomplish"these national"objectives." conducted in the Denver region through The Prospectus, which describes the federal,state and DRCOG planning 1)Development of long-range plans and TIPs.--To requirements and can be found at: accomplish the objectives in subsection(a), http://dreog.org/documents/Trans%20PIng%20in%20thc%20 metropolitan planning organizations designated under Dcnvcr%20Rcg ion%20Rcv%202011.pdf subsection(d),in cooperation with the State and public transportation operators,shall develop long-range Similarly NFRMPO considered the planning factors in the transportation plans and transportation improvement NFRMPO 2035 RTP Update,found at: programs for metropolitan planning areas of the State. http://www.nfrmpo.org/DocumcntLibrary/GctDocumcnt.aspx Similar language in amended section 135(a)(1)requires There is no requirement in a NEPA process for a project to that the Statewide Transportation plan also"accomplish demonstrate that a Statewide Plan will accomplish its the objectives stated in section 134(a)."The analysis objectives. However,a key consideration in the development developed for the 1-25 EIS does not demonstrate that of the project purpose and need and in the development and the Statewide plan will accomplish these objectives if analysis of alternatives that was developed for the North 1-25 the preferred alternative for the 1-25 corridor is added to EIS includes factors such as the safe and efficient the plan. management,operation,and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development between urbanized areas,while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution. B-156 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. This project has evaluated a broad range of alternative modes of transportation because part of the need identified for this NEPA study was the need for mode choice in this region.The Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS, as well as Phase 1 selected in this Record of Decision, include alternative modes. This language on its face establishes a requirement that SWEEP's interpretation of the planning requirements and the MPO craft an RTP,and the State craft a Statewide the implementation of national objectives outlined in the plan,that will accomplish each of the national objectives planning statute is more appropriately presented during the in subsection 134(a)(1).These planning objectives planning process.As stated above,the transportation establish four broad criteria to be achieved by the planning process is not subject to NEPA review but does applicable transportation plan: provide a forum for public participation and input. 1)improve mobility, Transportation planning is fundamentally a process to 2)foster economic growth and development, enable decisions to be made as to the allocation of limited 3)minimize fuel consumption,and financial resources to address the greatest transportation 4)minimize air pollution. needs,while reflecting public input,local context and These objectives allow discretion for determining how addressing environmental,and other important they are to be achieved,but do not allow the planning considerations.The majority of the available funding is agencies discretion to adopt plans that fail to achieve dedicated to system preservation before improving mobility progress with respect to one or more of the four or attempting to address the four priorities cited above.With objectives. the remaining funds the four objectives are balanced in the planning process.The intent of the batch of projects that The national planning objectives in§134(a)(1)establish result from the planning process is to balance the objectives. the statutory criteria for evaluating the sufficiency of an There is no requirement that an individual project must MPO and Statewide plan.Section 134(c)also refers to address the objectives.There is no requirement for NEPA the planning factors in§§134(h)(1)and 135(d)which analysis to demonstrate that a preferred alternative will were first enacted in ISTEA,but have been modified by achieve national planning objectives.Air quality conformity both TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU. Paragraph§134(a)(2) analysis was performed by both the NFRMPO and the only requires"consideration of projects and strategies" DRCOG for their long range plans and TIPs,including their that will achieve these objectives.Thus the national respective portions of Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. planning objectives in(a)(1)must be accomplished, FHWA and FTA have completed their conformity whereas(a)(2)only requires transportation planning determinations for the NFRMPO and a redetermination for B-157 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. agencies to consider various projects and strategy the DRCOG plans October 24,2011. Phase 1 of the options that could achieve the policy objectives listed in Preferred Alternative identified in the North 1-25 Final EIS is §134(h)(1).The discretion to consider various project included in the respective fiscally constrained,air quality and strategy options does not undercut the overall conforming plans.Because the area of the project is non- obligation to actually accomplish the statutory objectives attainment for ozone,the project level air quality conformity in(a)(1).The consideration of project and strategy determination relies on the regional analysis for ozone options must be geared toward identifying and selecting considerations(e.g.,there is no localized,hot-spot the options that will achieve the more specific planning requirement for ozone areas). For the areas of the project factors in(a)(2),and that when combined into a regional that are in maintenance for carbon monoxide and/or PKo, or statewide plan can best accomplish the statutory the localized,hot-spot analysis for the project-level objectives in(a)(1). conformity assessed the worst intersection of the project for carbon monoxide and a qualitative analysis was done for Compliance with these statutory planning procedures PKo. should be reflected in the underlying evaluation of proposed projects that are presented to the public and North 1-25 alternatives were developed pursuant to project each MPO board for consideration before action is taken Purpose and Need,which can be influenced by the planning to revise the RTP and Statewide plan. But the NEPA process(23 CFR 450.212 and 450.318,and Appendix A to analysis for the 1-25 project does not demonstrate that Part 450). Ultimately,however,alternatives are developed the preferred alternative will achieve these national and evaluated based on NEPA requirements. Four planning objectives.As an example,there is no analysis alternatives were considered in the screening process in the by CDOT or the relevant MPOs of the impact that the North 1-25 EIS which included no new general purpose proposed addition of the 1-25 preferred alternative to the lanes.See"North 1-25 EIS Alternatives Development and MPO RTPs or the Statewide plan will have on Screening Report", FHU and Jacobs,October 2011,which accomplishing the national planning objectives in§ was circulated with the Final EIS.Alternatives that appear to 134(a)(1),or the planning factors listed in§134(h). satisfy SWEEP's criteria were considered during the NEPA process.See the response to Section I of this comment.The The Act requires that an MPO RTP or a Statewide plan Preferred Alternative includes rail transit;express bus demonstrate improvements in all four objectives,and operating on the 1-25 tolled express lanes and on existing not improvements in one or two at the expense of one or highway capacity on roads such as US 34;feeder bus another. For example,a plan that fosters economic service operating on numerous side roads to provide access development,but does not improve mobility or minimize to the commuter rail as well as the express bus service;and both fuel consumption and air emissions,cannot be commuter bus operating on existing highway capacity on determined to meet the statutory objectives.The US 85. analysis of the proposed RTP revision should show improvements in each of the four objectives with respect to the current baseline condition,and not only an B-158 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. improvement with respect to a projected worst case condition in a future horizon year.Otherwise the revised plan will simply accommodate predicted deterioration in system performance,fuel consumption and air pollution, while demonstrating minor improvements compared to a future deteriorated condition.The Federal-Aid Highway Act does not call for plans that continue current practices that merely accommodate the deteriorating performance of transportation systems.Where projects and strategies are available that can achieve improvements in system performance with regard to each objective compared to current conditions,the benefits of those projects and strategies must be presented to decision-making boards and the public with a description of improvements that can be accomplished compared to current conditions and future conditions that would result from adoption of the proposed projects, such as each of the 1-25 alternatives considered in the EIS which increase GHG emissions compared to the no- build option because of the addition of new lane capacity to 1-25 which stimulate increased VMT even with the interregional rail or bus rapid transit(BRT) system. To satisfy the requirement to minimize these impacts,an assessment must be made of the potential reductions in both air pollutants and fuel consumption that would be achieved by adding to the plan a project that optimizes facilities,services and strategies known to contribute to reductions in fuel use and emissions while improving mobility and fostering economic growth. In the 1-25 context,an alternative designed to enhance mobility, support economic development and reduce both air pollutants and fuel consumption compared to the no- build must be developed to satisfy the planning objectives.Alternatives accomplishing these objectives B-159 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. would indude 1)a rail-only option,2)rail plus BRT,or 3) operating BRT in an existing general purpose lane converted to a HOT lane. None of the alternatives proposed for consideration satisfy the national planning objectives. Each of the proposed alternatives are shown to increase VMT,fuel consumption and air pollution.These alternatives do not satisfy the national planning objectives,and cannot satisfy the requirements of NEPA because no alternatives analysis has been performed that considers the reasonableness of accommodating the same population,residential and job growth in the l- 25 corridor with more fuel efficient and less polluting rail, BRT and local transit services operated on existing rail right-of-way and the current highway capacity. 2.Federal Mitigation Of Adverse Effects Of The RTP The North 1-25 EIS process considered alternatives that will And Statewide Plan,As Revised By Adding avoid or minimize these adverse impacts as stated: Investments In The I-25 Corridor. increased VMT,energy use,GHG emissions and,by inference,increased emissions of air pollutants.As stated in The FEIS,section 3.21,concludes that each of the the Final EIS on page 3.21-3,over time(after 2035),it would proposed alternatives for the 1-25 corridor will increase be expected that the rail components of Package A and the VMT,energy use,GHG emissions and,by inference, Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower will increase emissions of air pollutants as well.The energy consumption because more trains could easily be section suggests that these adverse impacts may be added.The tolled express lanes in Package B and the mitigated by the rail component of the project in Preferred Alternative would eventually fill up with bus riders Alternative A and the PA,but there is no analysis to and carpoolers,especially in the segments of the corridor show that the proposed rail service will offset the with only one tolled express lane in each direction.The impacts of expanded highway capacity,or"minimize" transit stations associated with all of the packages would, fuel consumption and air pollutants as required by the over time,serve as stimuli to transit oriented development. national planning objectives. NEPA and the Federal-Aid This transit oriented development would potentially reduce Highway Act require consideration of alternatives that energy consumption due to mixed land uses and higher will avoid or minimize these adverse impacts. density development which would in turn reduce trips.This B-160 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. characteristic was a key factor used to identify the Preferred The Federal-Aid Highway Act establishes statutory Alternative. criteria for evaluating plans and TIPs(in addition to the four planning objectives)that require explicit discussion SAFETEA-LU induded changes to transportation planning, of adverse impacts of the plan and mitigation of these including the opportunity for consideration of environmental impacts.These include--: issues in the statewide and metropolitan planning §134(i)(2)(B)(i)which requires— processes.Section 6001 specifically requires discussion of "discussion of types of potential environmental potential environmental mitigation activities and consultation mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out with resource agencies during the development of long- these activities,including activities that may have the range transportation plans.The planning regulations 23 CFR greatest potential to restore and maintain the 450.214(j)and 450.322(0(7)specifically call out that the environmental functions affected by the plan;"and(B)(ii) discussion of potential mitigation may be focused on requires that this discussion"shall be developed in policies,programs or strategies,rather than at the project consultation with Federal,State,and tribal wildlife,land level. management,and regulatory agencies." The DRCOG 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan contains an entire chapter on the impacts of the RTP §134(i)(4)(A)which requires that-- and specifically addresses environmental mitigation in the "the metropolitan planning organization shall consult,as discussion on how the Metro Vision Transportation Policies appropriate,with State and local agencies responsible and Action Strategies further Policy#14—Environmental for land use management,natural resources, Quality. http://dreog.org/documents/2035%20MVRTP%20- environmental protection,conservation,and historic %20Ch6%20-%20AdoptFcb11.pdf Reference is also made preservation concerning the development of a long- to the more resource-specific strategies contained in the range transportation plan." environmental discussion of the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan. Furthermore,the DRCOG 2035 Metro §134(i)(4)(B)which requires that the consultation Vision Regional Transportation Plan explains that specific indude comparison of the transportation plan with mitigation strategies are generally developed as part of the conservation plans or maps. project environmental review process conducted under NEPA. Counterparts to each of these requirements also appear in the amendments to the requirements for"Statewide Similarly,Chapter 4 of the NFRMPO 2035 RTP Update transportation plans."See— provides an environmental profile of the region and •§135(f)(2)(D)[identical duty to consult];and discusses potential mitigation strategies by environmental •§135(f)(4)(A)and(B)[identical duty to discuss resource. mitigation measures]. http://www.nfrmpo.org/DocumcntLibrary/GctDocumcnt.aspx NFRMPO was also the pilot MPO that,starting in 2003, established a process for addressing environmental impacts B-161 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. of transportation projects at early stages of planning.The process,known as Strategic Transportation and Environmental Planning Process for Urbanizing Places (STEP UP),predated both SAFETEA-LU and the FHWA Planning and Environmental Linkages program. A series of transportation corridor visions were collectively developed by CDOT, MPOs and regional transportation partners for incorporation into the 2035 metropolitan and statewide transportation plans.The corridor visions were compared with inventories of natural and historic resources and conservation plans.The corridor visions are documented in a Statewide Transportation Plan technical report. http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/statcwidc- planning/docu mcnts/2035-plan-technical- reports/Corridor%20Visions%20Tcch n ical%20Rcport.pdf The 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan contains an entire technical report on the environment and documents in detail how the statewide and metropolitan planning processes have met Section 6001 of SAFETEA-LU. http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/statcwidc- planning/docu mcnts/2035-plan-technical- reports/Environmental%20Tcch n ical%20Report.pdf A few key events and efforts worth highlighting are: (1) 2035 Statewide Environmental Forum,held in 2007, by CDOT, MPOs,regional planning partners and resource agencies (2) Transportation Environmental Resource Council meets on a regular basis to coordinate between transportation and resource agencies in Colorado (3) Quarterly meetings of CDOT, FHWA and individual resource and regulatory agencies (4) GIS database developed by CDOT compiling data from numerous sources with cooperation of resource B-162 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. and regulatory agencies (5) Colorado Conservation and Transportation Workshop hosted by CDOT, FHWA, Defenders of Wildlife and others in 2006 (6) CDOT PEL web site includes an interactive training tool on Linking Planning and NEPA http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/cnvironmcntal/pl arming-env-link-program a.Discussion of Mitigation Activities. The Record of Decision for the North 1-25 project includes These mitigation provisions raise the same questions commitments to mitigation measures. Some of these that NEPA does: specially address air pollution. In addition,at the request of 1.what kinds of impacts need to be included in the the US EPA,specific mitigation was discussed in the North 1- discussion? 25 Final EIS related to cumulative effects on ammonia 2.what kind and magnitude of mitigation needs to be emissions,which was of particular concern in the study area. considered? The costs of mitigation have been included in project costs. 3.what obligation is there to implement the mitigation The Final EIS considers mitigation that is intended to measures? address all adverse impacts.The ROD includes mitigation commitments for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative The FH WA/FTA planning rules issued in 2007 do not adverse impacts. provide guidance for how to answer these questions The comment reflects a misunderstanding of what is under the relevant provisions of FAHA. In the absence required for compliance with Section 109(h)of the Federal of a definitive agency interpretation, NEPA and 23 USC Aid Highway Act.The comment first incorrectly asserts that §1 9(h)add requirements that demonstrate how these Section 109(h)compliance requires a three-step evaluation questions are to be answered. of impacts and mitigation measures.As discussed below, (i).Considering Mitigation for the Purpose of rather than mandating a precise analytic approach,Section Satisfying 23 USC§109(h). 109(h)reflects a congressional requirement that guidelines be developed to assure that decisions are made in the best Section 109(h)of the Federal Aid Highway Act requires overall public interest after consideration of adverse effects, that highway projects be reviewed for their adverse transportation needs,public services,and the costs of environmental,social and economic impacts,and that mitigating adverse effects.These guidelines have been mitigation strategies be identified to"eliminate or incorporated into FHWA's NEPA regulations. B-163 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. minimize"such"adverse"impacts.23 USC§109(h). Specifically,Section 109(h)of the Federal Aid Highway Act, The FHWA regulation implementing this section requires codified at 23 U.S.C. 109(h),requires that the agency that an EIS prepared under NEPA also address the promulgate social and economic impacts required to be considered under§109(h).23 CFR§771.105. In addition,the "guidelines designed to assure that possible adverse metropolitan planning rule issued to implement ISTEA economic,social,and environmental effects relating to any requires that MPOs address the criteria required by§ proposed project on any Federal-aid system have been 109(h)in the transportation plan.23 CFR fully considered in developing such project,and that the §450.316(a)(13)(1993).The revised federal planning final decisions on the project are made in the best overall rule does not retain this requirement,but the public interest,taking into consideration the need for fast, requirement of§109(h)must be addressed at some safe and efficient transportation,public services,and the stage of the process.To the extent that mitigation must costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects and be considered as part of the planning process,section the following: 109(h)provides guidance to define the parameters of that consideration in the MPO planning process.To the (1) air,noise,and water pollution; extent that mitigation is required to be addressed in an (2) destruction or disruption of man-made and natural EIS for a project,23 CFR§771.105 requires that the resources,aesthetic values,community cohesion and requirements of§109(h)be addressed in the EIS along the availability of public facilities and services; with the requirements of NEPA. (3) adverse employment effects,and tax and property value losses; (ii).Scope of Impacts to be Included in Discussion of Mitigation to Satisfy FAHA Requirements. (4) injurious displacement of people,businesses and farms;and The consideration of mitigation measures required by§§ (5) disruption of desirable community and regional growth. 134(i)(2)(B)(i)and 135(f)(4)(A)and(B)must be at least as broad as NEPA because NEPA limits the obligation Such guidelines shall apply to all proposed projects with to consider mitigation for only those impacts that respect to which plans,specifications,and estimates are "significantly affect the human environment,"whereas approved by the Secretary after the issuance of such 23 U.S.C.§§134(i)(2)(B), 135(f)(4)(A)and(B),and guidelines." 109(h)do not limit consideration only to"significant" impacts on the human environment.Since Congress Since 1982,FHWA has complied with Section 109(h) decided not to limit mitigation under FAHA to through procedures contained in 23 CFR Part 771,the "significant"impacts,then at least those impacts found regulations through which FHWA complies with NEPA.(See to be significant for NEPA purposes must be induded. the Federal Register for further discussion at 47 FR 21780- Other impacts may also be relevant,but in the case of 01.) These regulations,entitled"Environmental Impact and the 1-25 corridor the impacts of concern would be Related Procedures,"lay out a single comprehensive B-164 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. considered"significant"for NEPA purposes.See 40 process that by design addresses responsibilities under both C.F.R.§1508.27. NEPA and Section 109(h). FHWA's compliance with Section 109(h)is fulfilled by its compliance with 23 CFR Part 771. In addition to NEPA,the provisions of§109(h)provide The comprehensive process outlined in 23 CFR Part 771 further guidance regarding the scope of mitigation under cannot be reduced to the three-step evaluation suggested in the dosely parallel provisions in sections 134 and 135 of the comment. In addition,Section 109(h)does not impose FAHA.Section 109(h)of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, any further analytical requirements beyond those contained enacted on December 30, 1970 by the same Congress in 23 CFR Part 771. FHWA's rule on environmental impacts that enacted NEPA(January 1, 1970),supplemented and related procedures makes clear that"Section 109(h)will the requirements of NEPA for highway projects by be complied with through the procedures outlined in 23 CFR defining a more specific analytical process.Section Part 771"(47 FR 21782, May 20, 1982).As explained in 23 109(h)requires a three-step evaluation of impacts and CFR 771.105(a)and(b),all environmental reviews and mitigation measures to ensure that"final dedsions on analysis are to be coordinated as a single process and the project are made in the best overall public interest." decisions must be made in the best overall public interest 23 U.S.C.§109(h)(2004).The first step is to determine based upon a balanced consideration of transportation the"possible adverse economic,social and needs,as well as social,economic and environmental environmental effects relating to any proposed project." impacts and environmental protection goals. Further,it is Id.The second step is to determine"the costs of agency policy that measures necessary to mitigate adverse eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects...."Id. impacts be incorporated into the proposed action(23 CFR The third step is to consider"the costs of eliminating or 771.105(d)). The North 1-25 Final EIS and this Record of minimizing such adverse effects"together with"the need Decision discuss transportation needs,environmental and for fast,safe and efficient transportation"to make a final other impacts,and environmental protection at length and decision on the project"in the best overall public contain extensive commitments to mitigation measures. interest."Id. Nor is there any three-step process that must be followed by In the national planning objectives in§134(a)(1), MPOs as suggested in the comment.As explained above, Congress defined the minimum criteria for determining the comment incorrectly attributes a spedfic three-step whether a proposed project is"in the best overall public analytic process to Section 109(h).The commenter then interest."Since the MPO must at least determine that suggests extending this three-step approach as a the RTP will"accomplish"these objectives if the substantive requirement on MPOs.The basis for this proposed project is added to the plan,the analytical appears to be a confusion of the statement of national steps prescribed by§109(h)should be performed to interest regarding MPO planning policy outlined in 23 USC evaluate the mitigation appropriate for any new project 134(a)(1)with the commenter's proposed three-step public proposed for addition to an RTP that would interfere with interest evaluation. or defeat progress toward accomplishing the objectives of minimizing fuel consumption and air pollution. This approach mixes apples and oranges.FHWA's B-165 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. compliance with Section 109(h)is fulfilled by its compliance FH WA's implementing regulation further requires that with 23 CFR 771. Procedures for MPO compliance with any measures necessary to mitigate adverse effects be Section 134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act,codified at 23 incorporated into the project.23 C.F.R.§771.105(d). USC 134, are laid out in detail in FHWA's planning Therefore,the mitigation identified in the planning regulations,which are found at 23 CFR 450. Regional process needs to be incorporated into the project,which transportation plans adopted by MPOs are not subject to 23 means that the costs of mitigation must be accounted CFR 771 and those regulations cannot be used to impose for in the fiscally constrained plan as part of the overall substantive requirements on MPOs or their regional project cost. transportation plans.See the responses in Section II to your comments,which explain that the planning process is not None of these steps have been performed for the 1-25 subject to NEPA and project level NEPA documents,such project. No revisions to the DRCOG or North Front as the North 1-25 EIS,are not the appropriate forum in which Range RTPs have been proposed that include these to raise objections to the transportation planning process. analyses,and the EIS fails to consider mitigation that is Your suggestion that NEPA and Section 109(h)be used as shown to be sufficient to eliminate or minimize such "the reference point"for defining an MPO's duty regarding effects,and indudes no estimate of the costs of such mitigation is inconsistent with applicable law. mitigation. In addition,neither the case law nor the regulations that you (iii).The kind and magnitude of mitigation that cite regarding the evaluation of cumulative impacts under needs to be considered to Satisfy§§134(i)(2)(B)and NEPA require that state departments of transportation and 135(f)(4)(A)and(B). MPOs identify and consider mitigation for all impacts at all levels(regional,corridor and local)and develop cost Both NEPA and§109(h)provide requirements that estimates as part of the planning process. NEPA must be addressed in a project EIS,which also provides requirements do not extend to the planning process. Nor,as interpretative guidance to understand the extent of explained above,does Section 109(h)impose such a mitigation required to be considered under§§ requirement. 134(i)(2)(B)and 135(f)(4)(A)and(B)before a Plan and TIP may be revised to add a major project.The NEPA Finally,in response to your concern about mitigation rules require that mitigation be identified as part of the measures and the costs of such measures,please note that environmental review for an EIS.40 CFR§1502.16(h). the North 1-25 Record of Decision includes a commitment to Mitigation is defined to include measures that— specific mitigation measures that have been incorporated into Phase 1 of the project and the estimated cost for a) (a)avoid the impact altogether; Phase 1. b) (b)minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action; Consideration of mitigation at the regional planning stage is c c rectif in the impact b repairin ,rehabilitatin , currently being addressed by both the NFR MPO and the B-166 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. or restoring the affected DRCOG. Mitigation,such as transit oriented development, d) environment; comprehensive bus and rail service and peak period pricing, e) (d)reducing or eliminating the impact over time by is included in the definition of the Preferred Alternative. preservation and f) maintenance operations during the life of the action; SAFETEA-LU induded changes to transportation planning, including the opportunity for consideration of environmental g) (e)compensating for the impact by replacing or issues in the statewide and metropolitan planning providing substitute resources processes.Section 6001 specifically requires discussion of h) or environments. potential environmental mitigation activities and consultation with resource agencies during the development of long- 40 CFR§1508.20. range transportation plans.The planning regulations (23 CFR 450.214(j)and 450.322(f)(7)specifically call out that Section 109(h)of the Federal-Aid Highway Act also the discussion of potential mitigation may be focused on requires a determination of the"possible adverse policies,programs or strategies,rather than at the project economic,social and environmental effects relating to level. any proposed project,"and"the costs of eliminating or The DRCOG 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation minimizing such adverse effects"to be used together Plan contains an entire chapter on the impacts of the RTP with"the need for fast,safe and efficient transportation" and specifically addresses environmental mitigation in the to make a final decision on the project that is"in the best discussion on how the Metro Vision Transportation Policies overall public interest."Id. and Action Strategies further Policy#14—Environmental Quality. http://dreog.org/documents/2035%20MVRTP%20- Using both NEPA and§109(h)as the reference point %20Ch6%20-%20AdoptFcbl l.pdf Reference is also made for defining the scope of the duty to discuss mitigation to the more resource-specific strategies contained in the under§§134(i)(2)(B)and 135(0(4)calls for the environmental discussion of the 2035 Statewide identification of measures that include"eliminating"or Transportation Plan. Furthermore,the DRCOG 2035 Metro "avoiding"the impact,as well as measures that may be Vision Regional Transportation Plan explains that specific less protective of the environment. Furthermore,§ mitigation strategies are generally developed as part of the 109(h)also requires that the cost of mitigation be project environmental review process conducted under weighed against the benefits of improved mobility likely NEPA. to result from the project.Thus the scope of the duty must include identifying all"possible adverse"impacts, Similarly,Chapter 4 of the NFRMPO 2035 RTP Update the identification of effective mitigation capable of provides an environmental profile of the region and eliminating or avoiding the adverse impact as well as discusses potential mitigation strategies by environmental options that minimize the impact,and also the resource. quantification of the costs of the various mitigation http://www.nfrmpo.org/DocumcntLibrary/GctDocumcnt.aspx options to be weighed against the benefits of the NFRMPO was also the pilot MPO that,starting in 2003, B-167 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. mobility improvements so that the planning agency has established a process for addressing environmental impacts the lands of information to make an informed of transportation projects at early stages of planning.The determination regarding the option that is in"the best process,known as Strategic Transportation and overall public interest." Environmental Planning Process for Urbanizing Places (STEP UP)),predated both SAFETEA-LU and the FHWA Thus defined,the adverse impacts of individual projects Planning and Environmental Linkages program. as well as the aggregate impacts of all the projects in a regional plan would need to be discussed in the long- range plan.A major advantage of addressing these considerations at the regional planning stage is to indude consideration of mitigation measures that may best be implemented at the regional level,such as transit-oriented development,more comprehensive transit services,VMT pricing and user fees,fuel quality, zone SOV travel limitations,and other measures that would not be available at the corridor scale in a project- level EIS,or that might be more effective in mitigating project-level impacts if implemented regionally. Emerging case law interpreting the obligation under NEPA to consider the cumulative impacts of federally funded highway projects,make dear that if the analyses of cumulative impacts are not performed by the MPO as part of the development of the long-range plan,they will nonetheless have to be considered by the implementing agendes as part of project EISs.See 40 CFR§§ 1502.14, 1502.16, 1508.7;Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. DOT, 123 F3d. 1142(9th Cir.1997);W. N.C.Alliance v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.,312 F.Supp.2d 765,778(ED. N.C.2003). Developing information regarding the mitigation of regional impacts that will result from the MPO RTP and TIP,or the Statewide plan and STIP,in a broad urbanized corridor as large as the 1-25 project area must be useful for consideration of both the project-level impacts under NEPA and§109(h),and the regional planning process.SWEEP therefore believes B-168 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. that CDOT together with the MPOs must identify and consider mitigation for all impacts,at the regional, corridor and local scales,and develop cost estimates for mitigating those impacts as part of the planning process. The planning process is not subject to review here.Section b.Mitigation Analyses to Be Performed for Impacts 109(h)requirements are met through compliance with the of Regionally Significant Projects. highway NEPA regulation found at 23 CFR 771.The response below explains how the North 1-25 NEPA process Based on the evidence of the impacts of emissions from undertaken pursuant to 23 CFR 771 addresses the impact of the transportation sector on public health and climate emissions. change,SWEEP believes that these are significant impacts for which mitigation must be considered in the planning process under§§134(i)(2)(B)and 135(f)(4)(A) and(B)and§109(h),as well as under NEPA. (1).Public Health Impacts. The US EPA is charged with setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS)that are protective of human Reviews of recent health effects research conducted by health and the environment. US EPA conducts extensive the Health Effects Institute and others demonstrate that and thorough reviews of available health effects research emissions from highways have a significant impact on during its NAAQS review and development process and human health.These studies include studies of the associated requirements such as the Transportation undifferentiated effects of all highway emissions without Conformity Rule(40 CFR 93).This Final EIS includes distinguishing the effects of particular pollutants,and information demonstrating that the project meets the Clean other studies that attempt to identify the effects of Air Act requirements generated by these rules,including the individual pollutants,or limited combinations of Particulate Matter(PM)Hot-Spot Rule dted by the pollutants.Some of these are criteria pollutants(i.e., commenter("71 Fed.Reg. 12,468(March 10,2006)"). pollutants for which a NAAQS has been adopted under Additionally,the Final EIS includes a summary of the health §109 of the Clean Air Act),and some are pollutants effects of these pollutants,and additional air quality listed as a hazardous air pollutant under§112 and/or analyses,such as an estimate for mobile source air toxics listed as a mobile source air toxic("MSAT")pollutant emissions(acetaldehyde,acrolein,benzene,1,3-butadiene, under§2020)of the CAA. EPA revised the NAAQS for diesel particulate matter(diesel PM),and formaldehyde),an nitrogen oxides to protect against the adverse health analysis of potential nitrogen deposition and ammonia B-169 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. effects associated with NOx emissions from motor emissions,and an assessment of localized effects(hotspots) vehicles,75 Fed. Reg.6473(Feb.9,2010),and has of carbon monoxide and particulate matter,as well as the also updated its initial assessment of the health risks identification of potentially sensitive receptors such as associated with exposure to motor vehicle emissions as residential areas and schools in the vicinity of roadways, part of its recent MSAT rulemaking.71 Fed. Reg. 15804 commuter rail and bus rapid transit stations.The North 1-25 (March 29,2006).See also 66 Fed. Reg. 17229(March Final EIS Section 3.5(Air Quality)was developed with 29,2001);and 64 Fed. Reg.38705(July 19, extensive interagency coordination among the US EPA,the 1999)(National Integrated Air Toxic's Strategy). EPA Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment also found that emissions of PM2.5 from highways (CDPHE),DRCOG and the NFRMPO.The emissions threaten violations of the NAAQS and harm to the health analysis was conducted by independent experts from of local communities.71 Fed.Reg. 12,468(March 10, CDPHE.Greenhouse gas emissions are addressed in two 2006).Assessments performed by EPA,and the sections of the North 1-25 Final EIS: the energy section methodologies used by FHWA in preparing the study of (Section 3.21)and the cumulative impacts section(Section the health costs of air pollution provide examples of the 3.26). tools available to MPOs and state DOTs to estimate the magnitude of adverse health outcomes associated with FHWA is aware of the research investigating the relationship exposure to air pollution in a metropolitan area.These between emissions from the transportation system and tools can provide estimates that,even if they suffer from adverse health effects among exposed populations.With a range of uncertainty with respect to exact numbers of respect to health effects research, FHWA has actively adverse health outcomes in the exposed population,are followed developments in this field,and has provided useful in comparing the expected health consequences financial and other support to work by the Health Effects of different emission scenarios associated with differing Institute(HEI).As stated in HEI Special Report 17(and project,mode,land use and economic incentive paraphrased by the commenter),motor vehides are a strategies. significant source of urban air pollution. It is important to note that the HEI panel for this report went on to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between traffic related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma in children that have it already.All other findings were either only suggestive,or inadequate,or insufficient evidence/data was available to infer causal association between traffic related pollution and adverse human health effects. The 1997 FHWA Addendum dted by the commenter discusses four social costs of transportation not directly borne by the transportation agency(crashes represent about B-170 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. 75%of these and congestion costs represent about 14%, followed by air pollution at 9%and noise at 1%). Focusing on air pollution only,most of these costs are associated with PM.The Addendum presents estimated economic costs of motor vehicle related air pollution on a national level and notes the problematic nature of even this level of analysis: "Even costs quantified ...are highly uncertain due to data and methodological limitations and should be viewed as indicative only of the order of magnitude of costs. Chemical processes that transform emissions into ozone, particulate matter,and other pollutants are very complex, as is the transport of pollutants from their source to where they ultimately affect human health.Sources of some pollutant types are not well understood,nor are some aspects of the health impacts due to motor vehicle emissions.Scientific data on relationships between air pollution and premature death also are weak in many cases." The methodology induded in the Addendum,which provides general,order-of-magnitude information on a national level, does not provide useable methodology for assessing similar impacts on the project level.The commenter also mentions EPA assessments but does not reference any specific reports or documents to which we can respond directly. The revised NAAQS for"nitrogen oxides"is actually a set of standards for nitrogen dioxide(a subset of the larger class of nitrogen oxides).Colorado APCD's most recent Air Quality Data Report (http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/documcnts/2010AnnualD ataRcport.pdf)indicates that monitored values for this pollutant have been well below the NAAQS for the last decade.As noted, EPA recently revised the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide,including a new short-term(1-hour) standard and adding requirements for near-road air B-171 NO m I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. monitoring.According to EPA's final rule(40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide; Final Rule.75 FR 26, February 9,2010), near road air monitors are required to be in place by January 1,2013(Ibid,6511).After 3 years of monitoring data are collected, EPA will make any necessary adjustments to designations for areas not meeting the new 1-hour standard based on the new near road monitoring data. FHWA has been working collaboratively with EPA,assisting in the development of technical assistance in locating these near road monitors.Currently,there are no CAA requirements associated with these new standards for this area. FHWA will comply with any such requirements should areas within Colorado become nonattainment for this pollutant in the future. The entire state of Colorado has been designated by EPA as "attainment"for the most recent PM2.5 NAAQS(74 FR 58688, November 13,2009).Colorado APCD's most recent Air Quality Data Report (http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/documcnts/2010AnnualD ataRcport.pdf)indicates that monitored values for this pollutant have been well below the NAAQS for the last decade. Parts of the project area are designated as a maintenance area for the PM10 NAAQS,and as required by the CAA conformity regulations,a PM qualitative analysis was conducted for this Final EIS. Finally,the comments suggest that FHWA conduct additional analysis to estimate the magnitude of adverse health outcomes associated with exposure to air pollution. The uncertainties and limitations associated with health risk assessment(HRA)are discussed at length in the Final EIS and FHWA's mobile source air toxics guidance (http://www.fhwa.dot.govicnvironmcnt/ar_quality/ar_toxics/p olicy_and_guidancc/100109guidmcm.cfm)and the Air B-172 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Quality Technical Report in Volume 4 of the Final EIS.To summarize, FHWA has found that HRA for highway projects involves so many assumptions regarding future activity, emissions,and exposure that the outcome of such analyses are likely to depend more on the assumptions than on the changes in the travel network being evaluated.In the context of the North 1-25 project, the emissions analysis already conducted for the Final EIS showed that future emissions will be lower than current levels regardless of which alternative is selected,and that the difference in emissions between alternatives is very small(less than 1%).Since CDPHE's analysis conduded that emissions will decrease, FHWA feels that it is reasonable to conclude that the adverse health effects associated with these emissions will also decrease to less than they are today and will not cause new adverse health impacts (2)Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The appropriate forum to raise concerns regarding the transportation planning process is with the appropriate MPO The adverse impacts of CO2 and other air pollutants or state.The transportation planning process offers the emitted from the transportation sector have been opportunity for interested parties to become engaged in the recognized by the United States and the United Nations. process,and provide comments when long-range planning The ultimate goal of the United Nations Framework and program documents are being developed. Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse The North 1-25 Final EIS Section 3.5(Air Quality)was gases at levels that would prevent dangerous human developed with extensive interagency coordination among interference with the climate system.The United States the US EPA,the CDPHE, DRCOG and the NFRMPO.The ratified the UNFCCC in 1992,and the Bush analysis included in this section addresses not only Administration officially endorsed the scientific pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act,but also mobile consensus on the threat posed by climate change with source air toxics,nitrogen deposition,ammonia and its submission to the United Nations(U.N.)of Climate localized effects to potentially sensitive receptors such as Action Report 2002.The U.S. Environmental Protection residential areas and schools in the vicinity of commuter rail Agency has now issued its finding under the Clean Air and bus rapid transit stations.Greenhouse gas emissions Act that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the health are addressed in two sections of the North 1-25 Final EIS: B-173 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. and welfare of the American people.The U.S. the energy section,which is Section 3.21 and in the Department of Energy also acknowledged that drastic cumulative impacts section,which is Section 3.26. reductions in total greenhouse gas emissions are needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations,and has It is expected that the rail components of Package A and the funded technological developments toward this end. Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower Measurement of increasing CO2 concentrations in the energy consumption and thereby reduce green house gas atmosphere provides compelling evidence that emissions because more trains could easily be added.The comprehensive programs to reduce CO2 emissions are tolled express lanes in Package B and the Preferred needed to meet climate change goals. EPA's inventories Alternative would eventually fill up with bus riders and of carbon emissions from major sectors of the US carpoolers especially in the segments of the corridor with economy demonstrate that emissions from the transport only one tolled express lane in each direction.The transit sector account for the fastest growth of GHG emissions stations associated with all of the packages would,over from the United States.Significant reductions in GHG time,serve as stimuli to transit oriented development.This emissions from the U.S.cannot be achieved without at transit oriented development would potentially reduce least stopping the growth in GHG emissions from the energy consumption due to mixed land uses and higher transportation sector. Id. density development which would reduce trips.This characteristic of the Preferred Alternative was a key factor Although the United States declined to ratify the Kyoto used to identify the Preferred Alternative. Protocol,a first step in market-based,global CO2 regulation,Congress has nonetheless required that the transportation planning process produce transportation plans that"minimize fuel consumption"and"air pollution."23 USC§§134(a)and(c), 135(a). Implementation of this national policy can accomplish significant reductions in CO2 emissions from the transportation sector.Given that the United States has already acknowledged the potential harm to the human environment from GHG emissions and expected climate change,and the congressional directive to develop metropolitan and statewide transportation plans that "minimize"fuel consumption and air pollution,it is dear that these impacts are significant in every state and metropolitan planning area for the purpose of triggering an obligation to consider mitigation in the transportation planning process designed to minimize these impacts, and under NEPA. B-174 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. c.Project May Not Be Added to Plan Until An MIS was prepared for the improvements being Compliance with National Planning Objectives considered for this project.The North Front Range and Mitigation is Considered under Appropriate Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study Phase I was Procedures. completed in March 1998 and Phase II in March of 2000. However,the MIS requirements changed with TEA-21 and In light of the extensive impacts the 1-25, 1-70 corridor again with SAFETEA-LU.Currently,there is no requirement and other major projects in the Statewide Transportation for an MIS.See the response below. Plan or to be added to the Plan,would have on VMT, fuel consumption and GHG emissions,the performance of the transportation system in the corridors affected by such projects,endangered species and their habitat, land use and regional development,and other significant impacts on socioeconomic values and natural resources,the MPOs must prepare an MIS for such projects before deciding whether to add such projects to the RTP. (i).Federal Law Requires MPOs to Prepare an MIS or As explained below,your characterization of the MIS Equivalent Assessment. requirement is incorrect. However,it should be noted that an MIS was in fact completed for this project. Since 1993,federal regulations have required that, before a metropolitan planning organization(MPO)may As you note,Section 1308 of the TEA-21 amendments add a project to an RTP or TIP,it must analyze the directed that the MIS set forth in 23 CFR 450.318(as then in project and potential alternatives to determine the cost- effect)be eliminated as a separate requirement and instead effectiveness of the project and its effects on system USDOT was required to"promulgate regulations to integrate performance and the national transportation planning such requirement,as appropriate,as part of the analyses objectives prescribed in 23 U.S.C.§134(a)(1).23 required to be undertaken pursuant to the planning C.F.R..§450.318(1994).As explained below,this provisions"of Titles 23 and 49 of the U.S.Code and to the requirement—known as the MIS rule—remains in effect National Environmental Policy Act(emphasis added). by statutory mandate despite recent conflicting B-175 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. regulatory amendments by US DOT.The 1-25 EIS can USDOT did just that in its 2007 rulemaking establishing new be used as the vehicle for meeting the MIS requirement joint planning regulations for FHWA and FTA(72 FR 7224). that alternatives to a project be evaluated before the This final rulemaI ng was preceded by a notice of proposed project is added to an MPO RTP or the Statewide rulemaI ng on June 9,2006(71 FR 33510).As summarized Transportation Plan. in the final rulemaI ng,the three-month comment period included six public outreach meetings and a national US DOT amended the federal transportation planning telecast. Extensive public outreach resulted in the rules,23 C.F.R.pt.450,in February 2007.72 Fed. Reg. submission of 150 documents representing more than 1600 7224(Feb. 14,2007). Upon adopting the amendments, comments.Twenty documents containing more than 50 US DOT stated that comments were submitted on the proposed revisions to 23 CFR 450.318. [s]ection 1308 of the TEA-21 required the Secretary to eliminate the[MIS]set forth in[23 C.F.R.§450.318],as You quote a paragraph from the February 14,2007 a separate requirement,and promulgate regulations to rulemaI ng by FHWA and FTA that discussed the proposed integrate such requirement,as appropriate,as part of revisions to 23 CFR 450.318.Your quotation omits the last the analysis required to be undertaken pursuant to the sentence of the paragraph,which states that a phrase has planning provisions of title 23 U.S.C.and title 49 U.S.C. been added to paragraph(a)of 23 CFR 450.318 to clarify Chapter 53 and the National Environmental Policy Act of the intent of this section.Specifically,23 CFR 450.318(a),as 1969(NEPA)for Federal-aid highway and transit modified in the 2007 rulemaking,provides: projects. [As amended,the]purpose of[23 C.F.R.§ 450.318(Transportation planning studies and project Pursuant to section 1308 of the Transportation Equity Act development)]is to implement this requirement of for the 21st Century,TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178),an Section 1308 of the TEA-21 and eliminate the MIS as a MPO(s),State(s),or public transportation operator(s)may stand-alone requirement. undertake a multimodal,systems-level corridor or subarea planning study as part of the metropolitan transportation 72 Fed Reg.at 7241. US DOT thus adopted a regulation planning process.To the extent practicable,development that purports to integrate the MIS requirement with of these transportation planning studies shall involve NEPA and the planning process required by 23 U.S.C.§ consultation with,or joint efforts among,the MPO(s), 134(metropolitan planning)and 23 U.S.C.§135(state State(s),and/or public transportation operator(s).The transportation planning). Id.The revised rule makes the results or decisions of these transportation planning MIS a voluntary undertaking by MPOs,however, studies may be used as part of the overall project whereas the 1993 MIS rule provided that MPOs"shall" development process consistent with the National prepare a MIS before adding a project to an RTP or TIP. Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)of 1969(42 U.S.C.4321 Unlike the 1993 MIS rule,the amended regulation falls et seq.)and associated implementing regulations(23 CFR short of section 1308 of TEA-21, Pub. L. No. 105-178 part 771 and 40 CFR parts 1500-1508).Specifically, (1998). these corridor or subarea studies may result in producing B-176 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. any of the following for a proposed transportation project: The 1993 MIS rule required MPOs to satisfy 23 C.F.R.§ 450.322(b)(7)before adding a major project to a RTP or (1) Purpose and need or goals and objective statement(s); TIP.23 C.F.R.§450.322(b)(7)requires a RTP or TIP to (2) General travel corridor and/or general mode(s) "[deflect a multimodal evaluation of the transportation, definition(e.g.,highway,transit,or a highway/transit socioeconomic,environmental,and fnandal impact of combination); the overall plan,including all major transportation (3) Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of investments in accordance with§450.318."At the time unreasonable alternatives; it adopted the 1993 MIS rule,US DOT explained that (4) Basic description of the environmental setting;and/or "[s]uch investment studies should occur before a particular investment is ultimately defined in an area's (5) Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and approved plan. . . .After a corridor/subarea study is environmental mitigation. completed,the plan would be revised to reflect the spedfic decision resulting from the study."58 Fed. Reg. The 2007 rulemaking also addresses concerns raised by 58040,58056(Oct.28, 1993).Together,23 C.F.R.§§ comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding 450.322 and 450.318 define the MIS requirement that the inclusion,as Appendix A to Part 450,of guidance on was preserved by the 1998 amendment to 23 U.S.C.§ how information,analysis and products from the 134 by requiring the MPO to demonstrate in an MIS the transportation planning process can be incorporated in the factual basis supporting its determination to add a NEPA process.The rulemaking addresses these concerns project to a RTP or TIP.Section 450.322(1993) at length: required the MPO to evaluate the"impact of the overall plan,"and section 450.318 requires individual The FHWA and the FTA recognize commenters' investments and strategies to be evaluated for their concerns about Appendix A,including the impacts on"local,State and national goals and recommendation that this information be kept as objectives"before the MPO adds one of the alternatives guidance rather than be made a part of the rule. to the RTP or TIP. First,information in an Appendix to a regulation does not carry regulatory authority in itself,but Although TEA-21 instructed the Secretary of rather serves as guidance to further explain the Transportation to eliminate the"separate"MIS regulation.Secondly,as stated above,Section requirement,it also directed the Secretary to"integrate 1308 of TEA-21 required the Secretary to such requirement,as appropriate,"into the planning eliminate the MIS as a separate requirement,and provisions of Title 23,Title 49,and NEPA. Pub. L. No. promulgate regulations to integrate such 105-178,at§1308. US DOT explained its requirement,as appropriate,as part of the understanding that"[t]he technical structure of the law is transportation planning process.Appendix A fulfills such that this action requires a two step process:(1) that Congressional direction by providing Eliminating and(2)proposing an approach for explanatory information regarding how the MIS B-177 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. integrating what remains."67 Fed. Reg.59219,59223 requirement can be integrated into the (Sept.20,2002). US DOT thus understood that transportation planning process. Inclusion of this Congress intended for it to integrate into the planning explanatory information as an Appendix to the process"what remains"of the required"approach"that regulation will make the information more readily is not otherwise required by NEPA or titles 23 or and 49 available to users of the regulation,and will of the U.S.Code.In short,the MIS regulation remains in provide notice to all interested persons of the effect under 23 U.S.C.§134 until US DOT replaces the agencies'official guidance on MIS integration with original 23 C.F.R.§450.318 with a regulation that fulfills the planning process.Attachment of Appendix A to the mandate to"integrate such[MIS]requirement"into this rule will provide convenient reference for State the planning process. DOTs, MPOs and public transportation operator(s) who choose to incorporate planning results and Prior to amending its planning regulations in 2007, US decisions in the NEPA process. It will also make DOT acknowledged that the existing regulation the information readily available to the public. remained a"placeholder"to meet Congress's integration Additionally,the FHWA and the FTA will work with requirement. Id.at 59223.The MIS rule remains in Federal environmental,regulatory,and resource effect because(1)Congress did not repeal the MIS agencies to incorporate the prindples of Appendix requirement reflected in 23 C.F.R.§450.318,(2)the A in their day-to-day NEPA policies and MIS rule remained consistent with 23 U.S.C.§134 after procedures related to their involvement in highway the TEA-21 revisions and enforceable,and(3)the US and transit projects.For the reasons stated above, DOT has not lawfully revoked the 1993 regulation after careful consideration of all comments,the because it has not promulgated a rule that satisfies the FHWA and the FTA have derided to attach mandate to"integrate such[MIS]requirement"into the Appendix A to the final rule as proposed in the planning process. NPRM. (ii).TEA-21 Retained the MIS Requirement See 72 FR 7241. The 1998 TEA-21 amendments did not repeal or Congress directed USDOT to eliminate the MIS as a stand- eliminate the MIS requirement,but rather clarified a alone requirement and integrate this requirement"as latent ambiguity as to whether an MIS must be prepared appropriate"into analyses required by the planning statute separately or as part of the NEPA process.The MIS or NEPA. USDOT,after extensive public comment on its regulation left this issue to be determined on a case-by- proposed rulemaking,did so in the 2007 planning regulation. case basis.23 C.F.R.§450.318(f). Because MPOs had The heart of your argument appears to be a contention that no obligation to satisfy NEPA as part of their planning USDOT's rulemaking runs counter to Section 1308 of TEA- processes, MPOs often did not include within the MIS a 21 because it does not make the analyses outlined in 23 treatment of alternatives that met the comprehensive CFR 450.318(a)and in Appendix A of 23 CFR Part 450 requirement of NEPA.Accordingly,after a project was mandatory. However,such an approach is not precluded by B-178 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. added to a RTP or TIP, US DOT would prepare a Section 1308 of TEA-21,which specifically directs USDOT separate,but largely duplicative,environmental impact to integrate the MIS requirement"as appropriate" and thus statement(EIS)to satisfy NEPA. Participants often provides USDOT with discretion in implementing Section viewed this as a make-weight,paper-shuffling task to 1308.After extensive public comment, USDOT determined meet the letter of the law that had little to do with the that the approach outlined in 23 CFR 450.318 is appropriate. final selection of a project.See,e.g., 144 Cong. Rec. $6399,$6402(June 16, 1998)(S.J.R. 15). Indeed,as a You cite 23 CFR 450.318 and 450.322 of the joint practical matter, US DOT usually would not select a FHWA/FTA 1993 planning rule as"defining"the MIS different alternative identified in the NEPA process requirement that was"preserved"by Section 1308 of TEA- because such an alternative was not in the RTP or TIP, 21.This assertion runs counter to the plain language of the and thus could not be funded without a revision to the statute and is incorrect. Rather than preserve the MIS RTP. requirement,Section 1308 specifically directed that USDOT "shall eliminate"it as the separate requirement defined in 23 TEA-21 sought to avoid this duplication by ensuring that CFR 250.318 of the existing planning regulations at that time the MIS would satisfy NEPA.Congress did not intend to and integrate the MIS requirement as the agency deems eliminate the MIS requirement.S. Rep.106-47,at 5 appropriate into other analyses.Section 1308 also defined (1999)("TEA-21 deletes the Major Investment Study as the MIS requirement as"the major investment study set forth a stand-alone requirement and integrates it into the in section 450.318 of title 23,Code of Federal Regulation." planning process.");H.R. Rep. 105-831,at 29(1998) Section 1308 did not define the MIS requirement with ("The project review process is reformed by deleting the reference to 23 CFR 450.322. Major Investment Study as a stand-alone requirement and integrating it into the planning process."); 144 Cong. Following passage of TEA-21, FHWA and FTA provided a Rec. H10479, H10502(daily ed.Oct. 10, 1998)(same). notice of proposed rulemaking in 2000 with a proposal for It is no wonder,then,that the mandate to integrate the revised planning regulations(65 FR 41891).The agencies MIS requirement is found within the section titled withdrew most of the proposed rule in 2002 after public input "Program Streamlining and Flexibility."Pub. L. No. 105- indicated considerable controversy and divergence of 178,§1308, 112 Stat. 107(June 9, 1998).An MPO opinion on the proposed rule(67 FR 59219).The agencies satisfies the MIS requirement when it demonstrates how indicated that they would view the existing regulation"as a the MIS affected its decision to add a project to the RTP place holder that can be utilized at the discretion of the State or TIP.See Clairton Sportsmen's Club v. Pa.Turnpike and local agencies as they see the need until further action Comm'n,882 F.Supp.455,481 (W.D. Pa.(1995) on the rule."An MIS was therefore not considered (conduding,before the 1998 TEA-21 amendments,that mandatory. the Federal Highway Administration[FHWA]did not abuse its discretion by permitting the agencies to In the time leading up to the next major highway bill, comply with the MIS regulation by incorporating a recognition began to emerge in the transportation section regarding MIS compliance into the community that environmental considerations should be B-179 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. environmental impact statement).See also FHWA, addressed as early as possible in the planning process,and Notice of Intent,67 Fed. Reg.50504,50504(Aug.2, the STEP UP project was one such pioneering effort piloted 2002)("As directed by the Transportation Efficiency[sic] in Colorado,starting in 2003. Act for the 21st Century(TEA-21),the Major Investment http://www.nfrmpo.org/DocumcntLibrary/GctDocumcnt.aspx Study(MIS)will be integrated with the[environmental The STEP UP project was a cooperative effort led by FHWA, impact statement(EIS)]."). CDOT and the NFRMPO to develop an improved process for addressing and evaluating environmental impacts of (iii).US DOT Has Not Lawfully Replaced the MIS transportation projects at the earliest stage in the planning Rule process.The innovative work being done by the STEP UP team was described in the joint FHWA/FTA 2005 Because TEA-21 did not eliminate the MIS requirement, memorandum titled, Integration of Planning and NEPA the MIS rule remains in effect until US DOT replaces it Processes. with a rule that complies with the statutory directive.The http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hcp/planncpalcgal050222.pdf This February 2007 rule amendment fails to retain the MIS as memorandum was instrumental in helping FHWA to develop a requirement.Accordingly, US DOT has not integrated the Linking Planning and NEPA initiative outlined in the 2007 the 1993 requirement as required by law.Accordingly, planning regulations,and also led to the Planning and the 1993 MIS rule has not been lawfully superseded and Environmental Linkages(PEL)program of present. therefore remains in effect. SAFETEA-LU,the first major reauthorization bill after TEA- US DOT's explanation for the 1993 MIS rule describes 21,was signed into law in 2005 and included numerous the requirement that TEA-21 intended to retain and changes related to transportation planning,induding integrate into the planning process:"[T]he intent of the significant new opportunities for consideration of requirement is to integrate planning and environmental environmental issues in the statewide and metropolitan requirements at the planning stage so that alternative planning processes.With SAFETEA-LU,Congress did not courses of action,their costs and environmental effects direct FHWA to change how the MIS was being integrated as well as transportation demand are considered at this as a discretionary tool. In fact,consistent with the linking point."58 Fed. Reg.at 58056.The 2007 amendments to planning and NEPA processes identified by the agencies in the MPO and statewide planning rules do not preserve 2005,SAFETEA-LU identified the transportation planning these requirements because they purport to allow MPOs process as a place for consultation with resource agencies the discretion not to integrate these factors into the to develop programmatic strategies for potential mitigation. planning decision. Revisions to an MPO plan that are A revised planning regulation was finalized and issued by not based on these factors do not fulfill the statutory FHWA in 2007 to implement the significant planning process mandate. changes called for by SAFETEA-LU.This was the first major update to the regulation since 1993. In contrast to the 1993 MIS requirement,the amended MIS regulation makes the preparation of an MIS The 2007 rulemaking was accomplished with openness and B-180 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. discretionary.23 C.F.R.§§450.212(a)("a State, MPO, transparency to facilitate constructive comments. or public transportation operator may undertake a Furthermore,the 2007 planning regulation specifically states multimodal,systems-level corridor or subarea planning a planning study may be done as part of the planning study as part of the statewide transportation planning process,with the results or decisions used as part of NEPA. process."),450.318(a)("MPO(s),State(s),or public Also induded in the 2007 planning regulation is Appendix A, transportation operator(s)may undertake a multimodal, which is guidance on linking the transportation planning and systems-level corridor or subarea planning study as part NEPA processes.The work Colorado had done to advance of the metropolitan transportation planning process."). PEL was often recognized by FHWA and touted as a best The regulations are thus inconsistent with statutory practice.The PEL tools developed here in Colorado were mandate in TEA-21,which directs US DOT to"integrate adopted by FHWA as national examples for the Every Day such requirement"into existing planning processes. Counts Initiative(EDC)when in 2010 the FHWA Executive Director selected PEL as a key EDC strategy to shorten In sum,because US DOT has not replaced the 1993 project delivery. MIS rule with a rule that satisfies the statutory MIS mandate,the MIS rule remains in effect.Thus, regionally significant projects added to MPO plans and major projects such as 1-70 corridor that are proposed to be added to the Statewide Plan are a"major metropolitan transportation investment"within the meaning of 23 C.F.R.§450.318(1994),see 23 C.F.R.§ 450.104(defining"major metropolitan transportation investment").Such projects may not be lawfully added to the Statewide Plan until the kinds of alternatives analysis required by the MIS rule have been completed in accordance with the 1993 regulatory requirements for an MIS.23 CFR§450.318(2006). Projects not analyzed in an MIS,or a functionally equivalent assessment of impacts,alternatives,mitigation of adverse impacts,and compliance with the national planning objectives,will not comply with federal statutory requirements,and may not be lawfully added to the Statewide Transportation Plan. B-181 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. C. Although FHWA and CDOT intend to work toward implementing the Preferred Alternative in its entirety,due to The preferred alternative identified in the EIS for the 1-25 current funding limitations and federal requirements that corridor may not be added to the Statewide require the project to be in the fiscally constrained plans and Transportation Plan without demonstrating that adding TIPs before a decision document can be approved,only a the project will contribute to,and not interfere with, portion of the Preferred Alternative,identified as Phase 1 compliance of the Statewide Plan with the national and discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of the Final EIS,can be planning objectives,and the obligation to consider selected for implementation.Phase 1 is included in the mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse fiscally constrained,air quality conforming long range plans impacts. and TIPs.The portion of Phase 1 that will take place in the near term is included in the STIP.The appropriate forum to With respect to the addition of the 1-25 project to the raise concerns regarding the transportation planning process DRCOG RTP,it will be necessary to show that the Plan is with the appropriate MPO or the state.The Transportation as revised by the addition of all projects since the RTP planning process offers the opportunity for interested parties was adopted will comply with applicable federal planning to become engaged in the process,and provide comments requirements. No mitigation of the public health or when long-range planning and program documents are climate impacts associated with increased VMT and being developed. increased GHG emissions resulting from the Jefferson Parkway project has been performed or presented for public comment. Nor has any evidence been provided to show that DRCOG staff have consulted with the relevant resource management agencies regarding these impacts.The adoption of both the 1-25 and Jefferson Parkway projects into the RTP without complying with these requirements of FAHA is unlawful,and makes incorporation of the DRCOG plan into the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan unlawful under federal law as well. In addition,it would be unlawful for the CDOT, DRCOG and North Front Range MPO to add the 1-25 preferred alternative to their respective plans without first determining that the revised plans will satisfy the State planning objectives added by the Legislature to§43-1- 1103(5).SWEEP believes that these projects may not B-182 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. be added to the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan without performing the kind of analysis discussed above to consider whether such projects meet the planning objectives of State law. III.Clean Air Act Conformity Is Not Demonstrated. Phase 1 is included in the fiscally constrained long range plans and TIPs and meets the air quality conformity The Clean Air Act requires a determination that the requirements. In addition,an illustrative run of emissions project will not cause new violations of a NAAQS,make was performed by the CDPHE considering the whole existing violations more severe or more frequent,or Preferred Alternative.This demonstrated that if there were delay timely attainment of any NAAQS.A conformity enough money to implement the entire Preferred Alternative, determination requires that the project come from a it would also meet conformity requirements. Prior to approval regional transportation plan and TIP that is fiscally of additional elements of the Preferred Alternative in constrained.40 C.F.R.§93.108.The proposed subsequent ROD(s),each element would have to preferred alternative does not come from a fiscally demonstrate independent utility,conformity,and be included constrained plan and TIP for the Denver metro in a fiscally constrained,air quality conforming plan(s)and nonattainment area,and the evidence in the EIS does TIP(s). FHWA and FTA air quality conformity determinations not demonstrate how the project will be funded. It were made on the NFRMPO and DRCOG plans and TIPs appears on the face of the EIS that the project cannot that indude Phase 1 of the project on October 24th,2011. lawfully be added to a Plan and TIP because without sufficient funding for the 1-25 project,the Plan and TIP would no longer be fiscally constrained. After reviewing the Final EIS published by CDOT in These data were provided to SWEEP on October 5,2011 by August,2011,SWEEP had attempted to find data in the an email from Carol Parr with CDOT.The assumptions record to determine if the project could generate behind the tolling revenues are documented in the Final EIS sufficient revenues to allow it to be added to an MPO within supporting technical reports.A technical report by plan,and to answer several other questions prior to Wilbur Smith Associates(part of the consultant team; being able to submit meaningful comments on the 1-25 responsible for the traffic and revenue estimates)is induded North FEIS. Data relevant to understanding the cost in Appendix G(Travel Demand Forecasting Memoranda)of estimates for project alternatives,and to estimating the Alternatives Development and Screening Report.To possible revenue streams from user fees to fund the answer your questions,the data are summarized below. project were not provided in the EIS or supporting B-183 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. documentation.SWEEP submitted a request to project The portion of SOVs compared to HOVs in the TEL varies staff requesting the information.(A copy of the email with each segment by direction and by time of day. In sent to CDOT on September 16th is attached below.) general,representative segments of the corridor have about Despite assurances from staff in follow-up emails that 20 percent SOVs during the AM and PM peak hours. During the information was being prepared and would be made the off-peak,the SOV portion drops to about eight percent. available,as of the morning of October 3rd,SWEEP had not yet received responses to these data requests. Toll rates also vary by time of day,direction and location along the corridor. Here are toll rates developed for the Financial feasibility is an important factor in determining Preferred Alternative: whether a proposed option is"reasonable"within the • AM north of E-470:$0.09/mile context of NEPA,and whether the project is fiscally • AM south of E-470:$0.30/mile constrained,i.e.,whether the project comes from a • PM north of E-470:$0.06/mile conforming and fiscally constrained transportation plan PM south of E-470:$0.50/mile or may be added to a plan without destroying the fiscally • Off-peak north of E-470:$0.06/mile constrained status of the plan.The segments of the project within the DRCOG and North Front Range • Off-peak south of E-470:$0.06/mile Planning regions must meet these fiscal constraint tests in section 1340)of the Federal Aid Highway Act and For your convenience,we also prepared some rough VMT transportation conformity under the Clean Air Act.40 calculations for the Preferred Alternative as shown below: C.F.R.§93.108.The FEIS does not identify sufficient funding or reasonably expected funding for full TEL VMT per day north of E-470(Total/SOV) implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. • AM Peak—64,000/12,800 Additional revenues will be required for either the • PM Peak—86,000/17,200 preferred alternative,or any one of the other alternatives . Off Peak—800,000/64,000 considered,to meet these statutory tests.The FEIS for the entire corridor,and the Conformity Determination for TEL VMT per day south of E-470(Total/SOV) the segment within the nonattainment area,is • AM Peak—22,000/4,400 inadequate to the extent that adequate funding sources PM Peak—25,000/5,000 are not identified.Adequate funding sources must be identified before a ROD may be signed. • Off Peak—269,000/21,500 To determine the extent to which the project could Using these approximate numbers,calculations can generate sufficient revenues to overcome all or a portion demonstrate the same magnitude of revenues as reported in of the funding shortfall identified in the EIS,SWEEP has the Final EIS. However,it was not the intent to show or imply searched the EIS record for the information needed to that revenue generated by the TEL could support the capital perform an independent analysis of the potential for construction of these improvements. B-184 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. generating revenue from the tolled express lanes (TELs).The objective of our attempted analysis was to try to determine how much annual revenue the TELs identified for each project alternative are likely to generate so that a reasonable estimate can be made of the total bond revenue that could be obtained from this income stream.This information would provide an estimate of the portion of each Package's construction costs that could be financed by this source of revenue as a supplement to transportation funds available to CDOT from state and federal sources. To develop a reasonable estimate of potential toll revenues,it is necessary to know how much VMT would be expected to use each TEL for each project alternative.To demonstrate that the project is fiscally constrained,CDOT needs to determine what the average fee per mile would need to be to pay for the entire package,or to fill the gap between funds available from other sources and the total project cost.Without demonstrating that preferred alternative is fiscally constrained,it is not reasonable to identify as the "preferred alternative"("PA")a project in which new lanes are proposed to be constructed that would be operated as general purpose(GP)lanes for which users would not be charged fees. While data was provided on the annual revenue generating potential of the TELs in Package B and the PA(Table 6-9 in the Financial Analysis)several critical pieces of data were not provided. First,no breakdown is provided of the number of vehicles traveling in the ELs in Package B and the PA which are expected to be high occupancy vehicles(HOV)not paying a fee compared to the number of vehides using the TEL that would pay a fee.Without this breakdown it is difficult to determine the B-185 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. true revenue generating ability of the TELs. Building off of this question,SWEEP also sought more information on the actual average fee per mile charged in the TELs. While the FEIS states that the TEL in Package B would generate$4.53 million annually,a calculation shows that this would result in an average fee per vehicle mile of $0.004,which is one to two orders of magnitude lower than the cost per mile range stated in the section 6.3.2 of the FEIS' Financial Analysis.($0.05 to$0.50 and up to$1.75 in hot spots).Without a clear explanation of how the traffic in the TELs is expected to generate so much less revenue than would be expected if the proposed fees were assessed on all vehide miles in the corridor,it is difficult to estimate the potential revenue to be generated from TELs.The EIS provides no rational explanation for the projected$4.53 million estimate in annual revenues because the estimate cannot be derived from the data provided. Second,the estimated costs of constructing the new The higher cost for Package B is a result of a couple of lanes in Package B and the Preferred Alternative are not items—the two barrier-separated lanes between SH 60 and explained,and are so inconsistent that one of them Harmony Road included in Package B and the generally must be unreasonable. Package B includes one wider cross section included in Package B that requires separated TEL built in each direction,with two TELs larger bridges,more pavement,retaining walls,noise walls, between SH 60 and Harmony Rd.The estimated and right of way acquisition. construction cost is$1.141 billion for these new lanes. In the Preferred Alternative,a new general purpose lane and a new TEL would be added in both directions, resulting in the addition of more lane miles than in Package B. However,the estimated highway construction cost of the PA is less than in Package B, $1.0 billion.The EIS provides no explanation for the significantly lower per/mile construction costs in the PA. If the per mile costs of new lanes are roughly B-186 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. comparable,the PA appears to significantly underestimate the costs of building the additional lane. This has the effect of skewing the cost comparison between Package B and the PA,underestimating the overall project cost of the PA,and misrepresenting the shortfall between available transportation funds and the overall project cost. If the per mile costs of the PA are applied to Package B, it would appear that the construction costs should be substantially lower than presented in the EIS. If the construction costs are less,and the revenue stream is significantly underestimated by using a per vehide mile fee substantially lower than the range stated in the Financial Analysis,then it would appear that Package B might be affordable with fees collected from the project supplementing the resources that are expected to be available from State and federal transportation funds. On the other hand,if the per mile costs are as much less as is suggested in the PA for four new lanes,and charging fees in the range of$0.05 to$0.50/mile for access to all four lanes would generate revenues ten times greater than estimated for Package B,then the PA might offer the best option for closing the funding shortfall. But the data provided does not allow either the cost estimates or the revenue projections to be confirmed.Without these data,the financial feasibility of either alternative cannot be determined,and reasonable comparisons cannot be made. CONCLUSION. Issues regarding SWEEPS opinions and assertions that a project is required to reduce VMT,fuel consumption,air SWEEP believes that the Final EIS is inadequate for the pollutants and GHG emissions have been previously reasons stated above,and that a ROD may not be addressed.As far as identifying additional funding sources B-187 NOiml I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. signed because the project does not come from to indude the whole Preferred Alternative in the plans, conforming,fiscally constrained regional transportation CDOT, NFRMPO and DRCOG are pragmatic in their plans and TIPs,and may not be lawfully added to the approach to ensure that the funds identified in the respective MPO plans and TIPs,or the Statewide Transportation plans are reasonably foreseeable. User fees on the TELs Plan,for the reasons stated above.We urge CDOT to are not relied on for funding capital investments.The fees prepare a supplemental EIS that identifies are currently estimated to cover the operations and improvements in the corridor that 1)will reduce VMT, maintenance expenses of the TELs.Additional study would fuel consumption,air pollutants and GHG emissions, be needed to be able to rely on this revenue source for and 2)that can be funded with identified sources of funding capital investments. revenue including,but not limited to,user fees on all new and existing capacity as authorized by FASTER. Email Attachment From: Mike Salisbury[mailto:msalisbury@swenergy.org] From: Parr,Carol Sent: Friday,September 16,2011 5:32 PM Sent:Wednesday,October 05,2011 01:46 PM To:'carol.parr@dot.state.co.us' To: Mike Salisbury(msalisburyeswenergy.orq) Subject: North 1-25 EIS <msalisburyeswenergy.orq> Carol, Subject: FW: North I-25 EIS My name is Mike Salisbury and I work at the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project on transportation policy.We are working on some comments for the 1-25 North EIS Mike, responses to your questions are provided below. and had a couple questions that I hope you can help us Let me know if further clarification or information is answer to help our comments along. needed. Carol H.Parr,R4 Environmental Manager Office: 970.350.2170 Cell:970.397.3143 Fax: 970.350.2203 1)Can you tell me what assumptions are being made A straight rate was not applied to the corridor so the portion regarding how much of the volume in the TELs(in of SOVs compared to HOVs varies with each segment by B-188 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Package B and the PA)is from HOV rather than paying direction and by time of day. Here is a sense of the portions vehicles?I didn't find that number(or numbers)in the that represent the entire corridor. AM and PM Peaks—20% EIS. SOVs. During the off peak this drops to about 8%. 2)This might relate to 1)but I'm trying to figure out the The assumptions behind the tolling revenues are revenue generation numbers from the TEL and can't documented in the EIS but they are a bit hard to find. A seem to get the numbers to add up. For Package B,the report by Wilbur Smith Associates is included in Appendix G EIS states that there will be$4.53 million generated by (FEIS modeling)of the Alternatives Development and the TEL. My rough estimate(*explained below)is that Screening Report.We also prepared some rough VMT there will be just under 1 billion freeway VMT under calculations for the Preferred Alternative for you as shown Package B in the TEL lane in 2035.With 1 billion annual below. All VMT shown is for a weekday. Weekend VMT VMT in the TEL,each mile of travel would need to be projections would be less than what is shown below: charged$0.004 to generate$4.53 million,which is orders of magnitude lower than the range you say is • TEL VMT per day north of E-470(Total/SOV) considered($0.05 to$0.50).Clearly some of those • AM Peak—64,000/12,800 miles will be HOV and not be charged but that wouldn't PM Peak-86,000/17,200 seem to be an order of magnitude difference. • Off Peak—800,000/64,000 • TEL VMT per day south of E-470(Total/SOV) • AM Peak-22,000/4,400 • PM Peak-25,000/5,000 • Off Peak-269,000/21,500 Toll rates also vary by time of day,direction and location along the corridor. Here are toll rates developed for the Preferred Alternative and used for our check. • AM north of E-470:$0.09/mile • AM south of E-470:$0.30/mile • PM north of E-470:$0.06/mile • PM south of E-470:$0.50/mile • Off-peak north of E-470:$0.06/mile • Off-peak south of E-470:$0.06/mile B-189 NORm I-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Source First Name Last Name Public Comment Response and ID No. Based on your questions we used these estimates to do a back of the envelope check and the revenues reported appear to be correct. 3)Can you help me understand why the cost for The higher cost is a result of a couple of items—the two highway construction in Package B(one additional TEL barrier-separated lanes between SH 60 and Harmony Road in both directions)at$1.141 is more than the cost for included in Package B as well as the generally wider cross highway construction in the PA which has two additional section included in Package B that requires larger bridges, lanes in both directions for$1 billion? more pavement,retaining walls,noise walls,and right of way acquisition. Thank you for any information/clarification you can provide,it is greatly appreciated! *There are 17,162,000 daily freeway VMT in Package B in 2035. I multiplied that by 365 to arrive at an annual VMT number,6,264,130,000(I'm not sure if this is the daily to annual factor CDOT uses). I'm not sure what percentage of the freeway VMT is on 1-25 compared to the other freeways,but for ease I've assumed 100%,if you have a breakdown you can give me that would be wonderful. I then multiplied the annual VMT number by 15.7%(the percentage of 1-25 total volume in the TEL shown in Table 4-2)to arrive at an annual TEL VMT of 988 million. Mike Salisbury Transportation Analyst Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (303)477-3738 B-190 NORTH 1-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. ID No.!Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response AG-01 Responses to EPA Comments Environmental Protection UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Agency REGION 8 VIPJJ 1585 Wtn0gop Sven �y(6 DENVER.CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227.8917 :ntp rMnvw epagovaegio.108 SfP 29 .tt Rof:8EPR-N Donald Hoot Fucudve Director Colorado Department of Transpotodion 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,CO 80222 • John Cater Division Administrator,Colorado Division Falsest l lighway Administration 12300 West Dakota Avenue,Suite 180 Lakewood.CO 80228 RE:North 1-25 Final Emironmeoal Impact Statement CEQS20110271 Deer Mr.Hum and Mr.Cater: The O.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region 8(EPA)has reviewed the Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA)Final Environmental Impact Statement(EELS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal vanaponatxm improvements along the 61-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort C'ollitss)Welliogton area to Denver.The F))WA prepared this FEIS in cooperation with the Colorado Dcpatunent Tionsportmion(CDm).Oar revicss and comments provided arc pursuant to our responsibility under Section 102(C)O1 the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA).42 U.S.C.4332(2)(C)and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act,42 U.S.C Section 7609. Response to Comment#1: Comment#1 Thank you for the level or consideration given in responding to agency and public comments that Comments noted. star provided during the review of the Draft EIS.In particular.we appreciate your efforts to addm8s ow concerns that other sources of volatile organic compounds(VOC'sl and nitrogen oxide(NMI emissions and their contribution to ozone precursors within the regional area be included in the au quality analysis.In addition.we appreciate the dieclosure of applicable regulatory requirements for protecting visibility in Federal Class I areas and the status of visibility degradation in Rocky Mountain Notional Park(KMNP). • Response to Comment#2: Comment#2 The EPA concurs with your ease-sancta that high-elevation ecosystems in RMNI'and other Comments noted. B-191 NORTH 1-25 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. ID No.!Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment I Response sensitive mountain environments along the Front Range am vulnerable to atmospheric nitrogen deposition.We support your efforts to disclose the direct and cumulative impacts of increased amnwnia emissions and list potential anunada emission mitigation measures. Response to Comment#3: The EPA commends your efforts to work 000perati'cly with the U.S.Army Caps of Engineers Comment#3 in identifying the lead environmentally damaging practicable alternative(i.,FDPA)consistent Comments no.e�. with Section 404 oldie Clean Water Act and recognize that the preferred alternative,selected in the Final IDS.has the least impact to aquatic resources. Thank you for the opjlottttrrity to participate in the review of this project during the NEPA procesa If you have any qucalimrs regarding EPA's input.please contact me at 303-3122-6925.or David Duster of my sta0'al 303-3124665. Sincerely, Suzanne J.Bohan Director.NF.PA Compiiance and Review t'mgram Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remedia:ior. cci Carol Pan.CBOT Monica Pavlik,Fit WA Nonh 1-25 Project Team 2 mrnom Roc,md Pete B-192 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response AG-02 Responses to Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Pawnee Nation of Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Comments Oklahoma Office of Historic Preservation 657 Harrison Street P.O.Box 470 Pawnee,OK 94058 September 29,2011 Ms.Gaol H Parr, N1-25 EIS Project Manager Stare of Colorado Departmem of innISpOnatitill,Region 14202n°Sired Greeley,CO 80631 970.350 2110 PAX 471)350 7177 Re'.N I-25 Final EIS and Draft PA Dear Ms.Parr, The Pawnee Nation Office of Historic Preservmvn received your dler dated August I I,2011. Thank you for he information you provided in the N 1-25 EIS and draft PA. Given the information provided,it appears that your repot is indeed comprehensive Response to Comment#1: Comment#1 Please be advised that the Pawnee Nation has no comment on either the fits or draft PA you Comments noted. submitted to us. I Wish Yore Well, ,Y„/_.,/ //I)/-,.------ Ccr dal F.Adams Gordon F.Adams.OVA paw Historic/hwr4on 4/%e, Ph:9),7623227x 30 Eo]mnCabmrmnu(wrtrn Fm':91 87613662 B-193 NORTH I-25 EIS information,cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response AG-03 Responses to Northern Cheyenne Tribe Northern "DNr,Elo :aaervwtvtr.xa 09.�.os,.,,. 10-11-,011 .1 Comments Cheyenne Tribe Northern Chevonne Cube Tribal Historic Preservation Otilce P.O.Box 128 Lame Deer,Montana 59043 Phone:;406)477-4838/4839 jr-, -.x 141151477-3839 Native American Consultation Response Form !� Site Name/OBJECT Ntn2' Z-�hC .L P.VUP.R,e..mu;+r.A rV iypjcT ,as nwaalrnxRts Ankss cTIAN2rTCNSry Lcation ID N berELOIr2.Mtr,(eDW I ,r-a;zl )CrVu l-',c5 • [1:� F111393/11 Dl"Il2305t6C\-2VII Response: REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION__ NO ADVERSE EFFECT . _ NO INff:KLST ADVERSE EFFECT_ Response to Comment#1: Comment#1 Comments noted. NUCOMM%NT Exceptions:If archaeological materials or human remains are encountered during construction,the State Historic Preservation Office and applicable Native American Tribes will be notified. Signature Date" Conrad Fisher,'CH.P O. Roush Name Ismaing Otticlelf B-194 NORTH I-25 EIS i ntormati on.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response AG-04 Responses to SHPO State Historic, • Preservation Officer,CO HISTORY0 p / October 3,2011 Carol Parr N 1-12 EIS Protect Managet State th tondo Reps ofTlanseottamn Region pout 14202°Street Gmdq,CO 80631 Re.No dt125 Mal Rmitonmenal Impact Smemem(CHS H92316) Dear Ma.Part. Thank you tor your correspondence doted August 11,2011 and vzcredby tor office an Angst 17,2011 regvdmg the review of the abovemattioned protect wider Melon 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(Section 106).Please MI out mimosas sas below in regards to comulndon of historic pmpeNss from the Neff EIS. Comment#1: 5 w1 s198kola mien, Response to Comment#1: We concur with the recommended Wring of„o adverse e©n 136 CFR 800.5(b)]for packages Comments noted. A.R,and the plefettcd alternative The FwPco5'was dean ineL significant under National Register(meow A foragneultme,homers we concur dial rite agnmIntral ppttt land being taken rot the protect is not n chancier de6 es wg Sesame and dos not wpm(integrity of the historic property.Wn believe that the Net uted altesnawe does the most mtmmve the effects of the project on the Msmdcmousy Comment#2: 5LR11382/Hutch Farm Response to Comment#2: Comments noted. wee„arnv h the mmmniuNal Outline,ts1 aereetse 0,136 CFR 860.5(6)]too packages A,lit and the preferred schematic-erne property was determined signifont under National Register nC for achit wand no dun mtic5ning(( solacing token as n result of the protect.Hox toes believe that the professed alternative does the monm m minize time effects of time Foote=on time histonc mom, Comment#3: swu2a3indn Farm Response to Comment#3: At_r review of the assessment&ad.^rt"effect,we ma not able m concur with me FHWA and CDOT have considered the input you mcommended ending ofno 0.h mew p6 CFR Eoos(b)j tut Secdon ma the provided,and have revised the effects determination enteric{oaths me erect[36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)]states that an"adverse effect is found when an for this site to adverse effect.This information has been updated in Section J.10 of the ROD. HISTORY COLORADO CENTER 1200 BROADWAY DENVER Co enzo3 B-195 NORTH I-25 EIS i nlorrnali on.cooperation transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response undertaking may alter,Mimetic'indirectly,any of the characteristics of a haven property that qualify the property far inclusion in the on desil Register in a manner des would dlni.'sF the integrity of the property's location,&mn setting ma terialsovockmanship, feebng.or associanon."The Hem Farm was determined significant flint National Register Criterion A tot agriculture m which the agnwlmml fields re Integrity and err considered a,vactcredefirwg teatimes of the propcuy.jcmrahrgea 36 CFR 8005(a)(2)(), r adverse effect happens when a"change of the character of the property's use or of physical featuieswndhin the properg's setting Mat count bum to its histone significance" takesplace. om opinion,the Important evaluationof effect is if any chaa erdettrting feamres are bang duhnshed as a result of the project filmSection 106 regulations rate that me evaluation of adverse effect must be based of whether or nor doe qualities (chwmterdr£m'ng(mantes)that make the property Nadonal Register dptble are being dumished as a result of the project The assessmenr of adverse effect is not based on whether or nut dm of-National Reproperty n is Nare beiall Regims Aipr butwhether t the qualities atmake Register eNablliry nee being diminished.A project could diminish the qualifies that make a property in Nadal Register eligible and have an adverse effect,however, the property could t maincvn National Register e)gibdiry. In our opinion and based on die definition of adwm effect n 36 CFR SOo.5(a)(P(PA,the change of the character and physical use of the character-defining feature of die agricultural fields to transportation use within the luwnric strung of the property's historic boundam diminishes the qualities that nake the property eligibleeligibleand,rherefnrc,is an adverse effect e effect under Section 106. Response to Comment#4: Comment#4: 3sR.11saa✓M„iin tots View Fad FHWA and CDOT have considered the input you Afars rumps of dmassessment of adverse effect,we are not able m concurwldi die provided,and have revised the effects determination recommended finding of nn abroae effect 136 CFR Boos@))ndcr Section IAA The for this site to adverse effect.This information has ctitena ofadvetsc effect[30 CfR 800.5 )(1)l states that an"adverse effect is found when an been updated in Section J.10 of the ROD. undertaking may alter,directly at hW'necdy,any of the charnemmdm of a Ivmde property that qualify the property for inclusion mdmNati nal Register in a manner that wodd diminish the ink:rimy of he propes'w's lac n,design,sating,materials,worhmoahip, feeling,or "I he bleu ern VewFar as determinedrigMlh ender Nadooal Register CriterionA for agnodbu which n is the agricultural retain integrity and are considemd diameter-defining nwesaof the property.According toe36 CFR KO S(a)(2)(m),an adverse effect happens when a"change of the character of the property's me or of physical acemrea within the property's setting thatconmbfre to its historic aignifiunce"takes place.Adverse effeau also defined in 36 CFR adds(t)(2)(v)av the"Introduction of visual,anucsph enc.,tit audible dements that diminish the integrity of the pmpmy's sigahoim Watouc Reamers"In our opinion,the important evaluation of d&cL is ifanyL[Lake features are being diminished as n result of the project 1'he pmjeaID w Late chatactemdefining ag"eral land and also eorn elevated roadway within the hiero k, nlmrcua vc boundap for dm property-The effects evaluation states that the chaackdethmg features would not bc'Substandally dumnfsbtedj,"but the mum of 2 1.25 North Fnal Ennionmmml I mpod Statement October ?.colt CEIS 442346 B-196 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response advrmuefr[36 CFR SOIS(a)(l)]states that f the chantrer-defining rmres arc diminished then the Eliding of adverse effect-is apparpriare.The effect does not have to substantially diminish,but only diminish the qualities that insist tic piopvry aiglme In our opinion and based on the dehniaon of ndvenceffm 1n 36 CFR Ao0.5(a)(?)(j and 36 CFR 800.50(2)hL dm[hangs of die character and physical use of the character-defining feature of the agricultural fields to transponauon use within the hismdosuiting of due pmpetty s histosse boindoq as well as the introduction of visual elements that diminish the qualllica that make the property eligible is an adverse effect under Suction 106. Comment#5: Sl at 12os/aehmer Farm Response to Comment#5: After review of the assessment of adverse effect,w-eare nor ahle to tenor with me FHWA and CDOT have considered the input you recommended ending of no adverse fir t[3a CFR 80a5(b)I under sermon 106.The provided,and have revised the effects determination criteria of adverse effect 6 CFR 800.5O(1)1 stares der(an Aadverae et amid found whence for this site to adverse effect.This information has undertaking may alter,directly or tndincdy,any of he chamcadstics of a historic',toiletry that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would been updated in Section J.10 of the ROD. diminish the integrity of the property's location,design,setting,materials,workmanship, feeling,or The SchmetF determinedas significant under Naonal Rggatf Cveenoo n for agoeulnue which means th gdculanal fields retain integrity and ale considered character-dehmng features of the pehangy. According to 36fCFR th use c,taofphy),an ad wse effect happens when setting -change of thechanc^,of the property's r of physical features der de property's setting that contribute to its historic significance"d takes place.Adverse efrris also defined in 36 CFR 80o.5(a)(2)O as the 9ntrndncuog of visual,atmospheric,or anAble daunts[hat port th[he mtegricy of the propetty'sac fir-danthi:features abe In ouropimd,the impntfat evaluation of effoa;a if any chatacter-ddefining es are being diminished as a result of project The project will mks amuck-sr-di-fining a;micultural land and also comanct elevated roadway within the hlsto m boumdaa for the propem..The effects evaluation smut rhe characteindefining feamaes would not bd§ubsnndally dhninishledj;'but the eriaaa of adverse.effect(36 pd CFR e00.5(a)(01antes Aar if the dhmarme aesangfeat.nea are diminished then v,h ending of advcac effect it appropMate.The effect does nothm subseatnuvdim tech,bur only diminish the qualities tat make tie utopertydigble. In our opinion and based on the definition of adverse effect in CPR b00.5(q(2)(F)and 36CPR of th )(2)(v),the change of the chaasuer and physical use ofthcdag fth piing feature of the agecultmalfields to vapor within die his ring of the property's historic boundary s well as the m noduc visual stem t that diminish the qualities Mat make thepmpety eligible is an amerce effect under Section TOP. Response to Comment#6: $1 R 4A8/ItweIond Deno! Comments noted. Comment#6: We concur with(tie recommended finding of no(Souse yeas[36 CFR h0o5(b)]for package A and the preferred alternative.The property was determined significant under National Register Criterion A fit transportafiav and under National Register(Interim'C for 3 Final a o CRS MIk6Octrther 1 n p B-197 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response architect... In...oputiuq no character-definingfeatures cull bedimhushed as a result of the prude....Ho.wevet,yvcbelieve that the preferred alternative does the most to nruvm¢e doe effects of the prober tin the himnc resource. Response to Comment#7: Comment#7: lean'den°ca archaeol",dml rer`urcer are dircorred during con`Irucdon,work must be Comment noted.Please refer to Table 11 of the ttmpted until the resources m have been evaluated In retina of the Regletcr corcored.,tetl 36 CRF 6a a,m cotumtadon with ads office. Record of Decision. Comment#8: \xtttgnest being involved in the consdtauon procees rvirh the loco]government,which as Response to Comment#8: stipulated in 36 CPR 00O3 6 required m be mvacd dam undertaking,and with other consulting patdes.Additional infotmadon provided by the local government..cu..uldng Comment noted. 1m.der noght awe our office to re.9aloam our eligibility and potential effect findings Ifwemay be of further assistance.please contacr Amy Paaante.our Section 106 Compliance Manager,x[(303)860-46-i8. �. C�C.Nichols en�in r Sraa Historic Pre. n Office 4 North Fold Enoroanenbl Impart Staten= OcbderdddH CHS Wy6 B-198 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response AG-05 Responses to SHPO State Historic, Preservation Officer,CO HISTORY(.) Oaoba 14,2011 Cool Pao N 1-12 PIS Project Manger State of Colorado DeporuImu of Tniapom0on Rssuon Pout 620 2""Street Gaelug CO 80631 Re:North I L Pint Lmuonmental Impact Statement(COS(r3230f1) Dear Me.Part: Comment#1: To follow up on our October 1,2011 loco,we would use.oconfirm u,rt,.eafoot sal: Response to Comment#1: Antecommo a fndinbeofeffieundos6LIIIt 800 for the populace ramnLM in the 1 maI Ii IS thnrux,enot'pndecally mentioned in the Danner 3,2mnemr. Comment noted. Ifnndennfied areMenlogirnl resources no d;.faa..enen daring watt nn,work moat be Comment#2: a ah cRptw amyl the have banmelnated m tee tlo�of bre Na Register oh Response to Comment#2: erm, 36 Clan ao 1,m consultation-fill[Lass office. Comment noted. VNengnsl bung n..nLd I.Os,u'mWmtlm,Broom off me local fi^'onmor,winches Comment#3: stipulated in 36 CPR 8003 ie required to be notified of the undertaking,and wim other Response to Comment#3: mnmlting pone, 1ddhlnnal mini-Nano p.wldm by the local goommenrot consulting Comment noted. onto ought cadre nor office m a evalwrc cam eligihilis and pommel effect bndmgr Ifwe maybe of further motaneq please contact Amy ransom our lesson 1116 CnmplMnm Woo,a(36{)866-06'(B. Sarasota, 741P Ci ketPelt .6? riff) Edwerd C.Nichols, Stag Hurons Procreation Officer Hlii DRY Cof aroma CENTER Mae BROADWAY OEPRER CO BORO B-199 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response AG-06 Responses to DRCOG Comments DRCOG,CO From: Parr,Carol To: Fred Sandal; cc: Steve Cook;Thor Gjelsteen;ginz mcafee©jacobs. Subject: RER:DRCOG Comments-North 1-25 Final EIS Date: Thursday,September 22,2011 3:02:35 FM Attachments: imaoe001.qif imageouz.jpg image003.jpg image004.jpg Thank you for your comments Carol From:Fred Sandal Imailto:FSandalOdrcog.orgj Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2011 3:49 PM To:Parr,Carol Cc:Steve Cook Subject:DRCOG Comments-North 1-25 Final EIS Importance:High DRCOG has reviewed the North I-25 Final EIS,particularly with regard to Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative of the EIS relative to the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP,as adopted by DRCOG in February 2011 and amended on August 17,2011. Comment#1 In the Executive Summary(page ES-12),Chapter 1(page 1-16),Chapter 4 Response to Comment#1: (page 4-2)and elsewhere in the document,it should be noted that the Section J.1 of the ROD provides clarifications based DRCOG 2035 RTP was adopted in February 2011 and then amended in on the DRCOG 2035 RTP Amendment approved by August 2011,consistent with the Preferred Alternative and as required for the DRCOG board on August 17,2011,after the the ROD. DRCOG also suggests for the ROD,updates to text reflecting the completion of the North I-25 Final EIS. 2035 MVRTP and 2011 amendments,as follows: Chapter 2,page 4,lines 3 through 9 Comment#2 The description in the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP was amended Response to Comment#2: in August 2011,from adding two general purpose lanes on 1-25 from US 36 Section J.1 of the ROD provides clarifications based to Thornton Parkway to adding two tolled express lanes from US 36 to 120r1' on the DRCOG 2035 RTP Amendment approved by Avenue. Revised costs and funding including interim staging elements were the DRCOG board on August 17,2011,after the included in the project description. Also amended was the RTP description completion of the North I-25 Final EIS. for the segment of I-25 from SH-66 to WCR 38,from adding two general B-200 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Federal,State,Tribal or Regional Agency Comment Response purpose lanes to adding two tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction at WCR 34. Comment#3 To clarify,the additional unconstrained"Vision"of the 2035 MVRTP Response to Comment#3: identifies HOT/HOV lanes that would continue north from 120th Avenue to Section J.1 of the ROD provides clarifications based SH-66. The DRCOG Vision also includes construction of a new I-25 on the DRCOG 2035 RTP Amendment approved by interchange at Sheridan Parkway(north of SH-7). These elements,beyond the DRCOG board on August 17,2011,after the Phase 1,currently lack funding commitments. completion of the North -25 Final EIS. Comment#4 Chapter 8,page 1,lines 21 through 23 Response to Comment#4: The text of the FEIS notes that the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP Section J.1 of the ROD provides clarifications based identifies$268 million in funding for the improvements along I-25 and$58 on the DRCOG 2035 RTP Amendment approved by million for the I-25/SH 7 interchange,which is accurate relative to the the DRCOG board on August 17,2011,after the general purpose lane widening indicated in the February 2011 adopted completion of the North I-25 Final EIS. 2035 RTP. It should be noted that as amended August 2011,the DRCOG 2035 RTP identifies$286 million in costs and funding identified by CDOT for adding HOT lanes and related improvements along I-25 in addition to$58 million in locally derived funding for the I-25/SH-7 interchange. Comment#5 The Chapter 7 financial analysis should reflect funding commitments to the Response to Comment#5: Phase 1 elements of the Preferred Alternative. Section J.1 of the ROD provides clarifications based on the DRCOG 2035 RTP Amendment approved by Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIS. the DRCOG board on August 17,2011,after the completion of the North I-25 Final EIS. Fred Sandal I Long Range Transportation Planning Coordinator I TPO Direct 303.480.6731 I Fax 303.480.6790 B-201 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response LO-01 ` Responses to Town of Firestone Comments Firestone,CO FIRESTONE September 12,2011 A COMMUNITY IN MOTION North F25 Project Team Attn:Torn Mina.PE Felsbtug Halt&Ullevig 5300 South Syracuse Way,Suite 600 Centennial.CO 50111 North 1-25 Final Ely Mr.Anna. Comment#1 The Town of Firestone has reviewed the North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Response to Comment#1: supports the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative.The Final EIS.s e !S2 Comment noted. ping.Presents a thorough and complete evaluation of alternative solutions to the ',Pon From Ranges pending transportation needs in compliance with NEPA requirements.Some of the key elements of the Preferred Alternative that garnered our support are. • The plan addresses the major issue of 1-25 congestion with a blend of improvements to the interstate to increase capacity and travel efficiency.The plan van also provide a safer travel eomdon The plan will replace critical infrastructure that is rapidly detehera_hng or u technologically inferior,which will also provide a safer travel cor .tor. • The plan incorporates innovative managed lanes for vehicular!CDC.an:but e,i;Lt.^ NCI as a future commuter rail system,wnich combines to give commuters a HI menu of Iranapodetion options currently not avallahle throughout most of the Northern Proof Hauge. • The plan accommodates the least impact to existing wetlands and wildlife babiRt of the alternatives that address the traffic problem on 1,25. • The Phase 1 improvements address the most immediate and critical issues in the I-25 corridor,while laying the groundwork for future phases that will fully develop the plan's well- rounded transportation solution. I-25 is the main street of the Northern Front Range and the Preferred Alternative preserves this critical component of the regions continued success_Business leaders frequently nst effiment end effective transportation as being a key element in determining where to locate,relocate,e-expand. The addition of alternative transportation modes can also enhance the quality of life of residents of the region which helps In retaining and recruiting the best and brightest workforce. We look forward to the Record of Decision and CDOT's expedient completion of the Phase 1 rmpmvements. Sincerely ��Chad Auer Mayor li I Coo rive..P.O.It c.100.RTatoa[.C0 F0520 pod x33 32_91:ran 131)31 832.-1,63 B-202 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response LO-02 - Responses to City of Greeley Comments Greeley,CO `od Response to Comment#1: Greeley Comments noted. Great.From the Ground Op Response to Comment#2: While the study was initiated in 2003,the Final EIS September 26,2012 used updated 2035 land use projections that were North i-25 Pmied Team available at the time of analysis in 2008. c/o Tom Anaia Felsburg molt&Wog This Purpose and Need for this project includes 6300 S.Syracuse Way,Suite 600 addressing the aging infrastructure,safety,mobility, centennial,0080111 and accessibility along I-25.We agree that the RE: North r-35 Environmepmu mpact Study needs that you identified are legitimate but they are not identified or evaluated in this project based on Dear Mr.Anna; this project's identified Purpose and Need. The Public Works Committee of the Greeley City Council has had an opportunity to review the North 1-25 fO to this project,improvements to US 85 were Comment#1 EIS. We must say that the sheer volume of the study makes it extremely difficult to have a thoughtful and p / p efficient review of the document. That being said,the Greeley Public Works Committees supports your evaluated to determine if it could meet the safety, efforts and congratulates you mid your team on nearing completion of such an important and worthwhile mobility,accessibility,aging infrastructure and modal endeavor. The I-25 Condor is the key artery in Northern Colorado for our economic well being and alternative needs included in the project's Purpose provides necessary connectivity between regions. and Need.It was determined that US 85 The primary issue that the committee discussed was the data used in the study. The study itself took nearly improvements could not address these elements of Comment#2 ten years to complete and growth projections for the region 10 years ago are quite different from what they the Purpose and Need except for the alternative w.In particular,the ml end gas finds in Weld County over the past several years have resulted in high growth projections for the County. We are of the opinion that the oss5 Corridor will experience high mode choice. US 85 Commuter bus was included as growth in traffic that it wool be able to huntna The commuter btu alternative will not be sufficient in order a mode choice option for the Preferred Alternative.A of capacity to handle the increase in travel demand. It is our hope that over the years,the study will be separate study with a purpose and need of flexible enough to accommodate changes in program development and that other resources can be diverted to the vs 85 Condor if the projections are realized. addressing the congestion and capacity along US 85 wo ld Comment#3 The committee also discussed the alternative mode pmjeotions and found it perplexing that the mode share the needtyoahave ideariate fied.cour of action to address fix transit was so low considering the amount of funding that would be necessary for such a transit system. the needs you have identified. We believe that it would be worth remodeling the alternatives iftime and money permit and incorporate the The commuter bus planned by the Final EIS has a models of the NFRMPO as well as those of the larger cities in Northern Colorado. We are of the opinion that the results could show increases in transit ridership,which then in turn may(or may not)reduce that tremendous amount of potential for expansion;upon amount of capital construction necessary on the I-25Conidor. warranted demand,it would be easy to add Comment#4 While US85 was pan of the study it appearsto have minimal improvements recommended to that corridor. additional buses and service along the corridor. The committeerecom'neds more improvements to thews 85 corridor to ensurers continued movement of Please note that in the near tens,CDOT intends to people through the condor since a tremendous amount of growth potential lies along this corridor,and as it serves as a secondary route tot-25. design and construct two park-and-rides in support Comment#5 Funding is always an issue with political bodies. We found that the funding alternatives need to h of demandth growsure commuter S , service.will l As futurewith travel addressed in more demo btu are also realize that those can be finalized as projects surface. on US 85,CDOT work the City Cowell.f000 10th street,crest co 80631. coo 3so- local communities to identify needed improvements q, ( 7 9770 Fax(970)350-9583 We promise to preserve and improve the quality of life for Greeley through timely,vwrtwue and ant-effective serviceon US 85 under a separate study with its own purpose and need. B-203 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Response to Comment#3: The Final EIS acknowledges that the transit ridership forecasts may be low,based on updated data from DRCOG and RTD.Based on this new information, the ridership may be 15 percent to 40 percent higher Thank you again for to opportunity to comment on the Nor m1-25 Ers than the Final EIS projections.See Final EIS Section 4.2.6.1. Sincerely, ----'-e Note:the travel forecasting model used for the North k76assedey I-25 EIS incorporated both the NFRMPO model and Lhair,Greeley Pu k Works Committee the DRCOG model to provide a combined model that City of Greeley covered the study area,and did include all of the cities and towns of northern Colorado. Robust transit demand would not lessen the need to improve I-25.Aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure and increased freight traffic in addition to the growing population's travel demand contribute to the need for improvements on I-25. Re-evaluations will be conducted on all elements identified for implementation for any improvements not included in the Phase 1 ROD when such funding becomes available;updated travel demand forecasting may be performed at that time. Subsequent RODs for these improvements would be required. Response to Comment#4: The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to meet the long term travel needs along the I-25 corridor.To meet these long-tens travel needs,the project must improve safety,mobility and accessibility,and provide modal alternatives and interrelationships. US 85 was part of the study area for development of alternatives considered during the screening process.However,alternatives developed during the screening process that included capacity improvements along US 85 did not adequately address congestion and safety along I-25. Consequently such alternatives were screened from further consideration in the process.A separate study with a purpose and need focused on B-204 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response addressing the congestion and capacity issues along US 85 would be the appropriate course of action to evaluate the necessary capacity improvements along the US 85 corridor. Response to Comment#5: We understand that Greeley is interested in having a larger discussion on financing strategies to implement transportation improvements.Even though financing strategies were not evaluated as part of this study,this does not limit pursuing alternative financing strategies.CDOT or another entity such as HPTE or local agencies can propose financing strategies that could be considered. B-205 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response LO-03 Responses to City of Fort Collins Comments Fort Collins,CO Planning,Development 8 Transportatioi Fort Collins "` acr. 05,1 970 2245058 September 23,2011 Card Par Project Munger_North 1-2S Environmental Impact Statement Colorado Department ofTransporation Region 4 P120 2'a Sheet Omelet',Colorado 80631 RE:CITY OF FORT COLLINS CEMENTS ON NORTII I-2i FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST Ail EN r I)OCIIMFN'I' Dem Ms.Par, On behalf of the City of Port Collins.enclosed is the Clty Council Resolution and minimal'zed City commmil3 on the North 1-25 Final thw9romnontal Impact Statement(FEIS)document Thom con unents include those firm City stall as well as from City Council. Overall,we believe that the EFTS is thorough and adequately addresses the purpose and need idcmifieddhrring the HIS process In addition,the highway and transit lmprovcmcnts identified in the FEIS I'cfor led Alternative arc consistent with the City's adopted"Plan Fort Collins",the most recant update to our coupon-isrvc plan'Daly TIM''' OUT OUT nsporalien Mafia Plan' (2011). Om comments on the PETS provide our input as to items that need to he firther addressed by the Colorado Department of mnsportation(CD(Yll as part of process to sock die Rcewt of Devisioa(ROD)Mrs the Federal Highway AhNnunlradon(FIIIVA)as well as addressed dung the implementation phases of the highway and transit improvements shown in the FEIS Preferred _Alternative. In addition to commenhg on the EELS,Cut staff 1s also commenting to the Army(bans of En aieersregadng d®404 penuit application associated with the wetlandunpacls idendfledth CLOTS FEES document. We appreciate the oppoitimity to shore this important feedback from oru City with CI)II as part of the faunal FEIS conunent poried and as part of tad 104 puuat application process. B-206 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Fort Collins The City uppr:males CDOT's effort to develop the Noll 1-25 CIS hi a collJLuralivernamer wdllr the mans local Venues along du condor. Our expenence with lire Nordr1-25 CIS Tecluucal Advisory ConunitCh and Regional Coordination Committee(RUC)was say helpful and provided nn on-going oppottmityto work-witli CDOT and out re i-nol neiehbrna to develop the EIS Ilwtiehoul this many yew process. We look forward to continuing all pwtimslvp with CDO'I staff as rhaimirrativc nmltlmedal bar poraatirmunprovements shwa m the PRIS Preferred Allerrntive nave forward for Implementation. Plans°lx mo know ifyou have any questions rogarding our doctoral comments. Thank you. Sia'cemly, L.KanilmaBlacker Art I) Transportation Planning&Spacial Projects Director r. Mayor&City Council Darin Aveberty,City Manager Dunne Jones.Deputy CIE Manager Karen Cumin.Plmuwg.Development&Trd sporlalion Dueckr Joe Frank Advance Planning Director .h-0a Strke,No Wnd Resounds Direclor Jolanry Olson,CDOT Region 4 Direc 0 r Myron Hem,CDUT Region 1 Illaruwg&Emuroru metal Manager B-207 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response RESOLUTION 2011-090 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DOCUMENTING AND PRESENTING THE CITY COUNCIL'S COMMENTS ON MIL NORTH I-25 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHERHAS,the Colorado Department of Transportation("CDOT")has,for the past decade, heen developing the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement("EIS"),the purpose of which is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area;and WHEREAS,the study area for the EIS focuses on highway and transit plans for the 1-25 corridor,the U.S.287 corridor and the lift 85 conidou and WHEREAS,on August 19,2011,CDOT published the final EIS("PEIS")for the study corridor and has been seeking agency and public comments for the period ending October 3,2011; and WHEREAS.following extensive public outreach and upon the favorable recommendation of the'ITmsportation Board,City staff has prepared and presented to the City Council a draft of the proposed City comments on the EIS;and WHEREAS, the City Council has detcnnined that the proposed comments accurately represent the City's staff,Council and other potential community concerns;and WHEREAS,the City Council herchy desires to document and present these comments to CDOI'as the City's official comments. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RI'SOLVED BY THECOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section]. That the comments contained in attached hereto mid incorporated Response to Comment#1: Comment#1 Comment noted.Responses are provided in the rte b2 this al Iw tocc,should be presented CDOT as the City's documented comments un the North Lis final EIS. table below. Section 2. That,inparticular,dm City Council stmngly encourages CDOT to address the following concerns of the City in finalizing the EIS and in constructing the improvements that arc The subject of the EIS: Response to Comment#2: Comment#2 • The phasing plan for the various transportation improvements m'be constructed by We understand your concern about future phasing. CDOT currently includes three phases of improvements w be constructed over a50 This ROD includes elements within Phase 1 only.As to 60 year timeframe. The City Council recommends that the plan be revised so part of the transportation planning process,any post- show only two phases:a"fiscally constrained phase"based on anticipated funding Phase 1 elements of the Preferred Alternative can levels through 2035,and a second phase for completing all remaining unfunded be implemented at any time upon identification of elements of the preferred alternative as expeditiously as possible. funding and formal inclusion in the long-range fiscally-constrained plan. B-208 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Comment#3 • The transportation and air quality analysis in the FELS results in travel'demand Response to Comment#3: projections that do not reflect changing fuel costs,use of alternative fuel vehicles, The Final EIS used the accepted modeling practices changing lifestyle choices, long-term sustainabiilty values o other potentially approved by FHWA and FTA per 23 CFR 450. r significant factors that could influence the demand for interstate and transit travel in The 2035 travel demand forecast is based on the future. The City Council recommends that CD0T use a"triple bottom line" industry and US DOT standards.How to incorporate method of analysis that includes traditional transportation analysis urcihods-along near term and short term trends is debatable but it is with consideration ofenvirorunental.economic,and human factors. ----- impractical to understand how they influence the long-term forecasts.We realize that a"triple bottom • Every effort should be made by CD0T to implement non-barrier methods of noise Comment#4 mitigation along 1-25. The City Council does not support construction of a noise line"analysis,which includes evaluation of barrier in this area,nor does it support potential fencing/barriers/sound walls within community,environment and the economy,could other areas of Fort Collins,either along the highway and/or commuter rail corridor. affect the travel demand results.However,a triple The Cityy Council requests that CDOT delete these elements and/or include other bottom line analysis that would address potential options to maintain viewsheds and wildlife movement corridors. future trends would also rely on speculative assumptions.The Final EIS acknowledged the Comment#5 - • Wetlands that are;mnacted by CD0T improvements in the Fort Collins regional area uncertainty of the modeling process: should be mitigated within that same area.Local mitigation requirements per City of The effect of the price of fuel is discussed in Fort Collins Land Use Code should be considered for locally impacted wetlands,The Section 4.2.6.4 City Council supports the mitigation of both federally jurisdictional rind non- The impact of changes in land use and travel jurisdictional wetlands throughout the project area. behavior parameters is discussed in Section 4.2.6.1 he mitigation he FEIS document for each creek,river,OT Comment#6 • oRegardinghranage is vagt,t.._.....s_:nnm!._..,.d____ r Induced land use growth as a result of other drainage is vague,not site specific,and difficult to evaluate for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains.The City Council requests that revised, transportation improvements is discussed in each a...:...,..�be developed a..,�,l.r,..omn.ent Section 4.2.7.2 site specific mitigation plans for r..inag_ of eloped__.,__.._-_-_-__n_, Response to Comment#4: either as part of the EIS process or as part of the design process during A comprehensive noise assessment for highway implementation. In addition, the City Council requests that CD0T follow all and commuter rail improvements was undertaken, including evaluation of noise abatement actions. not just FEMA regulations as indicated in the FEI5. Specific federal and state protocols were followed in the execution of the analyses,including the Comment#7 heFloodplainReport,CaceLaPoudre River section,should be corrected to reflect that the City of Fort Collins strongly supports removing the split flow on the west development and evaluation of noise abatement side oft-25 if regulatory issues can be resolved through mitigation. The split flow actions.The comment recognizes several important ..____y„__. Eliminating this split flow would be noise barrier considerations,but these items must aLL pta if-safety uu�a si ce„arm iny�Road,.a major teril nto o .s. an importantlife-safety issue since Harmony Road,.amajoraneriel into Fort Collins, also be balanced with other concerns,such as is overtopped in less than a I00-year flood. available right-of-way or proper site drainage,to arrive ultimately at the best solution.Please note that no noise barriers along I-25 within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area have been proposed in the Final EIS.The preferred abatement action for the commuter rail within the City is quiet zones,which would not involve any walls/barriers. B-209 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th Because CDOT cannot guarantee the day of September.v.D.2011 implementation of quiet zones(which require local agency sponsorship and PUC approval)when commuter rail is constructed,a fall-back rail noise (t/e,r-An abatement action was presented in the Final EIS that MVv included noise barriers;however,this is not the of ORr� preferred abatement action.Therefore,the preferred ArrEst: yam;- ."€t" and , and recommended noise abatement actions for the ICY c,.. , _ v q project within the City of Fort Collins do not involve �, s N `'L'A�, a" 0 any noise walls. Chief Deputy City Clerk h .;•' Response to Comment#5: -s>n : Approximately 0.97 acre of wetlands will be impacted in the Fort Collins municipal jurisdiction as a result of the complete build out of the North I-25 improvement project.The overall extent of wetland impacts includes 21 individual wetlands associated with the I-25 roadway improvements and the establishment of the commuter rail.Of the 0.97 acre, approximately 0.25 acre will be temporarily impacted. The temporarily impacted wetlands will be mitigated onsite while permanent impacts are expected,at this time,to be mitigated through the development and enhancement of wetlands at St.Vrain State Park. The US Army Corps of Engineers(USCOE), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) are all supportive of the mitigation plan that concentrates mitigation at St Vrain State Park.This site possesses many positive attributes for not only wetland mitigation,but for a possibility of interpretive trails adjacent to the mitigation and will create wildlife corridors. St.Vrain State Park was selected based on the following: It is a large area allowing the mitigation of wetland impacts for the entire project(i.e.,all three phases)at one location.Smaller B-210 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response mitigation areas typically have low success rates. It allows for wetland mitigation for the entire project(all three phases)to be completed up front and not delayed as subsequent phases or specific projects are implemented. It has a better chance of succeeding because all mitigation is concentrated at one site and because the State Park employees stationed onsite can easily monitor the success of the wetlands daily. Groundwater levels will be monitored conveniently and frequently by park personnel. The mitigation will enhance wildlife habitat connectivity,including habitat for threatened and endangered species. Provides an opportunity to develop and enhance interpretive trail for visitor education. Wetland mitigation plans allow the creation of a buffer zone between SH 119 and St.Vrain State Park. Regarding your concern about adhering to local mitigation requirement per the city code,our reading of the Fort Collins Land Use Code,Article 3,General Development Standards, Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards is that off site mitigation is allowed,as indicated in point(4)below: "(C)General Standard.To the maximum extent feasible,the development plan shall be designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and animals that inhabit them and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community by:(1) directing development away from sensitive resources,(2)minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones,(3)enhancing existing conditions,or(4)restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community(either on-site or off-site)when a development proposal will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features." B-211 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Regardless,as the project develops,CDOT will work closely with the City of Fort Collins to implement onsite riparian and temporary wetland mitigation to the greatest extent possible where opportunities are feasible and reasonable. Response to Comment 6 The level of conceptual design appropriate for the EIS did not allow detailed design for the many minor and major crossings within the project's six watersheds.Mapping was limited to the area within the corridor.When future preliminary and final designs are prepared,each drainage crossing will be evaluated in detail.These evaluations will be site specific to determine the required mitigation.CDOT policy is to follow federal,state,and municipal policies for floodplain management. Response to Comment 7 It is acknowledged that Fort Collins supports eliminating the split flow at the I-25/Cashe la Poudre crossing to eliminate a roadway overtopping safety concern at Harmony Road.CDOT will work with the affected local agencies through final design to determine if regulatory issues can be resolved to eliminate the split flow. B-212 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments/Cutmcmnl Respunse Lnddttg Sheet A—Comment Addfnssed C Continued Concern N=Nan Comment City Council Comments(December 2008) ('DOT Response/Find EIS SndfAnalesis(2011) Status Travel Deny, nuebrnmed Op exelibumto I imgment u Ih 1 rLL inn Twee ar unterbrIba tio array. 1s la Thula. lT Gagnon up,al. l ld M1 mnee¢vs+A- erlxeil wd which If I. ae. ..them Colorado The T4 1 tlp tide. Ma p / - P n proposed, h / / R tl 1 4 cue/ shouldaddress;brooder I p l II 1 gpN f t' ¢( a a /s d td d) // dd M p em d 1gh ( hP F hcbHSPn I Inn elp kS '4-Emtheate no rehregerng Per fromLCWmon n. se pre chart t o .2rtga V!!rialtattm Laney.. brat abarae. eglu 'fittmatihe will in'de iiie i rgenaey. a De ee-.Real) oldie it g iryw vaJayfjl mA.tad WPM?)/ P T Perth,ut Red i Downtown D 1U Id 1 different deermationsf Lon Collins tavelers. Conncanms ethae Lransil op km, n particular IN:VoM a id Noihncst rouLe, I'll pJ.,ullemulrabs eatarboterl to Rattan.FUT uckt totibm Puciag tlry fin end'ol the FwTvtc aoth proposed toinaeTxks ore vital.nnw doze aw4 linemen,nteaan'tl hem° .niarw tail b of the Toni Warm I-2.ot Cog.ai Foetetllhe Paol-a24 ar/n auandctharv[2a/rt. !'.as.acks h tad line Consm ant labeiedt 222,420stab. This d be aatm Id —d ThePict' l e zit ad al I. P -Cllr /l g L l l Package l IdaC reel dpa5Flae 2 FaCTo at P II y£ilaTi y s i/h F 11 II 1' Irr A RTPhu ad P l aai. F RR P. 1 R / 7-,R,„R a f '1. h- _ III nut. s lsde a nda2aoa rrcdbra s. he 2142. F T e routes hems ( let lP T eaaJuc 6 dJ -F ee`I,and I daeaapnvr bay to elaewnban l)enaernalba,tng mrvtenvery to an the Far.ntlaeanida.. Doca rh. nit.el.Alulha lame.fulminating lgllunl lrtuv'demand p ynr i/he hie-l rabungeh the MamaQV Jgaea/ naad bemt-1-'meting the Stall cornrow,l be concerned regarding Lhc cm haver.nod possble ohm natives inwen prree alt 1 a/elhaenFoaat/ohl 2.21.22,he/ici methe Fvt / .arkathon.rvW tmvel demand t a ea idol gy need in the mamba''D taaes fa?tut expeoencedtoeay If the Voce of gas orwvn hatacte maw s lhl,panic-Welly Thant is votaumliall- eiama /)young,soar of.:nat.(.112.24 a awlba a Ya! r rablatana about rlu aaai i/to undiaehmiating future ei.eoierskp a f.The EIS lava➢e)tobramlertgodrhae h l ➢afrs ayes IS an unborn.aJllee.l 7.2odacu in In.lw .Wemen:o :m CR%)T encore tat.14222 rota rem Pre-ova, l.r.al to.22.4 e r.2 arlenowledgesOptrfthese ehi m.es rennsc/and HIE)hlalmumrr met noise hreieerms re be couldh „rthe%orgy and couldb pta4a higher mpoar�higher wawulabedmmpomr higher than pryizaeehceng an DenedataLeto web rope mg and l)mes.¢a peat l er eiieisannenure such hIas the Pen states thhave Trope .led Des ant thatmuse 5 T C WPcvJ 1 lust Hems there ould be up 1 adcdappdaeNam Ibmc potential dibaeel. l naunhep preparing are rubel:meal lyhanve red the unpocbe ire these uglier ridership pmt ei.aia e are mere Bethe in Iran ut stem nipuvnlwdpama well tre M1Bhw,ry Tbnnms p.TP.nirci To help address these concerns nmRwtrips i Mu hied demaw ma�nrs for aul.�m�ei/nile tripsas well as teen be updated m me cowmen reflect narven and methodologies pr or the e inl plenleno n hon fan y of the lughway order menet improvement.,mnlua.0 Preferred Alternati ve I)olhamisportation mWl pratehe impacts transportation alternath es en A Mu ferecesir um loaMaane da alarl_F(2{yp mdl/Cis.(bay�n Y en o/ eets Y m R w act S obv d m k elmyn go Fpl.m'nd toop peeled dery clap f.rrpnwth stern Leered rs. o,runtruntthe Pl' vl.illetaile ➢altem'f.rd danccabed Srr¢0ehglna a/ t mid recommends that future Peel demand tame cater what will lappz with%lir Haneci1 1 I 1 / kR /l1' 1R h l _ p 'll a lit / k y_. t '_I I L tl fl al 4 Hihe COMM.,tub en Patiotya9 t.Ptbletaretbalicoreuir.xureletheientalj de 'ntai tie r hind d fL 11 JSLOOP.In the.6 rva&xll3 h/h a.n'a Jtl- aaml rn,T nll veer.by orvmaG omam: fiewoludmpe f changing wopda For exam pie For Collins recently updated out comprehensive plan"City Flan and our Page I of 22 B-213 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final ICnainmmental Impact Statement Cite of Fort CwAins Comment/Comment Response Trucking Sheet A—Comment Addressed C-coniinneataicciia N—New(onnnent City Council Comments(December 2018) e001 Response/Final EIS Staff lnalysis(2nll) Statue 'favuP'ilauonhiasler Flan or pmt'of We 20141 I-Plan non I II Inv'pi nrevr There plana cmphrorire M&ha damn Y.T.mmo comas: development'in the core areas of unite.rndrrnam in fih/cadaadomnrnr Naraw WMnwoeMealmony Road such oido the l :deworor oCOrrrhr otd rrhono TILOndmnient 1lagamkeiM'mw AwgmalvLand recently epaokaendui rl ihaemmnd omhl and dolt' rceon mends doe Lion pimmnnmion omit n (ovaYenro we entst Nntelons in transit nth pineryYlm,poTrondata touring in updated end weand tr porlwionda4n eourw InHaws J6:rid dr thc F\4 rdvsM1 p num hog ore Ally dlfvmt Why' £shear fndexm M mute llenona A A. eastne .e Ishii gomi t t naaom r. lo and et 1 c I Paeast-nest/Him/IT/en high, A i V73 bus/ / l l woe l m I / 4 IIJ;,I 6 /_ mu ddravl Bar InacA ne d r g t'n Pips inthe f t 'red2Parno feeder rnu[e�o designed svn(or /a Pantane/1i and al not had neaphs dednnJrlaptaradganA The cal onalyva n Chapter r is vent skimpy l ucM1avapzrtcola 19sall 6('oN if et'!jrr'l n°nu.ar e sop am a d Pawl rl ea ants/ i repack gam aCommente in,:t ISI deal a nl}sa 2.t'aP,r;bld, .;nres d5rprrcelly2a1 ,FV maned in1ore see teCost :oral/ c.a,h mo, rnem conniean dongdei oNn. lid ffiporan Inv lie 1t' l arxtta r a; a 1 eL eilr;ec 4. Report, ra 23r iso policyc g t eri no of -LL> Y l' rnN+Y Hal EIS and rw (6/./a _r.r.or G�r)I NeYrn3 d mPrvr region ithe paa2lhnCOlal&Wand irr,: continue tonepan oaidmmnmategwr Ind regarding potential nedelf din&a�ntthe Piet pminemNpsneeded Nie HS at ell Prehhed e vroluaaie Toren inme Fflsaraeds there am an..reggrod al partnership nnefanThza �I csnr, good o M,gn-matte faro oar-rat Toth vv the SIriem ftl-?S limpid dorm legc coma,-improvement, sand poked Gleetmnsi Inward and othenuing Pmlwei /t'1 nal odinlar'Irldnid putoNW uncork co11rCIJtif ft ere oregwwlVoocal 10 furWr corn',tenonawnmeIrcromnenylannl Issufficient attention paiaa freightueralotletla The fo rseemstot totally on TFreigh ma service Hill mobrtolad h corr/du The apemen( iaaBvS13 alspecifytie connector, mra.rp Pmnle nrlt/ia.r1711.117e undopepulmgplunreqw,meniswa(L boTh puswny,senie uthfilviaseroe,31733nIume of mare Traffic annum t,m➢arch and/ clam r11-25 and I-25 enhmrne.e/fee 011117,,(renhl/rveF ia/ic and annopasedt na Jaen.alongf-.5 .(l -man n,Im13 anan.yeananducted mlIc DISwaPfr2 noennIn trait,on 1 A 4 2 el ontl l d lg1 1 h. 3' / h end of rh rmdr.rand conanfulean 14% / (%a / -d 'an lung,ullerna ll anma Gatlin auldbe 63 minutes Let en SHl and?at Street/at a toil tnn'el UM&q1133. ¢s. Three Haar nu,.r 1 d/ eL.awn, Pralearedallernn l l r i dvm 0,20,1 addeai balm a gene,al puinh`+ l andu tuna d acme../. JrufSCbb f ur paamb nWae iap n edgrn»arire I Rhru$/cNivyarei 9Tha Prvfamd.rllir'nobcaSUI une'adloprvrtd Ira naaluacalluna onprvannun/frfmt4hl l8 jien rrelen ai1U?m vror -n9lloiW'_0h5O-. Is M1 ethernet Were . .I Win-6includingmea YT rdi ha ( l 1. l 1slain roadandTa uM1r Pu'rt-fr A uw 4 mart mfrevm ctr dislocations,and lul i development"'d Pied: ddrea d hip ta dl ll t addressed h pt 3 3 th d ell dda'1 p t dd m dztaly. .wLre 3land LLV AxC Lung[r. (Mina; f IF! n/mry the all"p7(111 1," Je rf/rammg Page 2 nt'22 B-214 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Ohm!Esniomoentnl Impact Statement City of bolt Colfns Cotmnents/Comment Response'Tracking Sheet A—Comment Addressed C=Continued Concern N=Nun Comment City Council Comments(December 2008) COOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status alter'nathec.A summan en^lr¢nmentai lmpactsls included In the P'ualre Summary and Chaplet and detailed mformatron inprorlded/n Chapter 3 of FOIE Gucn enthLbia.rn which c tycns arc sin mil.is thc ca n c 1[inn 0/he heupoinger,Inp model wa,nalthruiedangruMaied.ob,en,lercn,lpuffem,m TAmverureer Moreeinns ridership of di,:Luc'laa r,yearn.. me ba.-1 ,r/rnmlir/m meters,art well wl -a geogpuhwall r --fpopulan l'mpopner, p cuddoss d p fl.- dl R,., l 3d ll, /Ojai// llR ( SCC comment LO N9 jnnn{gq nrnl:d / ngle-hrnn had beer,111171,c'dinaan model..t. ba 3e63 deso7b,,dews po,nizal eye.The,bencnnrc hangnnynihay,on d p-Po-man,/ale conmmie nazi ode vhlmyhl ha light-/s uboui Omr Lbw enrtia model urun It is nuparrentfat the North] EIS and reconimended unprureinents to add as the m The h l I EIS promies qmon.to d ak [thou:alternatives transpottwion improvements—and See staff comments mm 1 h l.transportalion 10 Una:benveen nanspoitaliont envuonnientalsustatnability as well asto reflectthe their[dye ne impacts—andbenefits Iftformation is included the L'ft and the Twat= tr.sportwionimpocts and envuonniental topicareas visions tdreloesaf the comminutes and benefits nett as those related tonRa'mbll(y(land use,compatthilay utlicommumtya➢au,avy It is nuparrent far twupo F wprovide liakages bent. the coif Il Comment noted SWlrcontlnoea to soppy Iispmidan and Nay f s ➢u to am-thin - wit part orlonreflected in the City s adapted iwupanadan II com - l'valuea Matz Plan d aty Plan Las comment arise Inked to the mtf comments regatding pinning onhc I":ranrd hlcmaivc(Immmcr taco SCMICC I that Package 0add hosc cimmunit,, trey.l'his ia n ]?NaR /vrr.Need) I he PreCerrcdAlicmaive,including the f L''.rdp k..b _nvlM1 hssNFil ags this 1 1 d6ro M1 1 12 t A hat„ pier �Ipaamd mzalo-uD� City Council Comments(February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status ( 1mCormapou d,uss and NorthI SFISW :Mould k-.. ( . Waddrc,,ul A 13 n w il ea,in addition un r tl ,,pt need,. t nnoc6l. cludeno, g RLlc. dCOVillnuTC, goods&,m,..c 1'er,rh,edsur,don d6clusedzn Theomino, < . evddruwul A 14 Nccd1.O COVISiduThry Ne fides in to North l HS me tome nigh Speed Rail /fin is fThe n/ahrre inal,11W7thdu/ng ahl.d¢ebprn//he Rocky NmmuiRan'Whom".Sadn mar S— nw I-changedan 15 Study mgenY fn,ome of1J41S] dl b (/'or.Know thul theYl Commwer Ray(% 1p awl ma, of and clear sp..: p awl ear nnanrmp" m>aaa,e dp bl >„are .lmmwdma, �! wm,la/an'e/r/oh NIA,/ail NatuialResouices staff comments areyep-impoMaaai need to be addressed in Fencing isto lima access and Impovesafely. We are lnpooMgthe RTD surdtlines.The type offncng may wry See comment on balers It Final EIS document,mmpadicular depending on agiocenti d uses and vtlAtellSC.The PLIS will listg /1 A Gptions to b trdered dui Og the /1 Ceininutei Rail fence dtsiuptive to ar'ildlic movement design process,ncludbec Jlfft renW)jeaeee and caul dpolenfally mcludt mlAte underpaoc Mrppmg needs to be nnpioved to be inore accurate tat i ns oinatuial areas, 211 ps have been pd d h 1 collectedJ h lnlcpaaac The City of Pt Cahn,has been dlren(y See comment mNatuialResources seclion 17 watei features.diainage ways,and naadplai areas coned and staff has peovded us updatedciSflies C rn regarding irnpaJt, vldhrc habit arca,largeumncda—er'sd Impacpuo / nm lab/niaddhem/agnledOj CI)01 4'/manllerlllemuy,menir'uueu,ine%aaaoca'aidiao Sccenmenas No l Re,ource,nets I hrcatcnedLYFadnvrN.Pa^c, --ume n/nznchaeehg ( /Farvl S,W,11, I>fvnvgareOiar nadnbe 1A dam l Y4/i T.4Yl 4 / l- '�/ / Y / / - ,./ /4 I Y 'd.➢erver e ppeGpt iateOtt enmple for doablesand bald eagle) C,npf Pmamus Bsggesu at ( s%whims LI neat'Iw9Creek Res,race to reduce the effectOr bald eagle roost mil he e tn./ppm:Min the TEM Page of 22 B-215 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-2a final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A=Comment Addressed C-Continued Content N-New Comment City Council Comments(febmmy 2009 Memo) CDOT Response/Final fly Staff Analysis(2011) Sloins McKee Faun lend may b tiled tram Impacts due Li(Thee eyesrn-amtor The Commuter Rau alignment named r'dun eistlAai right-of-way. commentad/limed 19 other agreements rvitft/5445g palters Concemn remrding water pmal/red croon ersraennnirrrn Sam I Nat'd t nt Pmenotsloe ham OC T I{ 1,01,Will Mt,tho pthwtodlna _ _lamrrrtrr S emu Storm WI ,,lien 20 IMO Wen,loading Conccnin rgNrr.'I))I rlrnynnmr'Jd Pity u'I'.m\err, .III comm..,mad,on the a2klfmine alt esnedrr The YJ.t' \l yon ci'dd.rWn FFI s nil representngtnlsbmannalt&O11ai5 and savmg as the consulnntproject ma/urger stall remaining as noted 45 teen,omens 2L 1 (DOT .North l- 010p t t rated that 11 rn din .all ived thc draCt do:molt andvk im n ly. IM1 'llbc doing n d d 54,42,5555, once0 555,H 5, du-mg m nc�pryanuion Con F s d ina Hlocunorr C4 501 5.555-Lhops Inp,from rouru vri cm45,. 1. .nrm We haw been dea grlir CDC/551-5-45,1455umn anon for OHIS TL nbarc¢th(DOT and hM tacs rum otlici communl.z public trtarot 2ge oee CDC ISh-iti:lot of /h/.r5, .54 Packagc 55 CommuT harinencc /he R/fV fnd Illeancazoa epactafinamm vvJ an1L,rasfurd Ne,C re-hf CrOPo Image l ar reGm Co em addre,cd ,4c455/4, nom,thc emungl g Pmrbr.raenurand htya7.oy glamor',fawn pack.uga paoplchl,Bicd.:ora lnm,.. Startirgr harenTur ..L I-sduce J6nem o/e//,0/55545/155,555/p55,5dennva.rn 1, iallnnlceeA ylacerrre d,/i, dmrV�rrrl Co enuddvrod 24 about:anent land uep . pop F;onr pant with Caul, rm.h .lhemmrve A Them'vwo uplwrflh I I:-han three miles. rnwaynsongused Irmo/0y comtmallbanallhoor In add'ecoYerz L:cti y' .mnmr Trnractbachtofl-^_ mmprovcmar5will 25 for local1 'I ihr al dinto-4-cgiona mpg Iliadel for necd to be anal44,551mI-faun/nmibc Cum,nc55.1 :ddnnn fu provcment,to mho-local mu/4 artc445lrm NI/MOM mcdclis upauLed M1 :I 454 distance mpgp dcalcrr 1,1C, \lorc nn/zh/rnrail alwmativcs ncca4 LC..cceHyrimcdnd HISneaa, coordinaw koanazva unoo,nsl Trluaa tondo.:ea' The drJopine.,f the 1.Yl and the V-/ W.Ohenn(re. Coemddvrcd vri 54c 5/5551,need-,to 26 Healer lad elnl.z Cow donation -a rna.nu Lend ha.v>,lrrd.aFat orb'ania,o tRaiL Far Co oat Vo,t1t1✓e/lt R.141:1,1Hkchapaad continue such as cot,thrmtion with NO epddd roil Audi,. 154154 d hrh54/4152 5,155555 Commu,R541.45,ice 4,4„ccn Greek,and frPequency ofl g 11 g,pmanoal ndepainpI -bd U.kilheprOpured arrinleilLaddre,Cd 27 IJuoa h11m l mnaJe gar re tle Tn hm dl I d ip lrrol. /r err cone A Core r councetion IS 5454,IMeeettle Lo,Lo,r,pop.l r mwnl-n !ha POS Ppel1and.111emalzoap .. COMM,.-N'I'n.aznar the Coemt'ddvrcd 25 doaathown cur,ofcc maul /wine feat(onr loaeland Ierhoad and,onyanorr VI mfm ealtan oar.hglney planninz 15, u.rl arm Ian for sustainable. lie POS herored.111aromana,mchalaaCommae-R 1ntle 1,-anaporkelzon awanachonhe co,of Co em addre,cd king-term soluticas um aimedour commumt.es in he rawm Nat 1444 the 115.z: Oar Dili-25 InghnartholilyneethrebtorLdng addnsr cong,OrasInodure need, far Ill Pot/tred 29 41N. N'1 'ddA seconds,/navel savings atterroill fill . Allen 1 includes— ndLp L (TLC I SHC I IWove/" ' I,(led 1 honor A mutmcnt .ran➢o g The uhamuhre anodes orar/corlirg cad n' 1 my Evpraso Husaanaca wily eoniaocomy buy fame,lo The aommaanhaa,UISOMil,rvel I lrr mare l ha Ianzc C rd emmnmeial mi7aas,social mobility Oral)people.and y mhImpaetb Ihere owpaciaraIIadaroeinhe duewnrnl comment addressed 30 Hoy,doe:Comm Lac/Rail lam tvrhndlo he inn freight rail !harm!ao,mor aall oan,6 / g I d.^e pa ; !. e ', !,bapo,761e du d / (.. emddvrod 31 o➢enrY alit d.,ohuhng,Sonh In1041 oordou lam oath The IA'S,-hay ocararoadamll6 .glinta.0 Ihe365!will offal,lash a)wrt USe agreementagardmg / rdure UndOperagplUll reqrnrements, Page 4 of 22 B-216 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A N(9111-25 Final IIm1romnental Impact Statement City of FM Collins Conunents/Comment Response'Eructing Sheet A—Comment Addressed C—continued concern N—New Cormnent City Concil Comments(February 2009 Memo) COOT Response/lima EnS Staff Analysis(2011) Status Concern as expiesad b;_ sell legviinr the number eteommumtu that leave Agreed the nunthe of commuters learmg FottCollms I,lower than some other eS..mrr,data/tom thenrro Commentaddnaed Farr Camsdal'to commute to Denver dlor otherti l andot hos alsod gut max' l 1northern area COMMIltel,vho1 to theDenvetnetroareaii 32 couldp lle change mew, F II bc..ome bed eemm eine Felam,ly] T unprffreme.cpropemegnde Fly! oi.eabry.thunge 1117,yvuer. Cowes I},ut should compere Fon Ileanumb.,to the number,terse r OLP _ rughbormg communities Fort CoIHr nunborn arc inveh,lures. City Council Conunents(October 2009 Memo) COOT Response/ Staff Analysis(2011) Status Prior. high highwe.widening1 The I Xll do,elop,,dmlin LICnapoducesbum ITUA,11110,1704 ' - V L / q Sc"mnons nllnm¢ 33 implemening temeseeeemouter mil eer, e,trlaer eetelddef orrisulet.:the ne,l hoe cone / Here, androbeadb elm vhmwz trpr.0 bug mtl-.modcommute;bmalong roe r mf M1 en widening The nlred thaw.. of ilnrasrnbesnwayste move people,no I l ',mmut the la n4-Nms needs The lTlGmnpam rr. nnono i iudesromn nir n 2uddmgtsustaimthle addeen it ryotlmancm r Tee id the concerns uchnessedl cooed lss uegicvp rare 1 0 O I rorhdo ay/Lk-they de IdoA dun-aptg t t a" d 'INTt1b roneetm such esti denNilP4 WZNom 34 Feel {I] 1 i Tolled 'I (TM I2..(( R1l J ( r t Lane hence supporting one alt modes eicmp i g and e'npaofcr Express Bus rer 'ce, tl ne rngbus LI soma to are commionnrex also will tire tas co../dot d.the donee. Coneiderr. g lergeieeeele'reeds(I.1 pmerge.sources dos gepM1rr. Ire ea,ellen fderarvsd Jjc'I 7V1.1W7il gpmblume40Jdremedl Ihe Scc"..enla onmodeling 30 eLe1that ll Jaen'me rp.rllen need,opine,es dso ronoro: C Colleen ever haw to sue,commerce related M lated nspacuon(6 g m eighe goods 6 neat./ e tl n Led the mr'rdo, volume onNtveielg ttr dt //'r S accounted C' ntaddswed 3s "' reel, f n ff nh.m ed:JxeDEIS undFFO5 it,rdemdi,of s,nlerrhmgeg wil%meetre >.5 ff tin/rrrt A Concern ever 37 a consensus approachappliec by COOT to Klemm'and vicuna. Meaneloboeotemvhlsronrer'n9 improvement, /pPr to preset,iight-ofervayrar commute rail wrytt of phase one improvements. 00 hove heardafssuppot Conmter'RadROIFp- shish Phase 1 Cnirmentaddiessed 38 Need t tmale detailed ameysis end del&wen approach Detailed analyses based- elita have bemeorsductea and documented in t DEIS;the same wN be etuelor the Seeconmmnts onmodeling 39 Me/erred Alternatwe In the rn/s Ceet estimates be realisticd includecosts tor monaswell esartyaug Detailed cost estmates ate bong updated/at t Prefer red. ann ard i,c17 be documented)therEJ5;Including Cnirmentaddiessed l0 °pennons pennons &maintenanneq captolcwistructionMssnd on-goIngopeJvlau and maintenance costs. A Need to considermore en,wonmemelf I rrury,held impede.wen The ('.>rwe cif rbne'nd ne dnrmzl Sec Jomincntsr each topic eeetion ill the detailed analysis sthe?reposed impieee s C Need to coneiderhee m,er r.Coeorp.d rc rut*,resources euppn cm ede-edmn,g pfrol 'r1 - 1- umong hum:, thffieuliforw,eme Con el.Le be concernedeg'Ntiheiaur core p Irrhirh pnesslr he geewet Jegee mum on m tunes eldollar,buc ( 'Y Ica yd.( t p( (tun,ymns, lo ncud b' for more elematietriple bottom lino, It investment converted to donorsand assumptions jot value-qe-tane necessarilylneedie,ubermnro-an benefit-cost analysis [mos ate not/p alp,car nand the UAL, .aIdum.eiglreepicertenentelee.uw _ .al .n,drs+C)11,CC'S I11.5,&reeled. Urybriienale:y.rem numees ro3dreala See pl.nuyr.r,an, Shawn I phasnigp The phasnigp inueimmlisumealislic and gaTfiCIU,ntprojectons of revenue.It Ispossible 1 schedule tot implementation )I p' n J oschedules A doesdtoake sense need to find more says nee func necessaty improvements inthe tor other propose.,pegiede aL acall tasdos to. SReholdes to initiate revenue poschl essonotihe nearer amt phasing plan can be accelerated Page 5 of22 B-217 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A \ortli I-251innl Environmental Impact Statement (ifv of Mort Collins Cmnnocuts/C mrtltespmr.e Tacking Skeet A—Commenteadressea C—Cmnamea Concern N—Nen Comment Transportation Planning Staff Comments(December2008) COOT Response/Lied EIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status Gene ral) m'. Innunot nonnauung staff abnecs vonh purpose and non 11-110:lend sL F' aired Ake in thank you fopJour he A' easy So i-input 75 MP(ORO Eh(siee.m OjT piwci 1 nuisportationAmami!staff\te d]Inc s of no-Borth TFlfiI(Tts0 Perth\emsd and duo he BISum 0 to for their CBOT stall Eon n ohilpfulca in ons\ars.BIB fl dooksnnva M1 Iweloanont c1-tM1emS forma onni(r,the and nett arysv'P'°"� a la>,neW of IJliP docummL 'd r¢IIMye - dsu.Prunne lT:I:mdAlmmrane IMStoor recommendedwe cTr DUN!nnw! theta sT1nd Eil reflect input asst c MUM amens otter t to'mmannn imesmgfa, amp n sty rvStrategic Pen 10.tas L ngup lvltsst Ml e Wroon Corridor n mouth L' llu,uanit N_ rases as tei Lt f mmmentl\molan I bang dnon- undated) ah'sWsanWnvlor noun- ul IcfuWtei unor phases o2 the 1)0 F m.lnpac 'a.s nn non-nun Tan t.inner en end n,a npr,e-a,crtma of nodIFES i- thpackagesme A tnmme e:dmma�lmu,l�,n.ayaeaarara�faanm nt is im porlant to note that further diiscussionxaie neceuxniy with the Part C hens Boards commissions aid City Council in dl to leach a dolma]recommendation to CD01,and into Patmctmg agencies,regmMg a prafmrd package of mini em.n ti. Tim I Mk,:'m g summary includespin mu cowl conurena rdornom pecInges and notes concerns that will need to he addressed Hy CBOT dM1nmg the der elapment of the profound msemaliveand the erd LIP dacumM make,. Travel\fadel, In Innsln nspecific con rents on concerns Trnsprrllm nll'nnngsaar 2Tve FF1 ^( lr ArdatelhY /othiail,in ninth,2035FTP'm c neth esiconihnothr:Woad (-DOT did update lining Incubs ecom - Isomfuture r I demand foxatmodeling be unhand hv CBOT and warms)lands./aunt.uvrltl moth thiththethlithellect inthithelationthipl en land ore and teaninthilthion inn which should more lily'Sleet me their consul run team as pen the I piocess foi rheprefened alternative and inthestnictute Since the Ngh Pothmentiat e genetalle thindatpackages. P. panel concludedth future travel demand.lion mini f Final FEN nut the most',cent ti ammunition mid 11 ninth, along 7 5 ld nor iiiiitente.filehnith thin ithn SteNits?, The commie, c Parkene 4 and1. rommenrs itemsego d commuingmodeling As crud L5 turd for dcternmungt S-tmn irmisportation unprommermaso,beIXLM, Pith/inch F ern d 5 I BR F" d ertsn and d pshoulded tMooedan t t p-k e -1 -.-n Jo - ,n , in o 11 " b g e l AP monk, 1 p,. 1 all tres ne.eaon the ana'I- rhtpraeseds to h rJanr f:ct .nven In ie For there the...emit,to)a titan hen 1 set.hence eaPete Lamar due to nionased e pa'moentrtp sumvtam(Izd Nzintzr differed contLrmlt diopnidoa tlteinsultsf v,writhe think the data ret tieyvvF) s em not preDatedrfire FO the Al e�a Mucus land s. model pinning d, Porlara the rl/Tenth v th the I' the I dLM a '.A r s 3S LT'S a 1 I)sth secountshot all '0p P d P Aandd the very and ahint,and g e o patterns a the lg North brow BEng, omnlhr Met Collwand onel tr.gol pawns soda Dan,.i70111 Se edam F'rmTYP lY rn auto (iu 6almarkgA(gttva Irani1- appear Iwt'bean um he.ma,aix. Bong h t.s ais d Mom a t daddition as doer II t n d n I ..t [lend it heel ,s to he nan..r caneni ge of anodeadorning, noun of Mlm d Ism Imo mrpefmul illustrated Ihclaludo I should al -I 'mlwemrip prxpvrn,ncl utme aat Collins m drnenlrvtn iJerncr uipsalongl-25.InkrchSlot novel, tc cc analysis manta mos gmec I �ntxof the ng Keith 1-2,TItS iTHR'i ud.]JOT maWllee thank von la your sn asdbaLOa doJ'an ctn uteri Gaol eretrG t. .nm viol evei Process ter acct nmoflha inteochmlga2 Hanratmgh,Progc to sonRead, lhaLon Shoed meti antpew¢Aan Vise)p2 Hmmmq krauts ntpeamlioutt]0ulhmy Slr 30I4 oAf \ d S Ir M1 Imt :and 47 lecommoneleel conceptual titans designsdeveloper),mtoeCBOTof Ia win d loco A Pm ertA NoeevwOrahrougmmeleemeeery orMoneproemsaeth meal Minns ear corners throughoutto l namtrvmgent5000epmrner MThnd the design inns oa000.,�,rabngarmw.�mwman our MTh for �yl,luim e�na lentil-roads Page 6 of 22 B-218 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-23 final Gmiromnental Impact Statement City of Port Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A—Comment Addressed C Continued Concern N=Nea Comment 'Imnsponation Plarnhig Staff Comments(December 200x) CDOI Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status Package A J.The modeleic tin the I022Sas been pdated;o include the Mason SeeetHcr twee itis a comnntted reject; ,eefect The,pdatec inodelirm reflects the IwKs Ihewrw tinrTv n,b.., ,liuk'6 \ re.giai.,I,inin uterrl oleuelocaong the due,guflom Ynroam,an;-an 1,ben,tn'up pee,hen,fop-Poehxe I mdilhPr ned wmnient,reg.rding'ddng Masan RR OCT. mimd.,dditionhl Inman :nts '*feast J.Inti7 dude r. bm4(5/1z F4]f IJ vg o-F ocla4e0 l e,The RR l"eef/1Vp/-oe m➢K/'.rfNn high-quAlity p' r, ll .ynmlt6ndyl Inn lcl}. di the Tmn/(er le-. d ▪M1 p ,on. I.on l'ol and VviF hunt NanFreson. 40 k V inJude,the it u..ingt(ea: Hh9F A railp...R.ItmasthrughF011( II d:lnnng!),...nil thespan rmil r-the()Lys ( .i Cc.nur Colondoamul \LIM CAIM,al It LhC City South l'-an.,Cc raNmannw:coo c. r I lha(anc r hin City s\I H i •l pol II c,iyp: x I In,)v inndd and• I '-FLF dcaMp)miL ' d d for Il r,ynenlNl f mod.ding aM1m adrny3 miL)ho aomplold by lbc vfM l-2 Flacon. my Tmnaportalan Playing snit does not agree witht need 6r done-tracking 6 Note that Poaye.4 has single takbeneen Um,/yy. d the dovnro,r.boned cent,.'.During developmentolfne The AlterraNe suplolts the silgle of the PASTtaihoad nee.Ten Piospectltard north trough Downtown and eefeetedaltematwe smsle thec412e the carrlwr bee,- n South Prnnsn Ceiermd doanton loetCalms was Trek v9 wg¢uhd l;the City. belie, that the ousting singletack u_,Dkl to operate.wrbeduoogh evaluated hether'detail.as you seggst As a result,it ftes con:Weddle? 'rll Pnekrmld lure kner' Coloiade State lntrert Supoem rempth anddoughIanar ran-Ilion, emu onmenial imparts lihlieaCCOMMO.AWIlig the Mann Co Wet ERT Hofteeet. ftasitecessety to nye.the tetee Ne CLI3 sores is shown lei thetovrtau'n La elmd ace Staff ion pieuensly patent on thIssegment 41 comae..'.The ocarina plain/inn the P.e1er'red AIb cants nlnl 1 se 2 to.4 Y d this commernith CDGTnta[end then nannnlmnt tout doneni..2 POll Calhnr,-irl3U / ,Sa pJ/'v v hvn F the teek.t:enrd_loe:oye n a,J h r f n^ eaad pop l p of ore e, ,a jou le,Une page n than eno. FrOM T msporlahn Ruining,patrmivc the cg connnuLa transii. setres the College Averse Co dot at the South iravdCmhr. alteinat,e, nle...allcostly than bus sen ice,is an e transitA at dig rar on ton Ins andhonhemC 1 ado ltngteno It 1 ase it elslugh-goaltty regional trans*seal Ta N the heat of themnlnomnes along theLSd]DNSG mdrox co rtdat to sent the largest pepukt on cenmle Pwttmlwlr tat Le Gan Collva mnununtw.the regional mom ter lvil con dot end duee passengerstettam tee located abng Dot highest dens*.pmnhhon amen such as Downtown,CSC and the 132.82 College Arenoe conical Locaiag the regional nmaitsurice along fin high popolatlancoaidat ellaws for easy access from local artesian centeia arid neighberhecsmd ulinulizes the need far people to nave Dr take localnansk roues to access regional msit ruin. dLimnlo Gating this rrccrrl MALTrl me in the heart ot the Ted I"our ahse.ahem.-funs u(' /Yenre on 12nd Lleielopnhe puhenr.are g bJ"on,gen Ih.I .m,d t_gicrl ( II t' ll M1lk lh dfCuturc Id de,Jp M1h cal l gf erwri 1 ( ni b gdgvrvJga 'h f f if oCkmoVSF y ,1 h 6 'I I P N h lour ! ' Pucker',1 - 0Pre/ d 1/ Y I L1,4,4,442 d 4 - :ewe,a1 d VR a ( I Collins 50 FCII 1pen Tt. AI II I(' II l:ry q lee e ''1 '-Y 2/youth.. 1I/ vtf \ r1 ,\lnslerFlail and Plan A Wwc nr'o wH d I lnu,l ivamny h nice LA are...four f hr Jre Pa e Il een n Package l and 14e Ge-.e1.1/ ,talon rnJ)h ncf ,c)m,1) 1 6 Iaonnulcr 6 h:Aug the HhSF drreltp -vhary hn vx c...m.for supports Noe end Lind LL, phm Page 7 of 22 B-219 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-25 Final Lminonmental Impart Statement City of Fort Collins Cemnents/Comment Response tracking Sheet A=Comment Addressed G Continued Concern N=Ne.('moment Transportation Planning StafComment(December 211118) CDOT Response/Final EIS Staff A nal)sis(2011) Status Also the long-teim retin on mvestirenthat nllkl- caul t;Nhrart Gallia B res.Package A and the Preferred Al 'n e the n'IDnlfnck nolatbo@ The PreteriedAlteinn-ir p -.l13'mmonter due to the lam-ion of the tiv -proposed regional cannntei rail stations naiad be a Longmont andthe Korth Metroendoj-ha and Indcnte Dews,In contrast,the BUT otDc ckaA.8 connects only 0s mTis in line with the Ct- f Cart Callinn goals mronL e lY:ir .W L[n'Ihaherlk 'lee ed denrniounDemo Ifs ag ee mai,vow V Gb, ag,onomu.afu:nihr to app-I I 01).1e,elopmemL and aa,idrb de,clopmemCandor Iih paternal n-ee h laW'aprt tr-a hale ce mm� past/Qv/)I.. 1 1 raft l:)uoltio g I I e1;1 sal-eri 'sdi n l.:nnul no,. slam anag th. centIcarafthe oagal`9HIWindauoslmvn nNlp stvhes. Qscaes offac f asi/ pa Oaeaea aanne tai.transit seinice WngeeccmnU ait,ondf hn Fart I ronmen community alt., 1weiinn Rmaa pe state,Nem/e senval dCteraep Wose l usesyPao deneral plop° lined ledspenae,ttT.2 our long-range eav m c taiga tlead n mNVM1 pvaluzv ,ell as scls/Iepl The P/�rvdrvlle t Ld lavofrolic both k nuaipurpo.re1 dPo➢edupreuWseao,T.25-wLYh aW OUT brrM1vly .p I rasd landu.�-noals. niG.vm/ �3 dd,v6nll La, R>a Jfe yh vprs,reJW Thesegianal commuter mil service along theesuting OFSP maroad halo casridor will also lurk Colt Calliaa into Dem'u'r Regional Tmnsponation Dishier(RID) 1' mckb M1 :t Cal(mid,"Gomm.,lin I lum that Ibmint.ononon 51 I hi,pro,dcs a cosi.-ctTeui,eopp,kmit,La link ihc North Front Wage rcghmal to coinnntei all aopmvamenn9 pmpRail imam ar Il is s a s aeshe ahead,apple,In* old funded GasTmck's Sssengen Rail Condor.This s a la nd Tferthoul)to hnh iDeioaal1mnmSwu mil paneengaatn e RanCWrmcToeWannnathommbam I)vmer Lhnon Swum,erdl:w to the HeWJa nna. In rvamNa to adding des gene al aaaMaan lamwnhmm along 1-25.Ihesc ad fiticnal tuner Ian,uIl addren sidy concernsalong I- st.,1 iIe eMano.anhrnm within Cast Collie oleo,as wen ss.wve as an effectve mews to addteon anent and finale vehicle traffic capacity needs',automobile 6 lieightoafhc).These gencral aumosr raven aril)nminaitthe abc or the new mold bns m high- ocutpancy orraluirc Lolling IL ISimpo ' for Ie Nlymaddruehoth p'aaaagan:md frcida tr'.msp rie ion necdr. Package B: 9liws nn(LINI'.rervlres ovid6 Lr,i malkzny,dnung,or uiang a mat hp.na Iheibe reed mi prmndc,o sl star,.or stop on the Hat on R d corridor.Note that the access tofromast the lr�r'red f .p lanes as well toll lanes to sere T f hn Plasm.staff has re, (DOT 5 CCIS Package 11 that Vltw/n is t nam e me rho 1access modes bedto the US-28- e m:cote the roes population area o(Par't high navel needs and mcludesnhe regional lud.srtgian'l aUs N'Id lrnr(11R I)semi,or0rvina rrnhr(Irr S/Ih Cabins Wed Calhns MTh The znehR7or,few aAF the xI II as ynmd,rq7onerl r bOV7 cxpre,Ie r.nw]ae along Hmony Rastrr:e tCint,atthe mar, stops" Mica s aMnmmeandth rend mJllvn age lhee ( bduJ Jan l /ntgaaa gar N leane omptoaeo rfe 'eaJ�m M1 nnvei vnl.na-S IeII . rreaalong el _T' n-lodaoeL h cif s and ha' of nanp vekoga, utnoter', tiDmmoail tATM' et' dne/sualpsep Inns➢nln a/geeear'tprpose Nies connecting b the C area alongrartd_inNaDgnasilr Occupancy Toll tDJD lanes aCpawns'h9 ,.a/SH Thimuc,CM,ada8e2.ih improve iovedobIldy e 9 estfie aonel8en 'IP pavia0 r olw referred to feDl'Il vine Tolled DtTruc Inns(TDL). em4 as'IlLuar'th njSfl((a'Ih vssttim �mW prs ema6lll)farJ Ah teat ac well...VI padg4 'rM1 South I'. riaa the en al arm p: n canrarD bumf Beta ac NCiRT a C !L DRDse A 52 n well Nee la T t a rtca.R addition,d gomc dRT aai e. Idl k nLhc r to :rnbcn: tin a nhanmll'nd a d :I t anise( f p'dSwdwh l Ia gvaaiternam ei Plan and Tsvurectautegic Plan the dmrnside the agionnasrcUahunn ive thlt di directly auefn 1 r 1'iananda ,resuaoaGllms ai h 02 r allege L II de aaal ORc sl cari om Road alonge I- 5ill5d"ire people to drive e panh a&Orel ORT humus sad of remrg at td e ill require peoplem drive m past&aaas amine loath ma of the ate at take local renal rear..,o-amrna the r,gian.,l P.nr,.m,. The pmpmed I-2t Tama D:piess Lonesmaala help give advantage to ha.ekss in lugh-ocaopsmcgvehcles such as the-egionalPRI cupooleisbanpaalen as well asupport gestion pnunz stratcpes tra,cLrs uric,vanadfonlm pay the Page 8of22 B-220 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement fit)of Fort Collins Comment/Comment Response Tracking Slat A—Comment Addressed C-Comtmued Concern N=men comment Transportation Planning Staff Comment(December MS) CDOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status toll tor speed mnewence purposes 'Taft s concern is that the major improvement would not oddness general travel needa for people wha carnet afford the tolls nar do IM1n I II de nrvvlWl Wva lFvneeelr el.l "Iliglnh ry tenants tar fn Lechid, General 10.undeuld l'ed Alterane.enotlwe has been de doneloped tl nu,earegh cold leene day anni pnenfess n and 1 ( cn ennii n (ifn nattunes to se nIS In da one onoed nod lawn on onae (fund an nee ofd 1 nhra➢-rIno andnifr VnhYofl m Imuniabonu input Thecnlwrent ed ,•a n / d'P both sound .m.1 propose I 411 r1 U sn ;nod h des/ en d Jan / AFnelnR11P0 JOlo (',e Feud of fin ! d take li. ID P C d nP Y"nd Prrmsehn' 161 and lr 2035 pm nlyummoJnLfunned"-dalvde / rr rdoee/ / r need ti uhf \I Th d Lin Cry porn i Tupoitlh fa',cp..,Not -N nno W nun MSprx Jed 2035 donne, iionn5rro JonnkrlAn l vmnemoda(band .mm o6len t rn//wx ml nl h ndt nl useplam omvevatectpe long-term solutions fanlser-cod inti,tpanilahaldcn Les taw poem➢ar conditions. drvdsop eft adbelowmmed rniona forowenmr-Slid Inaarsninerl ounnpoimoon One of 'nonsignificant concerns theCinn needs hultnlhon(cp'dd ncvh'rva I - nnndnrgy 1, p01111 cue,dice msuJudri len/prow,nal5oa 5"¢o through sloe nl n Mvcnninne. FFISdhw sm 4.01.1111101011, xtaini d. wal cri m changes to t• mNa fwn6rge an Sonplans 01.1 prow, vn.( al fires har'4 t&d hda ip 1 4oIwW VlmenK. ,p d The C J d Cy 'dndbring yl ahvm Les /Gen/ dl1n i oe p1 /annuana dDII Oo tnke n cni h 6 h11/y to i and Tnrld'hdT need LP heplanning f. the inne vre union o/I 's ln>Amnq 4Ylfdeerfial 13- and Ideal gm uy,nene uellrl I nc inlhsnn ar,spc, Iwo nth,w.n the past ; PLAT the unable, be dineddbrm l( eeadmnnely r'/DownTate d ,nu iii , npn se nniecommter .0th/epee/ens dna fudedairo aen'dn r.an^reaswar.nonColton on ahempdMohnen deer min mx had phasingee endmnn shown tarelnnoonnn�@rurs Almid (I proposedInpt u eneed,yand f ) steep pi - and mar d nnRtle)ednbmfondettrzwll a,v,gh Mad And dl thead 4T endued mSNmlddrtrons ,until Toni eland Tof Collins andrltai ee HIV nI.nnniea vie II aennAmll hpl Wg o\pithrgantk Ire ondu has a sear.P( rng OunevAllel'A h s/he tome/ / omr/lded 'Hnnawk)g ahnh2075) 21J01'yiwld coonegiaeneckable ftninhigaiontdnnorof these plwnmg fi regional dad.froNeomra mrdredr ar each. tmrmerueofJAS). mtg workable n g to r - fth..t paned futuremglanal tlimpporution inCrastructureI mn.,u. Thank you jot vow continued involvement in the process. Staft lecommendsdet9i-should Prise Ina the fm 1 h nee Prise 1 ln a /1 Transportationasnlr Planthroughout ghout hcontinuembee n EIS J.d with'Dlun M1 .dam rs II ,rough ktlNVer,et fait tocome the a Alo.weins final in sdvammt Cm; S the newfuminglcre through mean znap-ecanmconvz)Nz input wdmnanhaimru0e Ten neCanna Cm' Sons.rTheem in meanernems t"arnar fired all oaca C a he,' I unh n r vlM1c nrvvl I Ole sauna eyed h LopCuW wo d m'hrlF�nr 6 vnl nl cmchei \I not be tie�o d dde'r 50-do I f maand nameese trananinbni 0 peer horinn These Mrainnedon Alas,2ard3 ed to by"adlnnsit saoemm rawer 3v113wW to bp thePlwmnl t cower mNeadenlame for Dm Kling travel drmmnd Icwatror does Dpia�desIMP inihaW Phanl n does not ion ell,nsuclM1al de iumaagianance anneadan needs significantly hisfnewrcrnem onding SOLLite,rf riles mine renln„�ao.eehawdhd: catalyst roroou.rmagerponalduourawnr mid pcMn nliir=Ian Thad:needs wimmnhe rd atiaine'aud dasznezdn,'itlalndz Jris aim8mr AIIIIIeitionso IkeILI ists,Ike Transportation T ansspi rta in Ike tot 1S fsr do Tranaparbtioa Planning section: pith snewathe proposedN d,elope phasing plies Ili of is new in onoot t Dana wvl pr presented rand a other mermen sift,200P Page D➢I9 Tvuv PoesenNd tar public commmtin�YSl. Page 9 of 22 B-221 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final Ensi mu mental Impart Statement City of Port Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Shed A—Comment Addressed C—Continued Concern N=Nen.Comment llnnsportation!Namiia StallC'onnaents(December 20118) CDOI Response/Final E15 SlallAmdpsis(2011) Status SNn TAa andaC:.'rasnnnwes have honed commie aboutFax s.As w plan dunned,th our pleemznlon aioisabAt e vaIanstated,the transpoer�lnnefs 1b,0 i ttn,lntis concern,specifically pima continued draw concern,rncaaentntsr the pinSell taICs xte dinohnonr the metrdt oFort Co wl Sell melta land to Fort dtRaxame shown until Phase 3(war Sul uaenaa an 207)} Sad rcmmmerntM at cro'r shouldramIM1c MIS assails shotroar Damne—ehaeo I as showmen,as the Taanllr carswined slai brad on anticipated Imam lcucis Magi) »ami,inns-alum l'would include all of the remoiaig elements of the Panelled ,Moralise and lac conmared the"Maeda itcms anent he ad,au aniacud 50-00+)car !lime tarpon l'hcc T anion Phaser manta a2055 gflray and e3fat2-5M1 need Plueza aceted rvmo-rah Dm Ian mar m an bc regionamn el demndfarooa noel lay. thcngig them m Rit dta emand atheist phases with that iPom Imam ooa nama,the nap ioalla Manama,the atkathe aanpo cuietafnal rdingunWs sign a Thy=IS ureairannumfunning viy:iiwooanisin I-cNtcmeovmoul did catalyst tonoik menfir to ammo,end partnerships to Irmo Ngds main th ihanic ylM1uzncvls,ndnn the 003-5 limeComm Mena,ie tau'11vw Corridor",not `Mason Sheet Corridor nor the`Mason Sheet mpaaeaan Cnridnr. I o any tforMs--Muth l'aant Canter dnlaaudWong he Mason Domani neat westPama lane:not a e Harman,Roads la eenea location lodho est.reaa.n Is along the Meson c nidar between Dmversih Avenue and Palm Sheet Sa el m text r ,.end., N men call mahsss`ofor o curacy and throughout thc lath document aid all Da wthroughoutn. Alas thc RR^Wi day for anon Comaor=Win PaTsel,ice no- dso based on dm rafwwam n rpm the agarGngin.5nn'e dmartmneotrptnarea ails Halositgading the_WiYPRT Pmlut please matter Halos'sad-ham i tY Engineer 21 10701 Page 10 of 22 B-222 NORTH I-25 EIS i ntorrnati on.cooperation transportation, EXHIBIT A \oU'1-25 Final Einito mental hnpact Statement (its of Port Comments/Comment Response reacting Sheet A=Comment Addressed C—Continued Conceit N—Sew Comment Transportation Planning Stare Comments(December 2008) CDOT Response/Basal EIS Stare Analysis(2011) Status 218 1400 ere in o-meil. Ianigchelbrink'rtfcaaemm. Page 2-14.will the new emk&Ridelawtian being built as part of the anent 01121'2 S.1-20 56into-Jung,p lul e.. d f am 1 k k 1095add I p ):hok,n the DO102 The omptaed Quiet Zone noise milenlon umtsgiw in lbc FRTS along lbc RVSF corridor arc .r ai City plan, enaw� 57 l a N .n dor n..Wrc,n .aimpacts.no we lnom,Tb corridor e ezuwg height let o'ice. nswellar futon passenger sen'ice IZ5 hinhnan inprm.unenm north orHameny hod('neat tonnannlnednaa the row.cucmi°r oC 58 b regional radrek I, ;II N cinneu 1 Collins and t mutely caumect through to Greeley. k,gional Foxtrot routed -dared LO tts ll 1 nnfn l l o htwh N 59 d I.. F into kll.a trans,.a.atcnrrn I he list,f Perrot Plana lirwl in the HIS(Chp , elteold else 00 Inddacces,plais for LS07 North Cnllcge.nd South(~huge\.,..ss Control Pl.m, C haplcr 2.warding coordination..lh oLFu sad., n:the w.design In ens for 1.25 inlach mpesa hocn in the YNIn linking into ntha ialtar N 61 1571 5525d5.51'For u pl dea:.vvl- 2 bong daignod„ilha-dmr spa"wallm.r for future appolmnilen tot tall in the center of T=>i 2 I sae m be miasnn a graphic diaarun otthe tutu,plan,for 5nlvodng the I-21 62 Prespttmbnnchalge_trvs in.anawrge lutenist N enlonea innhe text but rot mcluaed in the is of,nnae, Page 11 of 22 B-223 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final Environmental Impart Statement City of Fort Collin Comments/Comment Response Larking Sleet A—Comment Addressed C—Continued Concern N—New Comment 'rnisportaiiion Pla - g Staff(moments(necemuer 20555) Cno'r Response;Final ISIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status c "_q the dwcnppon oriha iauh5c 5 n,mnme.etdie.,.., mhe;naawnwm rums of an no the not soc et seivice[sold W begin. h should lead"Downtown Fort Coons n bnwonand nAapte sirens moms C,rvuanry ,n 2-2a and LCA no[Ihur NcrilyorFvr C OHMS'\dnnLoenlrroiplanahou7 grade seprated loath,orcinssings of the['NSF railroad t Diake Road end ruby Road.This roua ,me Pecos.nl.rn.r,e rindmll help adds.suete..ImFr°puwumm,mid mx concerns Sections]^_z.II and 2240.ctydace natnher phl innl hornets saran sheds endrrildrh 65 ,na,.ment wnidem in to Collins Paged.14,include the Gtr of Pain Callio in the mdcr main (ram.im[an tin I 87l fugmethe 66 title ofth plan to b Plan rrlCllina - whichinclodeslwthCtmPlansndthe umnornd Wants nnuv Pnn the,pic rn poLwFn 300 1. iaoa i.I ,nap Mna ram5h5 nac tha_the lay oC Fort Collin, Ipnim th Lon.: dl 61 -neur N Land UCode that can eis the tinlength of the Alnoan Corridor OFT system. ..ci t-t t naNmy ladana, atthc g.,ding ton Collin..'rh ciia:n seomed compu_hznnv e plain (it,Plan odlr in- higher d.naay,miyduse imiu and 6X d d pTl 'the ai he I y dld.the T0D veilay zone Jun cane plans do not en,ulmn w ,rid,to built out arnmaining aenamegn eer: ngeiw inn uand redevelopment supported 5e high vantiensit set,ice and moltimdal N.napa4Non choices. Pugs 4 2 the more scam[update to ohs City's mnprehensi,e plan is"PlanFart nIlms 69 nrn unl includes.5.5thCnPi end the np.nv nn Wt rater PI.n Ite1t-ulatten arc no long,L1,1111,..urrentdouumonta Page 12 of22 B-224 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final En itnnmental Impact Statement Ciii of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A- llllllan Addressed (r Continual Concern N-New Content Transportation Planing Staff Continents(December 2008) CDOT Rnponse/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) Status Once.the GOS is completed and the GOD a,niuvwf alII the lord-Yom Range AAPO model relroikbe remised to include the highwa d nmat unpin,once,nhow LlicPrram AI (Phase 70 en Dun N[mannaII WSD Ma„I d t u nenp d boa Inn naphas w the W and faun dinplu plumed fand in.highway tonsil inameaonel nhman in the tale Semena2/.addinianni aaestianreaarding inmat t-nazranra sne eee odd that me Catmotter Ra ridenaNF pn%Mlona we shown to ha ton's than flea naalactione Iv Linn I-25 enprcw bus when the Commuter Hail mote end ,t locatcd hahcr.bnannn p a htim center,such;a D,nentoan Fan COIL. Wren future model ri°pain,me w forth, ioplratnaatwnpha=ae ofthe laoposnlnwnul uwvtsysmn m rionementw onion NM NM) aid local wsnmmnuen work tracldc+m spew: than pmimiana Page 13 of 22 B-225 NORTH I-25 EIS nlormali on.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Sty of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A=Comment Idaassed C—Continued Concern N=yen Comment Natural Resources StallComments(December znlI) soar Response nfinal F'S Stall Analysis(2011) Status Panel:I\aneal Areen neutral(-animus The most ianue rmlcd cat,pcnnhllr cif n chin lint- 'I fly augur JWo 3,435353 4153,2k5233 to emirdof :ipolnn4,la m/ in l'n'3555,5s.an.In/mvamfary fence 5nnllatian alcup the cammuterail duonelVrral_Alees in thesanthuest and to matte enn 010 fu,gsnna ids aad 'l KHa'ev'er lson0033322d Mat Vie rypepfeficino 72 pomenaflmCollins.The fence nearld to lughls a pale,to wildlife noon talent may raiydy d e vonamacent land 2.535 HI/Aft11Se. y I te ! ILLS''kcal I f A klIOngOIMIAIS non3333,arrying J p i I (d ellf f dof encang an d- ltrp adh' (d JWII/underpa sseu TiThea5toia2135,522 kemdeu 3 the 332322'2,3u 3,11131 Dan eauu. ,of deedal function natural comment'Zaprooks for the lh_o rw and na,inn off r nor ins ?.,III peaoa(taano updated Ih a orfirmoly 1 h.I=_ancrllaeedf 3e montinaaac The.321y jot 73 N el Arvss and Falk'me not(hewn Cllin d aches d hyh ddundd'!'fl h R all'a 'k+' d 'I A as may et'lardue aNn nh Woman,.r ,(ere He lire al/5'3y off Cott rat areas and F1 parks h A- ified and f wbon' hdnNaasno. c l.redinesn2 Theca show only alowlaaov . of and douldh:aphacd '3 HImapsSohay,Dcen,adord hcar(inrora1,he b,3 caceetdn 1 NennnY/er Theiandany jr't The mar line nee6h. 1 ntha Figure I. doesn't sho puce parts Tan Collins Hours 3.l-3 COWn hart acflo cv land shay haapm'tlo1,pacted(andf/u. h o nroct l and um dd.tafar nn d ai dlandusdifficult to antenna, through I In d,nrta all of Ole rotClt I- apam parts Tor green)"The 3Ruaam,f.' cadnapa have na . 5-dvrd enreesau de plea Add mlll33,voM'dad Afed&Lled nepv efentginch'dual T] example Foss l(;reek RegionalCren gate is shown an emrloyinet area, ven L✓am I f.'bemused in Use(la(llS. unifies would be helpful the Zen r netlon tungsten Oren Spun n pun atad icWwra it should be than as aPmaPan:and xw designated aunt swagaloha um,oL tn'apFuig 3 Inn Veuelatia I Statement regald -des I pill "E to al The h I 33.22G,1 aAhorllia re+pa plan maybe oa pNlh ft the NjT Poss Ain A vs (Maid elmflu nor „«planar-e ,o( nit('dl n„um n ynti ace rraac .1r0-2Nanal aeon.nor mx al al Lags to taunter Cowan ltarmpsar .o.Rom,seriously au ratim idnaryM1cl:'naeffrele'nd re an., nlanunla/e Iaoal be nun{aran occult' mantethon'o b,.: X'menannepsne rJjnaaiaednr A teranll'�aa Tdrr trnarsac should nig man okras , rveill rsla nlirMe9 stung, flry aaelelnaf3m � 3I03Wti>anp4a is R fu4/ep,oiu D., is/din to the u/ cap3.3O©eaalle I annhndcnaud ,pp ogricludic on.Sim ➢oldeagles ondaxrnaara mpluis h In haeatis me perch and a,aea dya'/arpla the em"SemaYt 'Tro222 Lo ch <rn,T scone-cal anon penainh M1q a.n,rnzd including -p dss. lotto Ia ny the continuous Also riparian possible ossil .Rth attain ilia rallaabn f'4na n(Ie vraeralilin3 man v_plar ill'le pi,. imminent up II F ve hle ton E the char.,.a Wh -333155533 h ( hn 1' l li." f { F d 11 1 (I.Inge /1 I Ig,W ivo eN[ cottonwood nee donN arid oacowrfettl I hone(aim to -n n.iheptoresiy rorAu(g Ih the C'1 11 nensadn lPlv(4 cot teen at tonwood Cache tail as �I dono sac bHaolr H/d(ifa if sours n la f.eon nuaawJ p Gmcuia 12/aialia alien habitat ha arr_a gcmea mitigated' stole 3M1 eFn¢cncrt ua�a, TII 31 Wildlife Audubon Inn i E IT (-leek R - f Irlha lrRlaW 1 rr�le mxk Ras f n„.33'5,203vn f m lla d ia I lihar u. rev adaa3'3133na A TT Imp Uurldoe 1h1 Nl hlgh' ha rgm amv,l and oNer Ia the table want bat.w ra e l N'N gdhe t 1 the LIS3. . lrn ut.0pen(Naumannrvll -tconsenoni eeMcKee nancla-orv0M1drfa:n aoohiTh, dalgnn Idlnnn haiittl 1Ro ianosnanJ. orfro piagrid Flan lcae spat--ra fails m.¢pitnion (Tout.Open I.anon inenrto sic isthouan h the gingerly arlt rpoe512 .2.ens 1vdaanea Yorf,R ahavc l ndoo d6.pt rerua significant impacts to 'radian itadi movement along t1 initlpmt Ttnmc Additional(fis)adisplaca dates ouch apinopala3eeton5l3aa ,near the 32'2, opennong 23tomD reamdn daTTJi,Sila M1-papnea commute'dche t eamessn on a E smuts of rs(nor)a ranplom,r date rznh na apprip Rr la Wrac Md'a Farm near the r'Nl ea fall rl bong set+al+) ton lrur�o+/x:1 Ileaccess or' It nsrafmada id Ie rumen o-o ravt�af pr 1h aeinsnevml areas sutra juclilllez load concrete rumen with additional cram Hann Ih cAuf crop 78 I del art a Iwa,a//anc aalaa a mural:.habita CohnAft., wart withal:tlumkul Vmuml!vct Oaurc Aa.and Lcmgvienr'Ien Radial Gnute addina tion at aoaand taaddieve Oren Space the afn aver rdmd fa ore fmighl train ravel hill worsmwildltie Page 14 nl'22 B-226 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-25 Penal Enehonmeutal Impact Statement City of Con Collins emmnents'Comment meat Response tracking Sheet A=Comment Addressed C—Continued Concern N=New Comment Natural Resources SLAT comments(Ocean leer 2008) roar Respmwei Final MS Stall Analysis(21111) Status cal lisaaarcld Stu 'e amine habitat ban ran(tulips and Loveland ammo be designated sensitive habitat and consider erpads uch.Please include this o 3-au Mitmn n at such lhap Jot. }PIS fails in udogs.,noon cudnkwrncu as an Audubon Society designated Important Dud Men The raemau hos emvmely high value for mioivtorn waterfowl and other vvlertinh olherthan the Hid Haan, L 13-L Parks and Recreation There quite a few aussuig 1 areas 1B These al areas and open spacepopertps Pete kle0phed.lotthe FEIS process Please see updgedflgure_1 T9 and open spaces an the Inc uding Toast leek Re,, -Regional eyral toper Spa n.Saons a/thosespur rpereed Parr,ter Oat werd relomVieden boa,unpackedlt9 h h✓]nr,n ocnder congderaton Coyote Ricrac NaturalAna,15%Tina Fan rrnrn Slucc TableJ1 Pail, d Recreat Tlus figure is not4 date Th. .ts IQ.The figure and t have been updakd to includet s open spaced fulling.area p!opernes FossclCeek 8a imunfonnanon about-Fowld R V (confuted W4he 03.00220 pope.,hew 1,330 cottectIvcrl3P0fiedtuld liftloogy.Tr ptcpctIvrnnantiyceted by the Reglad,Inm Snnel or notlmhr I at, rr) ahem ne nnJennrvt C la_n Rut,uand emt I Furs mllh direct n2a¢Lei an Eon 20 I Pck,gcredtl'mmvlh dJ.rmnnwe-r (ha,63,2 zcienofiedad clungnlnn Package-n and➢!ha,bag! Opus Slrc.and rtalinadtlanposa,Haealsas..mlkWtnlod(mve m .Iwms as man .( Ae4PUimprarr 6 desenatrrl tore hale beenkielly ackey.54.1m dug docremok.(5e kefigencgincgural drown inpcta plus Ir rmf)to Nt rnrlemnn.The HIS atalcath't Lae..kg 1320 ,a tomphke // 10 uil/mrdwe Ulf - /(are been01 /tad and!he akngn Team 7,r.rcynang no parka al TCS0LL,CS willbe impactcdb,der commuter mil tlutmativs, p2140.0al fgrunpaa! l 'H man,ere!). Qostard, unpacIs knclo al,36 Id h Im Pal b be thr bhand ma t. b cl ahem [ t l dd( d ( l d atttigl of M natural areas 030pIth rat cot rr.or 0Inch genet0II2megatean direct Impocts.to the tiatrocal areas.Fengns milbe IncludedL aiiareas ignetepedestpagm'y'a a concern.Indirect pan scrochasnope.and _of impact!!gal lugr evaluated vrtl the rat C0Thns Vantral Ranvww Pall okruments.nli ba saran into ekevaen J 6 :Corso Noise studies hold leton&ezd at Amlaho Bend Natural 4sea m7ort 2f4Phlf model feceifer atimpalm&utdms included the lTiS onailss: even though developed r :lltlesdeenot Every effort-a implem: non-barrier methods Clellais Any expanded nue as awl.of N.aternatives analysts needs to consider dun prerett at the sine Also,kcal tteic arra condthons 0ere representedbr Reck,nor1012 at the navby Strauss(2.a0n of noise mitigation alang1-250nhere it passes a This openspace managed by the City of Fait Collins fall ints"1 and PLone22t3 th tla pn/an C4002133.4 A300.042 Bench, CauggryR eta rather'Chap atak27y4(a2-ornpigtheatek. A pal a Trend Natural Alen)should he Calagorti (hrnT Y1 tea'on Id ncl I II I rrIr.hen .' on dl' Shen pucerlea VIrl ei eferne(t ache '.tupe:ellenl an [god Or Cac3g2c2 I!u0dneggna support T on el urvrldtiit Ond M,sh IM1 n n M1ensrM1 comas or NFF ns try me / lnrmtw,e.re e mfe-ahgek, f pelmredm f d nn ronef2ar0f adrrormeble pp. nsr ram,t.mi tigate nlstc A rJmkertCrll rmshe lJ be oval unJ. mdprll(nined-2 mod grade( booth ra bao de (aridrldrm me lcry C ' '(n nt(m mass hu uc. ueprerenmimgl-]3 gutnna is notreraeneewndborrla rand lned Tog d got IP(omeetkmnerzmdq C Yaenpthe.rm m t Index. 8E Dneref ant t recommended .d y i a d na k. R d p d the ns 2l LI5 dram pdatadta ak e repchlenddvW R 2adadh ar r'invl Zell. p Le tell m dCi)lYeAm fy game e cep...0470m,/ekm4 ff ho!i.ban Could d the JLII regulc -.niiroye f b r mexur oldbe(Idegmv ' mali6mnoWdml(6e 000 proper that lack de x 60521 rnnnalgeg / t Wrtodegros!iguId yoppplace ryerlw propev es tlmtldddeflnne lannites!gnue pima.ct ficp Arms dsh_1e_Oared czedon professional receptor essionmggIgmepidred n Lin OteoroperryihatImst ranpmnteprare(mihe enra ro.thannffic oes,foraeow',tgboardhepit 0003nndlNWmonpv3ent of annlso rpa nnl Im.le errarm'nli eadadra Mum r 'Rarzrv! h uloba loo p 03.0.N3 ra the Tootles,-pe,hae bemmrmenenemrnlvia movement VI arouse Any efforts lentNmadnoi Inners)aashould ssla,consideryiea]te P hove.save- fidedgo:nmprojectorfi roSnlaHgh rayelf`al,gra,Vorntan Mountain 1 -I1) i �lll f. 1.--p II M1 R, {'I fs H 3gme ni Ild rl 1 Titrot,4 11 1 Al 'Or c T including \l II y i \ m do )"f / bp; r6 g / l 6 -f l plan A "mashould ratalsn I.vt r:nlrpa,� p t the a macula, rr ldl evxi-a. a ( -llGear md,,,;me, ml fen rt tla ne .lDComma.+erane adrort Ids rie tenant, �Ihl ]5 Ma,eQa It p [hat both action alit-mutt, l k 1 23 II 7,zmpukcangor3,2 WU/the?.ev,anpopa,edymniani lockhnys-.' d ndg and.Vo lawn 84 andl' II mdratsc,L0TMULLert r morn loading b.5 o rr.r all en odslcd liaeradaddr f npceaLeea in,do mg have ld1fh.r 0,007314d wn rot T,te BAP-sfiggn pawn a(mamvice Rage lSof22 B-227 NORTH I-25 EIS i ntormati on.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final Fox momenta]Impact Statement City of Fart Collins Comment/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A—Comment Addressed C=Continued Concern N—New Comment Natural Resources Surf Comment(December 21108) CBOT Response/Final EIS Staff Anallsis(2O11) Status c'iNN to Cache La Pedrea ateished above theatres siluationor anticipated dot apple to tamae 2/percent e se pementot total pend.J ithichaccounh jot teptedtened orderthn noallon alternative CaSCLrloadirg J 6-12 am, R elands IS identatiesth I 1 of the 24 Comment noted The nn t statementhm been mimed and utPnot Includedt assan Mikis sme as apotenibl 0/ C M1 rri Prude,:A I milmeum rile Tilled Ft4rd 6., nusgeMon uhco shumllvpnc trdr unlarhe-huh,of The US A 'hal-erredto the oC Fort Conine al 6,net.6 labIL a, n iliLeuen616 J.-12.PIoodpktira lo41-to maul].vegetate dwtWde along drrmg Cneek ?2 Any[whom that result In a pc mmmi dreegng o-t"tts of uedmWs are requited to be petmit@dby the US Arms tLis impacted it the Fart Collins regional code^^I Creek need tobavoided or mitigated Weeasd,in the,aren.ne highly Cs hem /n20senh,/noftT)- 'rpm,mhepeurvtmr0 mei natvnhimputed The step mniiape-em area antacid ba mitigated with in'thesome refit ,elued rr ldl'eincluding nhvemteS en More detailed aIS n erusk mhon dusilandunpahhom y(Mesh mmdmeee meau x hen,beyn zmplervemed,oeo Connie regiona area nn. seism,mimed,Ofallder I 15,k,Psedags hm tom e of um uusams Sherrs ed I ermnee larr_m rem/ ...stand r Inn. n ir e r r branorates f itgaaanaa x hams='+ewe, y eq I ( Fon 86 be the Corps ot Engineerslt the Sect,.hat perch Ilms Land Use Codeshould h rsidered lot Iornitr rnoa Conva)irencted rvrunnds the nuw,onme,ma,F,ran armor lednn(tr tlnudimomlw<neniutindicnonnl wetlands nongnnnt the project seta. 6-26 inner, Fleodren in, The ponenm of thisPoiect needy, d h 1 26 it T ttd.t pfnrible 6enand m Awedel' msolhn,stall and the LS ].Of A N7 t 1 ter on t ould,ke pee (1)d l're p to land, d, nee d nde he Fugum dtalnvain Seams m n404 Vefpp/ na Nehnt 1 N m of d./ro .Il llCo?, idstr,cd re the,muumuu. Fugues, 10 IC en mil leminie60 llaadelgiai The miner ass foi each,eek ricer 2dhltt¢t e-that mil be emplored consistent m8aeh alternate include. The l00.year1GNd den 2n Renzi:re that wetlands disterbed u'itin the Can or other,kr'6e i6,egue 66666,'u-ndmke.tnprr to t.6,ell,dr pm,'.n /6s umd fin f-enbaosddu,smumau emu,01.0-l gr,andfosmumr p .lacierorr elmete2ne-00. Connie ereeabrJd be nth, ,x16,he dr.," indirect wwripeus Le od'r6 and tr dpl ,. Ihen"e'our mthgauei us.deumm flow.,inAenmJ ! d,egr and.r.rde dem:m01p,, candsu le/eiaenill genic region measure. idenu he,Coeyhru:dmina2c, Re,Ned etc ywvmiligeuen pl'n conud, 1174,MUM UflOllable bauhns,m ntlm.ed ip Ph ti 1. hhgrodauom sum syshan ad.menu tote tat eachd u.should be conducted tat the public d atprepriaT naaholden to deter'm d Adequate co„tirmcasutes 6 be selected usingmae aevehhil db,to Nahami Coop.r mum nIgh{V The m Ilinatta fat each @ er or other m,aenton Research P 3 Rs -6S(ptib 2606, The deg -htrt Id up to the ecomstem ,tt , &Image is vogue4 l and mal, 88 The des A Rconmdet costs johcoustruchon and m mmenance .4 budge deck des ge 5TSICMtimrchnuolsr Y3., unposgible to e‘ablation tat drecu and indirect sunnu hu mudeml 1po.ulus bmd0e deed a4mil epiultoa gam,qualm se Dyr'bert4tthtrta Red Hiram to eletlancl,aniFl clutter The wane. InlaafloodPlaa. The designs u illcomply .i,ider'at ondue aseweh'P designs iscUmuke onnderanon four nutirthonnea,t 'are identifiedfor tom duds/ohs/agency teguse maul,'be consistent rhmatins uaterhied adllaadplah managemeat Amman's. separate dmatngnn aeused 'especific Please nate gut ueflondtudiNha,is d6rnaed In Chaplet 1.8 yore Slb miugndon plans fat enti dminnge should be concluded forlhdpubbo tmd tageopri'ete nudetatdm,o wmmrn,on. '1 91be,rnul Sew : knnrommemelC en'.'I he approecho/ 28 hired, pcehtedtom i and hapctie h ;Teeier may neuter mu,hall sgt f'c' msaho Full-m .1T Imin Fixtures or lrtt,der: ccuducteng.netf ns analysis aboed scale is netadequae and theone size fits broked°Tabu sladynonc speoes areaddresed.yd age Po.htacktaddpntnie dogs sde by site dimly.maid should be used m sensitive mildhtehabitat areas 80 :II P M1 miligeuen IS not edequeictine SAC d r 16,dremeg no,6 °Mk LiMmoms/alga. b,-/.'...nail pimp,fY colomm 71110.4.4 l MMIthood ma,mos eu /,ludmg Fe.66I Creel,Reecnon /1 meal abemnd 1 k)en:urcimpe,dr, e. LJ tbu,miligeued't coUshm6 o.eryandee lmdinnppeo dL✓ him Mum...Mummy Orno mem,.urs adds mum/.m �I wont broda scud,and'mums am ohmamdbamshourtnbl vmduoa(mil ohm a Ihrmence dmencm dam Shd(1. Includes ale-specdc mitt/a ton measures aheso asp',Prtoe exomPe Ps Pnebic's a,d bah d eegie). 31J12.Thxnened Species Additional lighting adjacent Y Fossil Cr k Reset,on ?9 These suusestonsharebe pr'aed'the[CIS jot adater'nattees. 90 yell l 4 he'min et the bliesele inocr,t6 qt the Re,r6en TM1' m,ld A he ed by contro Icel ego or le,J g lighting torn the that u,erchnnge Paull:Air Qunlip enemil comments en an 9uaitysedlom Induced land me \r 4wltn the Fan:'ll ueityix dein inekdb,aeheie 016,tm \kS ill/h-1 ) .' anfn.e/Cr, The1 mem and.abieiot-mnpu prmudedrvec Maw.or fur a,te.avws Nr .eathe original etdvt lenduv ISSIle COI local au(palm;im4 d the g 1 -elude I development file purpose qt Mepm,: zo meeMonsderm move/needs' DCIIIV'k.' area and um rapidly densification end trammenemedde,elopment 91 tiareled which der derencs m tun,openland use chaneesthat p4 rt of tiansit stowing p p 1 the I-25 corridor' 1 to the Pa d CollmmtdellinstonPOI Ire thin both shouldI kes ceitenandeciding g and ell ry Fenhet TC.19,111 .C dera lend is,downu t nd hghml and transitapilas vete conadered for the project Mile the tronspotlahonmute m can teah nee:and use altemate,s noted.Referred Aternateve toenail reitren,l orlimi6d dee elopment should bee ka;,.t Jemuhw umengthe pattern,._d 'ZI t[zmugw 3a the Im.l oh lcea 2c'urvr vrt pro,.ides ihzfeate^i number of nllenot',e Page 16 of 22 B-228 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Fum1 Lus1uonmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comment/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A=Comment Addressed C=Continued Concern N=Nun Comment Natural Resources Staff Comment(December 20118) CDOT Response Fiord EIS Staffdnal)sis(2011) Status dwmdvea made choices Conreotumilani transit Maidens can sure an stimulus to TOD. Cbangut conditions The nn velatalityin gasoline plea suggest that hbanuarlmg-range.and rise 3/The ELS1 ,dorthe in the elatives-03(th gasthme ts assumed.because Prodding are rline nannponan aplamvng efforts such. and uansponntren piano w be in question For example.what if the land piYeoto n ular&Insp.:health,Th brecaszs ae.asedcn the odoptedthaute papuia(on and¢pi.'s,thitthrecasth ds one mnstbegin 6 develop metheds ure prowcuonat COTC[Or crnm Lmiue,lrt undv's cfJe\PNAf0O nndi2RCnX3 th the pncerrycr thumansulth thong.riml dedin/Innre look,developmnr1 &rnv and vc, plaro ninge ot Ley future Sr11611.03nulne cr cr 90/rr,Far theuppraWti n ntres rbrd erern,r, roddn ow,enrehmerryavorar r he Pp/5 /Jgon Unr The l / r<ofpn.r i.rnn mbm'n and thudin such as[Writhe the[ho-ark rr rranTorrar forecastmg Hre VICOITC,Llurlboa I heFlSshould addre, thethforesthththithesan thee nazis.",miss f corn. thsththethsththison4 2 nor doinr, anrImaking poor investmcnrs alb the ushermaking a pas ca..hoe among Me al@rnctivedretotae turceilaintyaf public is high Ill el prices , remote gasoline paces twist money dmmatlrnlly incm.e and ,In lard: l 02 h and.n Scrnar orb:hard pinmmo IS and no,in ohmic adaptation pleating Notnlso involve significant Gmmnnnely twist capaam can be relatively easily expanded,and the ms nate,Mat the IiclurvU Mem:Aire can accommorrae up for 9sPomawvm u.msn mots:ahuR t:reenlurne eases tier rtrlcb rho 12.corridor hvcndlnl l le,andirllma ddnsn 32 The l.Yltondle kola both addressthe thththolthe pros proseth allenthmth1s sheath,mthsnused as the rho IFIS[May dincuonoehn„treed.: thor contribution to yrc1 II ductrnrrnnprl mfg lY Begat c 400nion l dirbRoe AnilrmJe than le Vnluor in -1(Nrcryy). carbontold(Meetly proportional n vehicle i eft AI d l-f produces JHP d t'! ddl p dl t p e ItemTyQ' L h .�.ta 4 alternctive to the successof these community efnra and the EIS should oddness the contribution IcrtmiOu leas developed a Ch ateaoa.Plan m help'd eathouse Cas/edhl emissions The tIvnths wouki increase CO2e emissionsbyc_-¢above t the l deesiar trwrid-hes success or talkie reduce-CRC emissions bythe endf 2012 Is a heel thotho aced_166,d00 Nos ofCO2.Tr6nl.e acheedby to CYr the AMAMI alternative Tian is slightly mate smothmethuth msures.,3,2333 II nhdhinttn wer ll elw.e bllhi ens ma thus 5 10ID ptheeni th math other alrenartur ands'tnhuwl Ls)r he autotpolthe thpsbe naredmnar-mnmrtedlnnP st 3 ct nosiltheethwe the farm MT by percent by2d12.mere impactormmaonmg more AND lmmeter one several thsthssrpon/e r p oposedo11,11 N.MI1 lthno thee The 3thesonthonthason s oath'system Pne+re wthe al noq ns a sei haus prier Pnodnn huge bathbone thr the enthasthsthsthsthl sthm inPos Crothsth Ore me(nfe>2n31 zi vow's,beayeundthnl she>n( inrcstmenr rramparranon somponththn/ uthath, athlsth v le.eesl,m.nnr ddP.me moth 01.170.ry,me rem sonsthsthum rerulininorarredeo n Firmer . moth mnldeaybd slHmmrdnewer. e a1Dt .doal of 95 .e.an electricdoes e m me price of mam ennrhuion on r�trdddme acrnorr rri don nravm;_mc car bom;m m._,c tnha„pie-�wrin them �bmnz,mtaiUa than pied by the rmeel The P510 states that mitgallon in available kar nanmm".Forina u eared emunnir, uyycnma roman v ta'I'rduerdicn.Adutinn nI ca bon intern,of fuels and napmecmcnd in¢Joule fuel economy:Mould ho added tad nnportanr mihporm mrmurvS SO bwell. Ozone NonAttirment II,DOS reel, de odes Ib u2h if the rl otso M1y 3]Tfie PPhf r elr.Je'thelall ' g'_ on pate 35- nalththoes e g - uedbx/k Gomm the plc r,Us met re frpdnal s ne dl All rl r fl II N o h ] limn source. ,p d ths,fows:Is thsendathyothathth1 pith births are so thmr ththothubons and urformarron in the}Err, 94 for he ozone standrid ] rib 1 smngent3do Irog de e 1 /h l Tgh 1 TI t these 1 d p I 0Gd Match h d C8 should be dISCUSSed automolthe exioththgasothth oilstorage nd ImatherIathIthes,mdustththp. d sothems.dththasitth agents,and nlenro g/Y l Yp rsure To ethos.has 6'es Ivwed/n oftholll e fthsth zthlthlthth.utymfcm In care hlwhY rage 17 of22 B-229 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-25 Final Ens[ronmental Impact Statement (liv of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A-Comment Addressed C--Conibmed Concern N-New Continent Natural Resources Stall Cmmnenta(December 200x) CDO'1 Response(Final EIS Staff Amlysis(2011) Stains !nether,rm v/rhe amve¢aed Iath5.00premu ethmhandnrmt NM,makmgaamp ire Pe therelauNm ipmemederthruthm era MIX.,of:.nadenmz. ne.rallrnnlMirth onnmadewtf Ioerz,melyduy myth.organ,eheme lr,Jwn partial _ mlpl'nar moth:mores thm th reoa panicle s dlrectic ilt eedto Ms poturthi rot caming health problem,.Sma➢particlec Mans,Rose less Thar 10 nuctometeth aro diameter.pose the greatest ppaie,'s became ortetrabna-ttopenetrate deeply Into rnoncnthe/Togs mod Mood pre, to suchp eM na$e:toth rrtsy and hearim _Ie larva r that 10 rs(MIMI am I 1Ir,palua( arbame I: cared PeP_s5 Some-mu;fine pa el Ida W(ppes u mburronmaladngnom;vehm path...arty b e(aham poem plants. deNttacurd for YNee A ;at a !namemrl1Jroee_ Because these smaller pathdespenetrate deeperlmo to tespmmtoty ry'Sem tey have a stag assocanon vnh memo/atom diem: Lt..andsrrnkev dmeax andnmmrhtu W Pollmuon Emissions Total au pobdanemssiony indading enema pellmumts andmobile scarce au tone are sl¢M1IIy MMcr or anvor the 2o.=d Build 5.t for thc"gr No Action altematud5 lorvmntonal adhlc 3.L2 dhows that the are 22%lug burl emiv203 for Copt,ore22°ry highs NanNull>Fa bass onJlinora.FCTrchings zi comply with FM Collin,'caw orer'.udnnppoM1q Ic wntinwJly iml,rvrvnr{mM1}. 94A However. alternamandirgthe N pmfenec dlto many Mow M1mo lower CO hatepot centratons at Harmony and I-25 than the Fa Acton_Alternative(Toble3 Skin The Pr:Ihrrcu Vurmurvo alai pc,idnrWuwl arterial V511.old rcuhul crashed:VAl r. Inman to helpaatigcte the mcwxd coons,the hest asaalMm awuptl¢mn emissions, ebvaldbo implemented in an vexes cl as comp-chow,e Lransponaian demand pte25 m n_at _ IM10 1r Quahh analu,is d.,mu. ddrss 0/2.b presumably becadue are n. 3 1 proddu loud nl_mah thr no,corm.iedththr ihmmthree-vier andle,manbumf Rungeveh 1 hddvo cnlel rvlt product study area llownur, pcunct lam .1 or 2.2.l Ammer,p s ofl.L 5 include Nth-md FOC.lemtheronyl thy r ere p eledreth l'0rt 3 5-2should be charged to mattel levels 1 _Affected Environment chapter'page5-75 acknowledges I tg I t lemma Table S!thommththth the tegeonrede tarot trothle myth enremon e st,mates tot muting.No thchond the 708 South Mason Street 95 0512 S24-hour num coucemmuons:Istead, d indrehhug in many three 6 .dl R roc N) nth:Marvel ill- h151000 -.'p- areas In light ofth,PS12 5 unpacts of altematnes shun.Id be it sad day tot n Id allernatives crnp er tomesting eIr tar C.tlr.am p ee reduction S Star pe don. Ties[ teduthams ellystratethe/May conclusmn thatwnnde emissoms p)LM1l3.i impart t ahte:matd in the future,nitlr m mAhaA&e pmlammpraxemdiu 3.5 sle Specific Comments: 75Introductlan 3Y Cg --1 has been npd d the cote more nnronaimam boundary/oron doe Dame:Mena area Dm gas emissions not added b the the OHS drum hcin d oho quality uphoaholdlo urhtol fell/ X hushme added r "ll, .'-o Wale math[ ! e&ew below/e\o/oaan mptaa \rt Quaky al lected meet chpur. to reClecd dun M1 M11 hh been l6 1 b ', l l ,r l ( l e2 l as r lu yh3. 96 d lihune.r standard rN ember]]p emus.., ,ed I e "eon ll 1 -4 ( moms 'fableb- [Tube,/ rope Please now the(:ys ovhh-archnigaindLudiud. Calms leult Leone-4vend 30clwsbete temoredftom the mbe Me.Text Mrs been teethedonpage c pulleyhas been updated to smtplyn SS]-Affected Einovmoml iola( rdrnnllwll ac , d Men d.,dm 2larr th 3.Mont) othe e tlmallly lmpnwe ut gmahty" bgue 3.5-1 hhuuld held ,fle[ he au- admhymue Ina M1e llo .0 red d uresassunt hunt(C C- ruo aaAAN m ld"2005.and 2005, am2005 and 2005 rweerra mth exoeedohy Page IS of 22 B-230 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North 1-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Sheet A=Comment Addressed C=Continued Concern N=Nena Comment Noland Resources Staff Conmoeas(December2008) CDOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) status 8-houi ozone aamdrd This eat designation should beducx"A clearly the&hour standard ip much of regonal study are uaaau at monitorg Ratans nnaughoitlne regional ai fins serum as well as the updated.mole stringent 5-hour ozone standard that was study area .lied to levels bl the 82imot standatdconcentmtons after the 2008 peak Hone e', promulgaLcdn AA:mb 21,1W remam,d6 enh . ddfare 2005 trk In 2006 lore Cully ddd nam monaonny zap mon0m z hm monnonny:aahon18818.2ehIgheM concentruizonsoloronafion72006 rn UUY theUn th 11-±,EIS stali,on Imes l mid II that-Other rn '1110000 are nnl000a dnnsR r +.1aauanum d. o,pro? oaon2 aamthrdsshaaadon a y822820,cneraga/ . pantaits ofomm in the Mont Range wed`G tact l`nnalnIz matter levels gttlnc exceeded tine&haat ozone standa.dl Owe years 1905 to 20080the Ld decgwtod below the federal halth standatcs impactthe health el md 1 1 tth 4 inn' theDenier meno ate.,andt north Front Ranae as 000,Painment are a,./ot the 010111 Of OW 1J Norenthet 200: M1eC]t_r at'Fart Conn,hp,'trry conunuallympr0'0r Lwlly The I-hom rmrdnd pa, la/Iunhn demyern hl.nd 2008 EP stranginened The V11).tf-meY- ul l}_brx. haur ozona_ Jnndfrnm 0 080 0pnuol0tinpm- 1n urrnnfn00000711M,h.anrx(an Aaom 32_0 Table 35-2 nOonld be updated to reflect the second ozone manimtins site that established invest Ron Collins to 2006 slid should be updated to scold data mnonN through 2007 n✓20ut. of cram,pollutant,should sink no,l.g thaL ho For-Collin,Wol 2rv✓mng site had the hiihooi P m hour ozone of the ewu L.rout we m 0)07 alit hevacatcea sevavl 8-hons values that exceed the standma. G h ld1 Inam0Win h 1 ndFsvironm- mRbriefly`addiesved in the amnNmzlmpacts secuan R9diln the DIES stuA 5iwtlno xmmrurlti¢Of Fna COI IInn Houl3r andnenrorinaxaatic .10n to reduceh n , rho slam Or Colorado gas alto a cl en at a g greenhouse es Pb. .om.1 projects arc mthe e acme major len.In pull 2o0mge T_T1 Supremenlievanl nn me twuposthiont onhon.mApa aim.n Lhc de inuon oe Clrport Lunn"led ugeert sane Cl n mnnm�.0 or no,m:r; r,.poll hcmo: CI v v am"pnel FI v: mnas:p 'd hdhm,;n mug 6 6 s� mNea poi I is hub �y reasonably be fl ila2d smD opublic addressed Irani"Item nveblemat monoss, gas emissions need to be addmssed mate rigorously in mmrehiPd 3.5,34-x lh,l-PManalnaia Ih.l j hYresYrirl non WJmdnnra P n,d luxiono pa.i.ra -65ez f ene at Yui 0a' emmn-nIly nbuevmin ineat he Affected Enn project study area n cr0003 5-discussion of particulate that 0 levels 1 31M con Rite pm J d nnnouvMig man are 24-hour 4nhrna 1 b an} v I r di,VAlimpactsC5hzmmshouldl eLl evuL I I Parks&Recreation Staff Comments(December 201E CDOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis(2011) I Status Page 19 of 22 B-231 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A North I-25 Final Irnp[nnmmrtai Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Shat A—Comment Addressed C—(otdnned Concern N=Nen Cnmmem Lommentn on theCLIS hem the.ew paint of effec ted Cop-of Colims pakn and bJ rallt 121,M acne impacts sapptec➢oed The Prelet red.Pm erf,e and Package n e knee and&hare evaluated tll 1 4 a snced be designed to h accommoaammcP-Cowl nr Tel cacmian. So✓on3:n Peaksa d No inNunn ton Collins Paoks rind motsSecti . Judie', nnejT ariaRerpnntt Re,ibiri 2rRed ned to nceeenedng DKr rtM1 ashigto PiwW de?elk but e nee Pend e po rocs Collins ifectedp Perk Canna Commuter designed to neoiomeaebmerewn and Rrcheri. anP.vklalzd as being Nthz Bien of thzpr jut 0Ny affected path is Cinch Tied Itckrgn Range ' k6 io nonnynamimpactorID9aom( louldbr-ndiity YX minimize , rl h �rrb4rr t Construction e etn ndmiigati cgn a l din disturbed t deem rldbcnrnw ya i:am=p n mare - ,me on �edmda end . Poe k61' tchcrn 0rove impactocn Id wire Conitrucuou irould M1c cNirinfireid is impact,rnihd CHAI control public aorotvand lily vegentionongnmennued toreonrdewd areas Cnordinetion end mitigation men vspecific,culd be refined in more detail es e specific,of the proper.,cuemntne b.d,r,ad. Advance Planning- CDOT Response/filial EIS Staff Anndym(2011) Status Historic Presena don Office Stall Comments(December 2008) The Can or ion HMLOTIC Pri un(MEC hee re,ici,cdme..,CL near 30N N 1»re Ne,/,/ u Ninth 1-2.5 Draft LIS dawnnnnpornmeig to kalnrin propane,within merorl 99 all tM1 Management Ar Stamp onSten cements withthe find ng.then iliele willbe A no ether, r ernM1 II}dwyrvnd or eligiblepono-u,r _[prim din nplcmonciM1or oil,c North l-2rp iwl. Regulatory and Gmermnet Affairs Dhislon Stoll Comments (DOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analyeis Status (December 20081 Section 3.7 Water Resources 3]1 tom tmAewWtiom fide ten errynnd,eo mat meY false moph Tun Ixv(.t5>re.pnremmts(ttyt._:- too (Seim IC moment While the CD TPtS4 requirementst..bd are generally 1. L..19-262.an additional statement resat dmgconh Oland development.neiL.'dvenpnent compliance harbeet A applicable mbtSV oleos please note thatnll local NSV constnielion end deielopment added teaoremmnnom:ha be met lrianintie local NhI4lmndinia'ael boondwiee kblei0.5 40 the1 edu Ted by, the Pon g'A.Package R and A, red 1.1177c Yoh pnohegn A and are Foie,ed nticadmyey P'vi do ainclude hi upplia n-Pe.rnta(lil-tn Allot ii,.thematn..es oldsrm approxunrtely 5a.b for allmodeled ceemmentrwitlun the C ache Lo Poodre runoffIn to Cache la Pond,dre atershed 01 apprommatelv 39 percent. incur theapphation pernanema)Es As M1 and volume and loadin r'llmommontn perca00 h' aga5an.r "e t:emm en/r temmbbonMP UP 1' meotaacoaPPTOT7Marrt 30 ro ctronR9 uem b t 1 d inp pollutant I ad vlumnln 1' percent , it h y Gfab, t t t t l t HITT.l A LOI a IriF rac'acd pn.urnma (i( d e (1 Y nh n olon iood 9 3'.' d fie I fithe.tl aola gnCo oa.ce and nlu a code 11 natitu nn t.r mcmkg he ]..ode ed roan Unclad: sia pollutant loadings ele(areheepll.. naft�tmdnoguient Thelet 011 mreveart-Patedta reduce the pIl artiaadbytlm percentagesldnit(/Ied in the comment p 1u .mama u l l urried during coneirecuen rind porn .ill e,m.r qua lily eIw.uucs? Page 20 of 22 B-232 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation, EXHIBIT North 1-25 Final Env4mmnentnl Impact Statement City of Fort Collins Comments/Comment Response Tracking Shen A—(Comment Addressed C=Continued Concern N—New Comment Regulator)and Gm ernment Affairs Division Surf Comments CDOT Response/Final EIS Staff Analysis Status (December 2008) Frith packages.00.a mush Iwgei pacenlane moan from the roads and other imlcniwas nurracngill log mewl eniaalor gminy pond,maths HV1l'r'Fan Jc cuirentmotlan or the no edam altananve.This meaiaigom<based enconent and proicgicd turc\1114 arc,: Ithc arcaavaiilabl HAIN v.dim lh.right-o gag . The pollumn,rtmaenl rates lggstluataral RAM,:are peen as roll.rvir: Tan-gurguee totall'-IR'_Wo Zn-30-60% ('u-1 4 RIA0 Gilaide-not given Mule gus ryapreardwt tie imeased pollutant loadingswtllnet be adequately geacd 'll pram:Fig gurgascdnpaniuw arca I aucd,nit pal<aoc, par (fly of Fall Collins Hater&Wastewater I ltiliticc Department tour Response/Final!CIS Staff Analysis(21111) Staff Comments(December 2008) Water Qmdite anal Floodplains Status Technical Report Va comment,:submitted T,A a)Pg 65.00 Millet frog top.Aalto c..'Denvq Adam,udd-i Levnr gamines Wong Fithmest cites and 103 ,na,.i dig m,aaa�arc aesporubi forregaloung develegmenta 0001.4dcgignaccl nnny,lana 1ndadhc, L0AaA polar and local 1loodplam repulatinm'. ?)r'g 0th 00,C ashe 1.a PhrvdI_Frvo action, the bonom parggragh,of page El arc hieon ealy sated The Cite of Foil Collie, gh g.auppo-Is removing Iic spit naaor 103mgulatoq-issaum,be leachedtlaoa¢h nmgniae,with COOT end staff work^a. tog erdunngmman phase smn.narJ and local regulations will all be adhered to Loan lea demo phaaa 1)p041.table d-l.Wmadbe helpful to add col gun indim(u3 what llaadplinandguJschonen aba, or 1m orl Hogg lam llaW4 l dnomigc F Foggia,"I.loodplam.CIF g'Fort CoLia;ar,aciroon 105 i) onnn,RA2 1 i 3.a: I d nuludv N mhm faadpinin nod w ist pr'dilian it is Page 21 of 22 B-233 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, EXHIBIT A ]orte 1-15 Final F:nsironmental Impact Statement City, of Moat Collins Co carts/Co'inept Bmponsc Tracking Sheet A=Comment Addressed C=Continued Concern N—New Comment °)Pg83.e 'cat at CPI and CP rryrove IIIL Would wggntdebeie0 three more Trimly L)Pg An Mitt-Tenet Caere rvrtxa Mis is 107 lreuld be hellcul to more clearly show lomrssm Unman Meathimom,emsnt N ezlalJ m tulbeld lea for Jm6 No .r Lmelmc Rmhgc d and Padagc R. ])1fi A 7,Rclderrnte to hi ab Creel,reed nylon mid roar Tiue pia eso palcde currently in pioenen it fissiocatian Golan. Mx and the M.Lxiiifllffp J Buthpriset 108 lime Toone,"I Con al Md.,of61eP A n.O N t AIRe PI Penn Crean Mmrelloiertcgn'con,n70-41(- 2211 for more lnfomtotion minis location ann.!ta,tnwlemutn fordmnmmn SLt lave,probable al LIMA To 01mm' inner ofMlep-�"rdeerM.(CLOMk)red or MemnmredmcntilA)Affirms ill he luimd Ionmoit,pmfmired in =F\11 i09 odregulators,Fladnott Clam cmrd nation N TheedmhaahrrIx roa local I leodplain Administer l Orered eedfred ndtm iha,adpY can.nod finganmd Ilmdrmrp to tall pmidewihin i:cETV aolplmmmnet uLsel and Intel flontilam icons men, 9)pie 93 Inst pmoefeph add the MI owing or minim statement All Indent aid Local Ieretplam regulations will be Maimed by MOT oar is Ica amt Floodpleein 110 modeling n4l be required an many unpmvaments per 1 ederd and Local mryuierrnawa UJo1 Till weAnrre moth local tomsmonamdplain admmauebon in the nand clones or,uhpr jel. Page 11of11 B-234 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. Exhibit A Responses to Comments in City of Fort Collins Exhibit A Line No. 1 No further response needed 2 No further response needed 3 If actual ridership in the future is closer to the higher projections,there will still be a need to improve I-25.The total demand in 2035 for much of the I-25 corridor is about 140,000 vehicles per day,far greater than the magnitude of demand for transit even with the potential higher ridership projections. In addition,it is recognized that aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure and increased freight traffic contributes to the need for improvements on I-25. Regarding transit system capacity,there is available capacity on the commuter rail vehicles with the current projections.If needed additional commuter rail vehicles could be added to each train to serve additional riders. A re-evaluation will be conducted on all the elements identified for implementation for any improvements not included in the Phase 1 ROD;updated travel demand forecasting may be performed at that time.Subsequent RODs for these improvements would be required. 4 While it is recognized that local plans are constantly evolving,the travel demand forecasts were prepared using the current land use and transportation plans at the time of analysis,as reflected by the adopted socioeconomic datasets of the NFRM PO and DRCOG.Similarly,the EIS travel demand model was a combination of the current models of NFRMPO and DRCOG,at the time of analysis. A re-evaluation will be conducted on all the elements identified for implementation for any improvements not included in the Phase 1 ROD;updated travel demand forecasting may be performed at that time.Subsequent RODs for these improvements would be required. 5 No further response needed 6 Comment noted.CDOT looks forward to continuing partnerships with the City of Fort Collins. 7 No further response needed 8 See responses under each topic area. 9 See comment response#3. 10 See comment responses in both the transportation and environmental topic areas. 11 We understand your concern about future phasing.This ROD includes elements within Phase 1 only.As part of the transportation planning process,any post Phase 1 elements of the Preferred Alternative can be implemented at any time upon identification of funding and inclusion in the long-range fiscally- constrained plan.Subsequent RODs for these improvements would be required at that time. 12 No further response needed 13 No further response needed 14 No further response needed 15 CDOT Region 4 is working closely with the CDOT Division of Transit and Rail as DTR initiates their interconnectivity study which will include passenger rail north and south along the Front Range. Also see comment response#61 on interchange design and clear space. 16 See comment response#78 17 See comment response#73 I 18 See comment response#76 19 No further response needed 20 See comment response#101 and#84 B-235 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. Exhibit A Responses to Comments in City of Fort Collins Exhibit A Line No. 21 The Final EIS team will try to address any remaining issues using the ROD.Please refer to the responses for the other City comments within this table as well as ROD Section I. 22 Committee meeting summaries are included in Appendix B of the Final EIS.Public meeting summaries are included in Appendix D of the Final EIS. 23 No further response needed 24 No further response needed 25 A re-evaluation will be conducted on all the elements identified for implementation for any improvements not included in the Phase 1 ROD;updated travel demand forecasting may be performed at that time.Subsequent RODs for these improvements would be required. 26 See comment response#15. 27 No further response needed 28 I No further response needed 29 No further response needed 30 No further response needed 31 No further response needed 32 No further response needed 33 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#2 above 34 See response to comments#3 and#4 35 See response to comments#3 and#4.See Final EIS Section 4.2.6.4 regarding the effect of the price of fuel. 36 No further response needed 37 Appendix B provides detailed information on the collaborative decision-making process used to identify the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 improvements. 38 No further response needed I 39 I See response to comment#25 40 No further response needed 41 See comment response in each topic section. I 42 A"triple bottom line"analysis could include a formal cost benefit evaluation of alternatives.It would however,require speculative assumptions about the value of time and the future price of fuel.For this reason,a cost benefit analysis has not been conducted as part of the Final EIS. 43 To provide the most accurate opinion of probable cost,FHWA and CDOT conducted a Cost Estimate Review(CER).The CER is an unbiased risk-based review to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current total cost estimate to complete the project and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the current stage of project design.Part of this study is to also review the proposed construction schedule to determine its impact on the project cost.During the course of the review the team identified and discussed numerous threats and opportunities.A threat is anything that can add to the cost of the project.An opportunity is anything that can reduce the cost of the project. This probabilistic analysis resulted in a cost estimate at the 70%confidence level of$9,474.9 million(YOE)for the Preferred Alternative of the North I-25 Project.The cost for Phase 1 at the 70%confidence level was$1,271.2 million(YO E).The CER also found that for every year that Phase 1 is delayed,the cost would increase$48 million. 44 No further response needed 45 See response to comments#3 and#4. B-236 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. Exhibit A Responses to Comments in City of Fort Collins Exhibit A Line No. 46 Those data are included in our analysis;however they are not the focus of our study.The data are available to the City in the Transportation Analysis Technical Report and Addendum in the Final EIS. 47 No further response needed 48 No further response needed 49 No further response needed 50 I No further response needed 51 No further response needed 52 No further response needed 53 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#2 above I 54 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#2 above 55 Corrections are noted and addressed in ROD Section I. 56 Yes,the 95-space parking demand is based on the 2035 travel demand model projections. 57 Comment noted.No further response needed. 58 The preliminary and final design phases for stream crossings(both Cache la Poudre and Fossil Creek at l-25 and the proposed commuter rail alignment, respectively)will make provision for and be completed in compliance with the design requirements set forth in the appropriate trail master plan documents. 59 Corrections are noted and addressed in ROD Section I. 60 Corrections are noted and addressed in ROD Section I. 61 CDOT Region 4 is working closely with the CDOT Division of Transit and Rail as DTR initiates their interconnectivity study which will include passenger rail north south along the Front Range. The proposed improvements along I-25 maintain a grassy median between northbound and southbound travel lanes.While a specific alignment for high speed rail has not been clearly defined at this early stage of their planning process,the right of way could be available for use by a future high speed rail.This right of way is also maintained at the structures except in select locations where maintaining that right of way would negatively impact a sensitive environmental resource. In most cases,the Preferred Alternative does include I-25 mainline(northbound—median—southbound)clear spans for the grade separation structures at I-25. However,center median piers were utilized in some cases where appropriate due to cost considerations or considerations to limit environmental impacts.In locations where clear spans are not used for these reasons,other potential rail alignments(either within or outside of CDOT right-of-way)would be available such that the long-term potential for high speed rail along the I-25 corridor would not be precluded. 62 The only interchanges illustrated are those where environmental impacts,traffic volumes or property impacts were unfavorable for a typical diamond configuration.For these reasons,the Prospect Road interchange is not included. 63 Corrections are noted and addressed in ROD Section I. 64 These grade separated crossing would be beneficial to the commuter rail line.However because they are currently unfunded they are not included in the Preferred Alternative commuter rail design assumptions. I 65 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#4 above 66 Corrections are noted and addressed in ROD Section I. 67 The City of Fort Collins'designated'Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone"covering the entire length of the Mason Corridor BRT system will be noted. 68 Corrections are noted and addressed in ROD Section I. B-237 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. Exhibit A Responses to Comments in City of Fort Collins Exhibit A Line No. 69 We recognize that local plans are always evolving.At the time of the development of the Final EIS we used the most recent documents available. 70 It is our understanding that the NFRMPO is in the process of updating their model network to include the Phase 1 improvements of the Preferred Alternative. 71 Commuter rail and the express bus serve different travel markets.Express bus service offers a fast service—63 minutes from the Fort Collins South Transit center to downtown Denver,compared to 94 minutes on the commuter rail.The travel market served by Express bus tends to be persons who drive to the more southern park-and-ride stations.For example,SH-7 has the highest number of hoardings among all of the express bus stations,and these riders enjoy a fast travel time to downtown Denver.For these reasons,the total number of express bus riders is about 15%more than commuter rail riders. A re-evaluation will be conducted on all the elements identified for implementation for any improvements not included in the Phase 1 ROD;updated travel demand forecasting may be performed at that time.Subsequent RODs for these improvements would be required. 72 No further response needed 73 No further response needed 74 Comment noted.These maps are intended to show general land use patterns for the entire study area.We do not see the need to revise this figure. Additionally,Longview Farm appears to be shown correctly as Open Space/Parks on all these figures.No change necessary.The newly designated Longview Open Space will be noted. 75 No further response needed 76 Under SB 40,CDOT will coordinate with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife to mitigate impacts to riparian and wildlife habitat.This will include avoidance and minimization measures that will be implemented during design and construction to protect existing vegetation.It is recognized that generic 150 year old trees cannot be fully mitigated.However,as described in the ROD and the Final EIS,existing trees,shrubs,and vegetation will be avoided to the maximum extent possible,especially wetland and riparian plant communities.CDOT Region 4 will coordinate with La rimer County to develop an acceptable revegetation plan.In riparian areas the Colorado Parks and Wildlife will also be consulted. 77 No further response needed 78 The project recognizes the impacts to wildlife movement along the proposed commuter rail line between Fort Collins and Loveland and the potential impacts created by the railroad,fencing,and maintenance road to wildlife movement.As presented in Section 3.12,Wildlife(page 3.12-30),the project will minimize impacts to big game through construction of crossing structures that will be designed to maintain wildlife movement corridors.Design features include minimum clearance heights,minimum openness ratio,strategically locating shrubs and vegetation cover,provisions for passage during periods of high water, and avoidance of trail development near wildlife crossing structures. Although the 3,000 acre native prairie habitat located between Fort Collins and Loveland was not designated as a sensitive habitat,consideration of the importance of these lands was addressed throughout the Final EIS.Lands that make up this important habitat include Hazaleus,Colina Mariposa,and Redtail Grove Natural Areas,and Longview Farm Open Space and these protected areas are identified in Section 3.12,Wildlife and Section 3.18,Parks and Recreation. Native prairie habitat in general is identified as an important resource in Section 3.10,Vegetation and Section 3.13,Threatened and Endangered Species. Direct impacts to the identified properties were completely avoided by the Preferred Alternative.Fossil Creek at the BNSF,located within the Redtail Grove Natural Area,is identified as a Wildlife Corridor and CDOT has committed to preservation of the wildlife crossing underpass at this location.In addition applicable mitigation for all these areas would include measures to reduce the likelihood of the spread of invasive species and reducing the use of fencing along the railway corridor to the greatest extent possible with the use of wildlife friendly fencing in all other areas. Fossil Creek Reservoir is identified as a Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Area in Section 3.12.2.4 of the Final EIS and Fossil Creek,which passes through Redtail Grove Natural Area,is identified as a Wildlife Crossing Area in Table 3.12-1.Additional information on the designation of Fossil Creek Reservoir as a Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Area can be found in the Wildlife Technical Report(October 2008)including information on additional wildlife values provided by the reservoir.CDOT B-238 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. Exhibit A Responses to Comments in City of Fort Collins Exhibit A Line No. recognizes the importance of the wildlife habitat in these areas and has committed to mitigation measures including reducing the use of fencing along the railway corridor to the greatest extent possible and the use of wildlife friendly fencing in all other areas,and preservation of the wildlife crossing underpass at the railway and Fossil Creek.Impacts to Fossil Creek Reservoir and the protected areas of prairie habitat between Loveland and Ft Collins such as those found at Hazaleus,Colina Mariposa,and Redtail Grove Natural Areas,and Longview Farm Open Space are identified throughout Section 3.12 Wildlife,and Section 3.18,Parks and Recreation of the Final EIS and impacts to these areas were avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. 79 No further response needed 80 No further response needed 81 No further response needed 82 The Arapahoe Bend Natural Area was evaluated in the project noise assessment.For noise abatement actions to be recommended according to federal and state protocols,both of the following must be true:1)the receptor is impacted by project traffic noise;and,2)noise abatement actions are both feasible and reasonable.This was found not to be the case for Arapahoe Bend;consequently,no abatement action(berm or wall)has been recommended for this area. Non-barrier noise-reduction actions,such as lowering the speed limit or moving the highway,are not feasible and reasonable here and have not been recommended for the project.However,there will be another opportunity during final design for the City to discuss potential designs near Arapahoe Bend. 83 No further response needed 84 No further response needed 85 No further response needed 86 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#5 above 87 No further response needed I 88 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#5 above 89 Per the Final EIS Mitigation Summary,all overhead lighting of l-25 and SH 392 near Fossil Creek Reservoir will incorporate the latest technology at the time of construction to control light leakage and direct lighting away from eagles roosting or nesting at the reservoir.Specific feature for other areas with sensitive wildlife will be discussed during preliminary and final design. I 90 I No further response needed 91 Comment noted. 92 We recognize your concerns of unknown future trends affecting travel.However,l-25 warrants investments as CDOT believes that it will continue to be a transportation corridor,serving any vehicle technologies that may evolve in the future. 93 Table 11 in the Record of Decision includes mitigation measures for air quality impacts.Measures associated with reduced carbon intensity of fuels are already on the list(as documented in the Final EIS,Chapter 8,Project Phasing).These measures include use of late model engines,low emission diesel products, alternative fuels,engine retrofit technology and after-treatment products.The table also includes continued improvements in vehicle fuel economy— specifically avoiding unnecessary idling to reduce fuel consumption.One additional measure has been added:consolidating hauling and trucking operations to reduce fuel consumption. 94 No further response needed 94A As noted in comment#93,the modeling done for the EIS was"worst case"and did not include any use of electric or hybrid vehicles,effect to travel demand associated with increased fuel costs and any reductions in travel associated with transit oriented development around MAX bus stations or future commuter rail or express bus stations.The Preferred Alternatives includes a commitment to congestion management measures,including travel demand measures.The effect of these on future emissions was not included in the"worst case"emissions analyses that were done. B-239 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. Exhibit A Responses to Comments in City of Fort Collins Exhibit A Line No. 95 The correct address for the PM25 monitoring station is presented in ROD Section I. 96 The document provides information about greenhouse gas emissions under air quality cumulative effects—see Section 4.2.10 in the Air Quality Technical Report Addendum.CDOT is actively developing a statewide GHG baseline and projection of future emissions based on revenue modeling(fuel sales)and MOVES emissions modeling. 97 As stated in DEIS comment response#34 on Page 66 of Appendix A of the Final EIS,precursors of PM25 include NOx and VOC.Table 3.5-4 of the Final EIS shows emissions of these pollutants.For both NOx and VOC,reductions in emissions for all alternatives are projected in the future compared to existing levels. These data indicate that the contribution to future PM25 levels associated with transportation is expected to decrease compared to existing levels 98 The preliminary and final design phases for stream crossings(both Cache la Poudre and Fossil Creek at l-25 and the proposed commuter rail alignment, respectively)will make provision for and be completed in compliance with the design requirements set forth in the appropriate trail master plan documents. 99 No further response needed 100 No further response needed 101 No further response needed 102 See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#6 above.CDOT policy is to follow federal,state,and municipal policies for floodplain management. 103 The split flow elimination is acknowledged.See response to City Resolution 2011-090 Comment#7 above. 104 The jurisdictions for all crossings were not included because many floodplains,such as Boxelder Creek and the Poudre River,are within Fort Collins,Timnath, and unincorporated Larimer County jurisdictions.There is also the possibility that new annexations will occur and the jurisdictions will change. 105 See response to comment#104. 106 Comment noted.GPL is defined below Table 6-7 as"General Purpose Lane".The abbreviation"GPL"should have been used instead of"GP". 107 This is a general comment that refers to all drainage structures within the Final EIS corridor that will be targeted for improvements. 108 It is noted that Fort Collins has updated information regarding this crossing. 109 CDOT policy is to conform to FEMA policy and go through the CLOMR/LOMR process when work is to occur within the regulatory floodplain area. 110 CDOT policy is to follow federal,state,and municipal policies for floodplain management.CDOT also coordinates with local jurisdictions,the public and stakeholders.While not stated in the Final EIS exactly as expressed in the comment,the actions and intent in the comment will be met through the CDOT policy. B-240 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response LO-04 Responses to Larimer County Comments Larimer County, I,tR:,MFF BOARD OF CCUNTY COMMISSIONERS CO COON" sl ffi.Box t-90 eirriMa nn(Lawns...�n, o)avduute FM 1970149&]W6 September n.2011 North I-25 potea—earl cell Tom Anna F.Imnrg 4nn and Him/LE 63005 Syracuse tA ay,Suite 600 Centenn,l,Co 8011E Dear Mr.Anna. Lorimer Cour tv has rece vec the North-25 Fin)I Environmental Impact Statement IE 51 and understands that the document 6 now in the 45 day rev ewperod.Ct?ens with lndiv dual:Merits are eeirg raged to provide nose to the protect mail,anllre,or by atendance at one of the putt": hea,inLes being help by the Colorado Deparimei of Transportation. CeueLy e.JCDOT,relr D awe b,ieled tie L Lime.eumny Butnd ul eomeuteunn,ell the ducuinon,dud we offer the following comments' Response to Comment#1: Comment#1 1. The',Huietipulpu,e end need el a dee del well defined. Comment noted. Comment#2 2. The time and exoense taken for thestudy is both extraorcinaty and frustrating tLs however Response to Comment#2: Comment#3 Lnderstood to be necessar and a wowed undertaking for Improvements tc be constructed. Comment noted. 3. The p-o==.all� a for substantial noun nity fur pLbnrinput and me preferred alternativeComment#4 Response to Comment#3: reflect the mte'esls of a de Lange 'county residents. 4. The analysis is thorough and well documented The impacts Endenvironriental:onseque ces Comment noted. Comment#5 ereerydet.ded. Response to Comment#4: 5 regarding the preferred alternative: In response to your comments regarding . It IS extremely broad,le the point of beinf all-inclusive In the absence of a mo'e narrow nrpu, ,the :pow Lore, ,nf transportation improvements,please see General of this cnn a=mus apernaB.o me n e tar t ro most stakeholders and avow:-le.�nmtymrnmce,in me future by not precluding Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. elemer=s now Response to Comment#5: b. secoguizes and addresses the protect pie-pose of pray ming m.rlti-nodal travel opt on, Comment noted. n the corridor we concur thct there is a mix of motility safety,modal.and ervironnental con;,deration rrevsio,s it"the preferred alternative. t The ad element mpo'athe recto of transit through Port comm, Response to Comment#6: and and Berthoud to ast,racks in Longmont/Denver. Comment noted.In response to your comments d. the elemerts(lanes and Lnterthargea along I-25 allow for mprcvec mobility cur bed regarding transportation improvements,please see Comment#6 pa and buses General Response#0—Funding and Phasing 6. Regarding phaseur P g a. we concur withthat the eaucevt l commuter rail moves forward,then preserving right- Issues. oftway n s5 possible s mportart. Undert Ing geed acgc' ton at a later date has has greater impact.and pests. B-241 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response As you are aware, Phase 1 was identified through a collaborative decision making process with the Mr.Tom Amid project's two advisory committees.General September ge 2 27,2011 Response#0-Phasing and Funding Issues describes in more detail how these projects were b. The inclusion of express bus service along the l-3s and Us 85 corridors during this Initial identified and pflodtized.A couple of items should be phase provides needed transit con sections into the Denver metro area and the also be noted: Fast racks system. • In order to widen I-25 between SH 56 and SH c. T,e nterchange improvements at 5-I14,Prospect aid fisher interim improvements at 66,the Mead interchange must be reconstructed SH 3c are Important components for safety and mobility m me junction between therefore funds for this project can't be redirect highway and meal roads. d. The addition of acceleration/decelerat oil lanes between St 14 and SH 392 will to extending the auxiliary lanes. improve merge and weaving difficulties. However,In 2035, he highest volume • The Mead interchange is in the D RCOG demands in the northern Colorado corridor at in thevidnity ohUS 3o Vie would planning region and the funds identified for this -cpvest consideration of Phase 1 fuming to be shined I perba ps from US 34 or Mead improvement are from the DRCOG funding pool. interchange improvements]so the continuousaccel/decel lane can be extended to Us The auxiliary lane extension that you refer to is 31.This change would appear to better serve the current and anticipated travel demand patterns and regionalconneaimty in northern Colorado between the communities of within the NFRMPO region and therefore Port Collins.Loveland.Windsor,Greeley and Johnstown. funding would need to be identified from the e. The construction of the third lane between SH 46 and SH 56 is supported.We do NFRMPO pool of funds. request additional nformation or consideration on why this is a Tolled Express Lane The funds being used for improvements at US (TEL)and not a general purpose lane.Seven miles of TEL nes that do not connect to • anything eithw north orsouh seems odd and more explanation of how this phase 34 are local funds specifically identified for this would function and operate seems warranted interchange and can also not be reallocated to Comment#7 ). summary comment: it is helpful for northern Colorado's transportation future to have an any other location. approved and final zed document that has examined a wide range of options,determined impacts for very broad range of elements,and defined a"system temcctthese needs. However,the project cost Coupled with current funding does not allow it CO be fully The Tolled Express Lanes between SH 66 and SH implemented in noble tmeframe. further discussions will needed in the future on a 56 will be the first phase of a larger tolled express reasonable approach to implementation_ system that is planned as part of the Preferred Alternative.Initially it will act as a bus queue jump Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we apxxeoate the won of me project tear,. and a short section of congestion relief for its users. Sincerely, In addition it will reduce the impact of the lane drop northbound by gradually reducing capacity of the FHE BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS northbound lanes during Phase 1 —from three general purpose to two general purpose and a tolled express lane,rather than a lane drop from three Tom Donnelly,Chair general purpose to two general purpose lanes. Response to Comment#7: Comment noted. B-242 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response LO-05 Responses to City of Longmont Comments Longmont,CO Public Works& Vatura Resources app LONps 2-3 Longmont V'� 68 501 Ore.31Itl3V Fes;303165!E3 > tt .,vcl on.n.v. October 3.2011 Carol Parr,P.E. North -25 EIS Project Manager CDOT Region 0 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80831 Re: Comments on North 625 Final Environmental Impact Study Dear Carol: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in and provide comments on this important Transportation Planning Project. The Cily of Longmont is very pleased to be involved in this project. Attached is a Letter signed by Mayor Baum,and endorsed by the Longmont City Council, indicating support for tho preferred alternative includod in the Final North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement with one suggested change—the passing track should be further evaluated north of Longmont where investment has already been made to facilitate a passing/siding track, without an impact to the quality of life for our citizens. Additionally,the City of Longmont is requesting additional information about the link between the proposed rail line in the final EIS and the Northwest commuter rail Eno planned to terminate at 16 Avenue/Main Street(US 287)in downtown Longmont. Also attached are comments and suggestion provided by the City of Longmont Transportation Advisory Board(TAB). We look forward to continuing this process with you,and once again,thank you for the opportunty to be involved in this regional planning effort. Respectfully, Bob Bali,P.E. Traffic Engineer Attachments: 1. Letter of Support from Mayor Baum and the Longman City Council 2. City of Longmont Transportation Advisory Board(TAB;comments B-243 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Response to comment#1: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR&CITY COUNCIL t honedr The proposed passing track locations are based on g > y;WIN a study that took in to account preliminary rail service frequencies,travel time and station locations of the North Metro service as well as this project's September v,zm1 c°'ax4D/ extension of that service to Fort Collins.These Johnny Olson,Director factors are critical to development of the train meet CDOT Region 4 locations which define the location of the passing 14202"Street MAYOR track. Greeley,Colorado 80631 50>-mta02 MAYOR PRO TOM To date this information indicates that a passing Dear Mr.Olson, Gem mew, 30irsm05 track will be needed in the Longmont area as The Longmont City Council previously supported Alternative Ain the described in the Final EIS.However,when the North North 1.25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and is Metro service plan and travel times are finalized,the pleased to see this alternative included in the Final EIS.As such,the MEMBERS: Longmont City Council supports the Colorado Department of Ward passing track locations for service to Fort Collins will Transportafion(CDOT)preferred alternative included in the Final EIS be reviewed and finalized. with one change suggested—the location of the passing rail track insrsi:de The location of passion rail track within the Longmont City limits is ofWant II Because the commuter rail design and construction Comment#1lots Witt activities are not included in this Phase 1 ROD,there great concern to us. The purpose of the passing track meets the am-am-ao6 intent of moving trains between Denver and Fort Collins.except that will be a re-evaluation of this issue if these elements it is proposed to occur within a major population center. Longmont is s�nmcoe are proposed for a subsequent ROD. not the appropriate location for this type of activity. The Cry would 101-B15-1056 request that passing track be further evaluated north of Longmont e.->,.� Response to comment#2: where investment has already been made to facilitate passing/siding MAO Lamm track,without an impact to the quality of life for our citizens. 3O3A3la0A This project will build a rail track connecting the a-1A,xe Northwest Rail's 1st and Main St.station to the Additionally,the City of Longmon is requesting additional information - planned Sugar Mill station at full build-out of the Comment#2 about the link between the proposed rail line in the Final EIS to the RA-M2-521a Preferred Alternative.Northwest Rail trains will then Northwest commuter rail line planned to terminate at 1F Avenue and Main Street in downtown Longmont. Iris unclear whether the two rail terminate at Sugar Mill rather than 1st and Main St. lines connect via rail track or other means and is important for us to Specifically,a track extension between the 1st and fully understand. Longmont Main St.station and Sugar Mill will utilize the existing Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed BNSF track west of Sugar Mill,follow this track Final EIS for the North 1-25 corridor. The City of Longmont supports ti&AraerRa ilu heading west through the existing Martin Street the proposed regional fiansportation improvements in the EIS with the changes suggested and looks forward to future improvements crossing,and then west along 1st Avenue.Between within the corridor. Martin Street and Main Street,a new track will be On behalf ofthe Longmont City Council, 2006 installed that runs parallel to the existing BNSF track. Vo, 7-4,r-____ Both tracks will continue to join the proposed Northwest Rail tracks. Passengers wishing to May s�ryan Baum transfer between Northwest Rail service and the Fort Collins/Thomton rail service will need to walk across FM Fits"'kissing'6.55 655 1+.5.P.763P a,Coo¢C 6161516 a platform at Sugar Mill to complete the transfer. 050 KARMA M.W ow v t.CO 80501 Phone()OS 151 0601 ?a'(303)1510010 B-244 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Response to Comment#1 Because the diamond configuration interchange is City of Longmont Transportation Advisory Board efficient,cost effective and has a relatively small September 26,2011 footprint,it was identified as the preferred configuration in most locations.However,when The City of Longmont Transportation Advisory Board supports the Preferred environmental impacts,traffic volumes or property Alternative identified in the North T-25 Final Environmental impact Study with the impacts were found to be unfavorable for a diamond following comments: configuration,alternative interchange designs were considered. Comment#1 • Consideration should be given to alternative interchange designs that do not Response to Comment#2 require traffic signal control and the associated delays. Transit stations were designed using RTD's latest Comment#2 • Insure that transit stations have adequate shelters and facilities for transit riders. guidance and provide shelters,benches,trash receptacles,lighting,bus bays,drop off zones and Comment#3 • The railroad Quiet Zones identified as mitigation of the increased horn noise from ticketing areas to serve patrons. commuter rail traffic are critically important to offset the increased train horn noise and it is critical that the implementation of Quiet Zones to mitigate the train Response to Comment#3 horn noise be funded by the project The importance of the comment is acknowledged. The preferred train horn abatement action is to Comment#4 • Well coordinated feeder bus service is critical to the success of the express bus implement quiet zones in Longmont,which would be service along I-25. The feeder bus service should be included in Phase 1,and funded by the project. Please note that quiet zones both the feeder bus service and express bus service should be implemented early will still require the full participation of the agencies in Phase 1. that own/maintain the affected streets(i.e.,the City Comment#5 • Determination of how transit services that pass from the North Front Range MPO of Longmont)as the lead sponsor for those into the RTD Service area will he managed will he critical to the success of transit crossings. operations and consideration of this challenge should begin very soon. Response to Comment#4 Comment#6 • The end of the line station for Northwest Rail in Longmont is shown on the cast In response to your comments regarding side of US 287;all document figures should he corrected to show the station on transportation improvements,please see General the west side of US 287/Main Street. Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues. Comment#7 • insure that a connection between the Commuter Rail and the Express Bus Service Please note that the city,as a member of RTD,could to DIA is included in the plan. work with RTD to restructure the local bus t routes to Comment#8 • A transit connection between Greeley and Loveland,as was shown in Package A ' b provide service that would connect to residents to should be included in the Preferred Alternative. the Preferred Alternative Express bus station at Comment#9 • Consideration should be given to a Commuter Bus stop or station in Commerce SH 119 and I-25. City. Response to Comment#5 We agree that a critical component of implementation of all transit service assumed for Phase 1 and the Preferred Alternative is development of a regional transit agency that has B-245 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response funding for and assumes responsibility for operations of transit service to connect the North Front Range MPO area with the RTD service area.The City of Fort Collins is in the process of conducting a governing and funding study to operate transit service at a regional level,which may be a possible solution. Response to Comment#6 The incorrect station location has been corrected in the Record of Decision for the NW Rail end of line station.Refer to Section J.8 and Appendix A for further clarification. Response to Comment#7 There will be a connection between the Commuter Rail and the express bus service to DIA.Commuter rail patrons would be able to disembark at the Erie station(I-25 and Weld County Road 8)and then connect to express bus service at that same station that travels along E-470 to DIA. Response to Comment#8 The Preferred Alternative includes express bus service along US 34 from Greeley to I-25.Bus service that continues along US 34 to Loveland was not included because it did not serve the purpose and need for the North I-25 project.Such service could easily be added in the future as a part of another project. Response to Comment#9 A Commuter Bus station in Commerce City has been included in the Preferred Alternative and in Phase 1. It is located at 72nd Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. B-246 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation, ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response LO-06 Responses to Weld County Comments Weld County B6I-201 OFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I PHONE: 970-336-7204 Comment#1 ,� .✓/�' FAX: 970-352-0242 In response to your comments regarding 1150O STREET transportation improvements,please see General W E L O NTT P.O.BOX 758 Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues.A 'uI GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 collaborative decision-making process was used to identify the elements in Phase 1.These included safety improvements as well as the preservation of right of way for commuter rail among other needs. October 3,2011 The stakeholders identified a strong desire to show a Ms.Carol Parr,P.E. commitment to the construction of rail.This was CDOT Project Manager achieved by including the purchase of all new right- 1420 2 Street of-way needed for commuter rail in Phase 1.The Greeley,CO80631 elements of Phase 1 balance the multiple needs Re: Comments Regarding the North 1-25 EIS identified through the collaborative decision-making process.In addition,purchase of commuter rail ROW Dear Ms.Parr: in Phase1 would likely result in an overall cost- saving because this ROW would be purchased The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County has reviewed the North 1-25 FEIS Report. before additional development occurs. The Board believes that many components of the Preferred Alternative would provide significant benefits for Northern Colorado and its citizens. With this in mind,the Board offers the following It should be noted that elements of the Preferred comments regarding the Report: Alternative not included in Phase 1 can move forward with implementation as funding for them is - The safety improvements included within the Preferred Alternative should be given a higher identified through the statewide planning process Comment#1 priority over the purchase of right-of-way for commuter rail. and the improvements are included in the - The Report should shift the US 85 commuter bus from Greeley to Denver to Phase Two of conforming,fiscally-constrained long range plan. the Record of Decision so that crucial funding for safety improvements may be completed in Comment#2 Phase One. Comment#2 - The Report should describe in further detail the construction phasing for the Record of In response to your comments regarding Comment#3 Decision and describe what triggers warrant the different components of the Preferred transportation improvements,please see General Alternative. Response#0—Funding and Phasing Issues.The collaborative decision-making process resulted in the Comment#4 - If tolled laves are installed onl-25,travelers must be able to freely exit the interstate to access inclusion of US 85 commuter bus service in Phase 1 adjacent communities. to improve modal options and mobility along this important corridor. - Additional analysis and involvement should be included in the report for ditch relocations. Comment#5 - The Report should identify demands for right-of-way and how right-of-way will be reserved Comment#6 in the region's various jurisdictions. B-247 NORTH I-25 EIS information.cooperation,transportation. ID No./Agency Local Government Comment Response Comment#3 Leger,Parr The MPO planning process to develop transportation October 3,2011 Page improvement programs is the mechanism that determines the prioritization of the Preferred Comment#7 - Given the substantial construction costs of Phase One,further detail regarding the funding Alternative implementation.As elements of the sources for the projects is needed. Preferred Alternative have funding and are included After reviewing the Preferred Alternative,the Board is concerned that commuter rail component and in the fiscally-constrained plan,re-assessments of the various tolled express lanes will not be cost effective. For this mason,Weld County's preference the Final EIS and Subsequent RODS would be is that the safety improvements, structures and maintenance operations be given a priority for prepared. finding over rail right-of-way purchases and toll lane construction. Comment#4 Thank you for the opportunityto comment on the North I-25 FRS Report. If you have questions or There will be designated access and egress points wish to discuss this letter,please contact Commissioner Doug Rademacher at(970)356-4000,ext. between the TELs and the general purpose lanes on 4200. I-25.While all communities will be served,some Sincerely, motorists may be required to exit the TELs in advance of their exits to reach their desired destination. Bar amb eytt,C Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Comment#5 As CDOT begins preliminary design on individual pc: Janet Caner projects CDOT will coordinate with local Bruce T.Barker stakeholders regarding ditch relocations and other property impacts. Comment#6 CDOT is committed to working with each jurisdiction to prepare a user friendly document tailored to each jurisdiction that summarizes the right-of-way needs from the Final EIS. Comment#7 We understand that Weld County is interested in having a larger discussion on financing strategies to implement transportation improvements.Even though financing strategies were not evaluated as part of the Final EIS,it does not limit pursuing alternative financing strategies.CDOT or another entity such as HPTE or local agencies can propose financing strategies that could be considered B-248 NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Record of Decision lIkk.ftelbeelberbses OT 1 Federal Highway ann. ra Administrati n wan DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATioN December 2011 gI ELSIiURO HOLT & ULLEVIG NORTH I-25 EIS icy 1420 2ND STREET NORTH I-25 > , GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 (970)350-2170 EIS (970)350-2177 www.CDOT.INFO/NORTHI25EtS/ n for mrlatron cooperation_ n airs par tat ion. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Weld County Administration Building Date: January 12, 2012 Address: Weld County Administration Building 1150 "O" Street Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: North I-25 EIS Record of Decision - For Public Viewing The following items are transmitted. Herewith ® Under Separate Cover 0 via Courier❑ U.S. Mail ® Overnight Delivery ❑ Item Copies Description/Remarks 1 1 Record of Decision (including Appendices A & B) Hard Copy Enclosed is the North 1-25 EIS Record of Decision. Please make this document available at your location for viewing by interested members of the public. This Record of Decision follows the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which was provided for public viewing at your location starting in August 2011. Additional information is available on the project website at: www.coloradodot.info/proiects/north-i25-eis. The following individual may be contact for additional information: dia Carol Parr 21 _. of Project Manager in 3rn Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 na 1420 2nd Street jm til we Greeley, CO 80632 (970) 350-2170 Carol.parr@dot.state.co.us m rn� V. - The above items are submitted: At your request ❑ For your review 0 For your files ❑ For your approval ❑ For your action ® For your information ❑ cc: NI25EIS FHU Project File 03-225 Sender: Carol Parr—CDOT Region 4 Project Manager NORTH I-25 EIS 1420 2N°STREET NORTH 1-25 `x GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 (970)350-2170 WELD COUNTY EIS (970) 350-2177 COMMISSIONERS www.GDOT.INFO/NORTHI25EIS/ information cooperation transportation 1011 JAN 18 A11: 13 • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED To: Doug Rademacher Date: January 13, 2012 Address: Weld County 1111 H Street Greeley, CO 80632 Subject: North 1-25 EIS Record of Decision - December 2011 The following items are transmitted: Herewith ® Under Separate Cover ❑ via Courier❑ U.S. Mail ® Overnight Delivery ❑ Item Copies Description/Remarks 1 1 Record of Decision - December 2011 (on CD) Dear North 1-25 TAC/RCC Member: Enclosed is an electronic copy of the North 1-25 EIS Record of Decision for your information. This Record of Decision follows the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which was issued in August 2011. Additional information is available on the project website at: www.coloradodot.info/proiects/north-i25-eis. If you have any questions, please contact Carol Parr at CDOT (970.350.2170). Thanks. Carol The above items are submitted: At your request ❑ For your review ❑ For your files For your approval ❑ For your action ❑ For your information cc: NI25EIS FHU Project File 03-225 Sender Carol Parr— CDOT Region 4 Project Manager Hello