The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112397.tiff NorthNORTH I-25 1 EIS dem" , - 25 information . cooperation, transportation . I Aria Epviroriffierita .. rn pact _ .. . .._ .. . ., . . . . .. . ,...., . ....,.. ...,, "77 - t•-•.' • — y // . _ . am. -s+..sti, State merit __ _ . . ,• ......_._. . . ___ . ... . . ,_ .... .. 4 4 _^ 0 1IS aler- y' ..V' 1 - to • r.I t..� . 1. ./ .f t - / • 1 i .". r _-.� —_ - - C . � - �I .�•. \ .y - '.-.. 1/4 `Fj •- 1/4 D• M1t t. . - 61!"--- 4: -: - :I; 4g/filer? --* 1 1 •r \ rrss �• „ . } 1 �e. ,-- dim) . ^ a + T .i o —%•••11. - T . 1: "rjr. r. • •. "7' ..A. �Y.+ ...{'JI. .�5.r �•.l. ti L'-1,7..,- .. t� 1�'f\♦ • ,]j , (.`T 1} r *�7'�0;Vi--•IL ,,.'t l'... n„ �. • � Ili*, ,, �4 t ck- 1 ,fl•M • �(F/t Syfy , .v Ai*rat]W"4 •• , ;war` 1?-;1OP" lli 'iitvall - 4.',�" �'; �` .,j • ?l/s r .^S�1, :. r+�• -.. . ;i ✓� - �� ' ,•tea .�r {� AG -- t. ••••3Niro X, •C W- -,-... +4 VOLUME 3 of 3 1.4W.+.W.•./...1 N.. DOT 2011 -2397 any. �� U.S. Deportment of Transportation 2011 -2398 1 Federal Highway rAugust 2011 vAdministration 0 APPENDIX 11 . _ 4— _.+ ....:v___♦.. r -r - —. - - - - 1 y - '� - :� Cii7t `�►• s P., . . • -' s T.... At f. of.. F • T j a- • 'K_" ••••r it �4 .: - _ • • as- I. nvii is eiN r � i1. 3 - f _ ; ` lit 4. - _ • 1 - 1 . gliSt. -,- 1 / . i ; lillic 4 � � y r -� IP _ , = `-4.i -64 i •-•rt . 1 ___ Pubhc • _ nvovei lent iiimp, N ORTH I-25 EIS -------„....„.„. information . cooperation . transportati • transportation . Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX D PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL AGENCY COORDINATION This appendix documents public involvement activities that have occurred throughout the EIS process. The following table includes the documentation of public involvement activities, including local and regional agencies (listed in the order they are presented). Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials December 1, 2005 CDOT Press Releases December 2, 2005 January 28, 2004 N/A Invitations to open house public meetings February 2004 Newsletters June 2004 October 2004 June 2005 January 2006 October 2006 • N/A North 1-25 Fact Sheet N/A Form letter sent to organizations for outreach on environmental justice August 10, 2007 Household Travel Survey mailed to 10,000 homes N/A Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners Level Three Screening Town Hall Meetings January 23, 2006 Aztlan Community Center, Ft. Collins January 24, 2006 Windsor Community Center January 25, 2006 Frederick Town Hall January 26, 2006 Thornton City Hall January 30, 2006 Gilcrest Valley High School January 31, 2006 Mead Town Hall February 1, 2006 Longmont Museum February 2, 2006 Loveland Public Library February 6, 2006 Greeley Recreation Center February 7, 2006 Harmony Library, Ft. Collins February 15, 2006 Southwest Weld County Complex February 16, 2006 Milliken Town Hall Level Two Screening Public Meetings June 15, 2005 Greeley Recreation Center June 17, 2005 Lincoln Center, Ft. Collins June 21, 2005 Loveland Police and Court Building June 23, 2005 Radisson Hotel, Longmont Level One Screenin Public Meetings October 21. 2004 McKee Conference and Wellness Center, Loveland October 26, 2004 Lincoln Center, Ft. Collins October 28, 2004 Greeley Recreation Center • Public,Local,and Regional Coordination Page D-1 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date j Description of Materials Purpose& Need Public Meetings June 22, 2004 Evans Recreation Center, Evans June 24, 2004 Loveland Museum June 29, 2004 Margaret W. Carpenter Recreation Center July 1, 2004 Lincoln Center, Ft. Collins Scoping Public Meetings February 3, 2004 Greeley Recreation Center February 5, 2004 Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 10, 2004 Ft. Collins Southern Connectivity Public Meetings November 13, 2006 Northglenn Recreation Center November 15, 2006 Southwest Weld County Complex Letters between the 65th Colorado General Assembly and CDOT March 31, 2006 Letter asking CDOT to keep Exit 254 open April 12, 2006 CDOT Response letter to Representative Jim Welker Regional Transportation District(RTD) December 3, 2003 CDOT invitation for representation on travel forecasting work group sent to NFRMPO, DRCOG, and RTD (see form letter in the DRCOG section below) December 17, 2003 Letter from FHWA and FTA to RTD requesting them to be cooperating agency January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team February 2, 2004 Letter from RTD accepting FHWA invitation to be cooperating agency April 20, 2004 Meeting to discuss FasTracks implications • May 4, 2005 Briefing of RTD Board member Lee Kemp on transit issues June 6, 2005 Meeting with RTD Board member Lee Kemp March 31, 2006 Meeting to discuss use of park-n-Rides and cost assumptions April 9, 2007 Coordination meeting between the NFRMPO and RTD May 14, 2007 Coordination meeting: NFRMPO and RTD North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) August 28, 2003 Meeting to discuss travel forecasting approach December 3, 2003 CDOT invitation for representation on travel forecasting work group sent to NFRMPO, DRCOG, and RTD (see form letter in the DRCOG section below) August 4, 2005 Coordination meeting November 17, 2005 Coordination meeting February 27, 2006 Meeting to discuss the two DEIS build packages March 3, 2006 Meeting to discuss results of Level 3 screening March 27, 2006 CDOT Park and Ride scoping meeting with county sheriffs (see minutes in the Ad Hoc Meetings section below) May 9, 2006 Meeting on commuter rail alignments May 15, 2006 Meeting to discuss land use and rail options March 1, 2007 Meeting with the MPO Planning Council and the new CDOT Executive Director April 9, 2007 Status meeting between the NFRMPO and RTD (see minutes in the RTD section above) May 14, 2007 Status meeting between the NFRMPO and RTD (see minutes in the RTD section above) Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) September 2, 2003 Meeting at DRCOG to discuss travel forecasting approach December 3, 2003 CDOT invitation for representation on travel forecasting work group sent to DRCOG, NFRMPO, and RTD January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team • Public,Local,and Regional Coordination Page D-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials May 17, 2004 Presentation of Purpose and Need to the DRCOG TAC Ad Hoc Meetings with Multiple Local Agencies January 16, 2004 Meeting with Northern Colorado Communities planners and elected officials September 23, CDOT invitation letters to Smart Growth Meeting sent to six counties and 28 cities 2004 and towns March 27, 2006 CDOT Park and Ride scoping meeting with NFRMPO and county sheriffs October 17, 2006 Meeting with Erie, Frederick, and Dacono on transit alignment and stations City and County of Broomfield March 8, 2006 Comment letter on the Level 3 packages March 30, 2006 Transmittal letter of requested local plans and concepts December 11, 2006 CDOT request to review technical memo on design assumptions related to local road crossings of 1-25 City of Fort Collins October 28, 2005 Meeting to discuss transit and station locations December 15, 2005 Meeting regarding viability of BRT on the BNRR freight tracks February 19, 2008 Letter to City of Fort Collins requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Spring Creek Trail February 19, 2008 Letter of concurrence from City of Fort Collins regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Spring Creek Trail February 19, 2008 Letter to City of Fort Collins requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Fossil Creek Drive Trail • Town of Frederick August 10, 2006 Letter supporting Alignment S for commuter rail November 7, 2007 Response letter from CDOT City of Loveland March 13, 2006 Meeting to discuss US 34 interchange planning May 31, 2006 Meeting to decide on US 34 interchange concept to advance in the DEIS City of Northglenn December 11, 2006 CDOT request to review technical memo on design assumptions related to local road crossings of 1-25 March 30, 2007 Meeting regarding potential impacts to Grant Park May 14, 2007 Meeting to discuss impacts to Grant Park January 28, 2008 Letter to City of Northglenn requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail January 28, 2008 Letter of concurrence from City of Northglenn regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail City of Thornton December 11, 2006 CDOT request to review technical memo on design assumptions related to local road crossings of 1-25 July 18, 2006 Transportation Planning Manager's comments on rail alignment and station location Great Western Railway April 14, 2006 Meeting to discuss how various GWRR rail facilities relate to Package A May 15, 2006 Meeting to continue discussions on facilities and operations October 31, 2006 Meeting to discuss commuter rail possibilities, frontage road at-grade crossings, and the five GWRR crossings with 1-25 and the associated frontage roads. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad(BNSF) • March 18, 2005 f Meeting with BNSF to discuss possible commuter rail corridors Public,Local,and Regional Coordination Page D-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials August 20, 2007 Transmittal of Level 3 Alternatives with Commuter Rail to BNSF Union Pacific Railroad September 26, Meeting with UPRR on the two locations of 1-25 and UPRR crossings 2006 City of Longmont January 28, 2008 Letter to City of Longmont requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Oligarchy Primary Greenway Town of Wellington January 31, 2008 Letter to Town of Wellington requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Box Elder Creek Trail City of Westminster February 20, 2008 Letter to City of Westminster requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Dry Creek Trail February 20, 2008 Letter of concurrence from City of Westminster regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Dry Creek Trail Distribution of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials Various n/a Draft EIS Distribution List RTD October 29, 2008 1 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Regional Transportation District • Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 26, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Town of Berthoud—Parks and Recreation Department November 26, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation District City of Fort Collins—Natural Resources Department November 26, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board October 29, 2008 1 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board Greeley Historic Preservation Commission October 29, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the Greeley Historic Preservation Board Longmont Historic Preservation Commission November 12, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Longmont Historic Preservation Commission City of Longmont—Parks, Open Space, and Public Facilities Department November 26, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the City of Longmont Parks, Open Space, and Public Facilities Department City of Loveland—Parks and Recreation Department November 26, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department City of Northglenn—Parks and Recreation Department November 26, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department City of Thornton—Community Services November 26, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the City of Thornton Community Services • Public,Local,and Regional Coordination Page D-4 Final EIS NORTH I25 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Following the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials October 2008 Project Newsletter(English and Spanish) October 31, 2008 Draft EIS Notice of Availability November 5, 2008 Draft EIS News Release November 2008 Draft EIS Public Hearing Transcripts November 18, 2008—Longmont November 19, 2008—Fort Collins November 20, 2008—Loveland November 2008 Specialized Outreach Flyer- Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision (English and Spanish) November 2008 Specialized Outreach Flyer-City of Longmont(English and Spanish) October 26, 2010 Presentation from specialized outreach meeting with the City of Longmont January 4, 2010 News Release regarding Preferred Alternative City of Ft. Collins March 31, 2011 Meeting minutes from meeting with the City of Ft. Collins to discuss wetland mitigation April 11, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Fort Collins regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Fossil Creek Drive Trail June 2, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Fort Collins regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Arapaho Bend and Archery Range Natural Areas City of Longmont July 27, 2009 Meeting minutes from meeting with City of Longmont to discuss the Boulder Creek • Estates 4(f) Issues March 9, 2010 Letter to City of Longmont requesting concurrence with joint planning for the proposed future City of Longmont Park— Boulder Creek Estates. Concurrence signature received on September 10, 2010. May 2, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Longmont regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Sandstone Ranch and Railroad Alignment Trail City of Loveland April 11, 2011 Letter to the City of Loveland requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail April 14, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Loveland regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail City of Northglenn May 13, 2011 Letter to the City of Northglenn requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the 120 Avenue Transit Station Underpass May 21, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Northglenn regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass City of Thornton February 17, 2011 Letter from the City of Thornton to CDOT Re: Effects to Civic Center Park March 18, 2011 Letter to the City of Thornton requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail April 28, 2011 Letter of concurrence from City of Thornton regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail • Public,Local,and Regional Coordination Page D-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Following the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials City of Westminster March 14, 2011 Meeting minutes from meeting with the City of Westminster to discuss wetland mitigation April 15, 2011 Letter to City of Westminster requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Dry Creek Trail and Farmers Highline Canal Trail May 22, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Westminster regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Farmers Highline Canal Trail May 22, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the City of Westminster regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Dry Creek Trail Town of Berthoud January 20, 2011 Letter to Town of Berthoud requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Little Thompson Corridor Open Space March 2, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the Town of Berthoud regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Little Thompson Corridor Open Space Town of Wellington April 11, 2011 Letter to the Town of Wellington requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Box Elder Creek Trail—amendment to January 21, 2008 letter. April 13, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the Town of Wellington regarding the Section 4(f) Determination for the Box Elder Creek Trail North Front Range MPO April 30, 2009 Meeting minutes from meeting with North Front Range MPO to discuss modeling effort for Phase I and Preferred Alternative • DRCOG October 22, 2009 Meeting minutes from meeting with DRCOG to discuss plan amendments and conformity November 11, 2009 Meeting minutes from meeting with DRCOG to discuss funding assumptions for Phase I modeling effort August 18, 2010 Meeting minutes from meeting with DRCOG to discuss 2035 plan Travel Forecast Working Group November 9, 2010 Travel Forecast Working Group Materials November 23, 2010 Travel Forecast Working Group Materials Small Group Meeting December 8, 2008 Meeting minutes from small group meeting -Weld County Commissioner December 8, 2008 Meeting minutes from small group meeting - Larimer County Work Session December 8, 2008 Meeting minutes from small group meeting-Greeley Citizen Transportation Advisory December 9, 2008 Meeting minutes from small group meeting- Loveland City Council December 16, 2008 Meeting minutes from small group meeting -Town of Frederick January 6, 2009 Meeting minutes from small group meeting -Town of Berthoud Council February 10, 2009 Meeting minutes from small group meeting -City of Ft. Collins • Public,Local,and Regional Coordination Page D-6 Public Involvement Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS • • Page D-7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Page D-8 • �� DOT • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kim Podobnik 303-689-0704 (office) 303-907-6110 (cell) Colorado Department of Transportation Announces Initiation of Environmental Impact Statement for North I-25 Front Range Corridor THREE YEAR STUDY TO EXAMINE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN NORTHERN COLORADO • LOVELAND,Colo.,Jan. 6,2004—The Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration,announces the initiation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the North 1-25 Front Range Corridor. The study will determine the effect that adding various transportation improvements in Northern Colorado will have on the lives of residents and commuters in the area. The study will produce a draft EIS, a final EIS,and a Record of Decision which is required for using federal transportation funds for future improvements. "CDOT's priority is to provide safe, efficient means of transportation for the citizens of Colorado,"said David M. Martinez,CDOT Project Manager for the North 1-25 Front Range EIS. "This process is the next important step to ensure that the transportation system is able to meet the future needs of the residents of Northern Colorado." The North 1-25 Front Range EIS will draw on findings from earlier studies including the 2000 North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study. That study set a vision that linked surrounding cities and towns through a mix of highway improvements,bus transit and passenger rail. This North 1-25 Front Range EIS is the next step toward improved mobility and safety in the I-25 corridor. • -MORE- Page D-9 North I-25 Front Range EIS • CDOT announces North 1-25 Front Range EIS Page 2 The EIS will explore regional transportation options on 1-25 between Northern Colorado population centers including Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley. The eastern boundary of the study arca will be the US 85 corridor, and the western boundary will be the US 287 corridor. In order to effectively evaluate the use of transit options in this region, the southern boundary of the study area will include Denver Union Station for possible passenger rail and regional bus services. During the EIS process, engineers and environmental analysts will evaluate different transportation options including the addition of lanes and safety features on 1-25, the creation of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, High Occupancy Toll lanes,Bus Rapid Transit lanes and extended/improved bus service. In addition to highway improvements,the team will evaluate the effectiveness of differing passenger rail options to serve citizens and commuters in Northern Colorado. As set out in the National Environmental Policy Act, the study team will also evaluate the no-action alternative. The three-year study is supported by a consultant team contracted by CDOT. The team includes lead • engineering firm Felsburg Holt& Ullevig, environmental services consultant Carter& Burgess, Inc., and public involvement/public relations consultant PRACO, Ltd. Part of the process in developing an Environmental Impact Statement includes reaching out to members of the public to solicit their opinions on the range of alternatives for the communities in the study area. Outreach will consist of a comprehensive program including an official study Web site and a series of meetings and other events to obtain public input Initial public meetings have been scheduled for the following dates and locations: • Feb. 3, 2004-4-7 p.m.—Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10`h Avenue, Greeley, 80631 • Feb. 5, 2004—4-7 p.m.—Southwest Weld County Services Building—4209 Weld County Road 24 'h • Feb. 10,2004—4-7 p.m.—Lincoln Center,417 Magnolia, Fort Collins, 80521 For more information on the North 1-25 Front Range EIS, go to the study's Web site at www.i25northforty.com/EIS or contact Public Outreach Manager Kim Podobnik at 303.689.0704. ### • Page D-10 • OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARA DISTRIBUCION INMEDIATA Contacto: Kim Podobnik 303-689-0704 (oficina) 303-907-6110 (celular) El Departamento de Transporte de Colorado anuncia el inicio del estudio medio-ambiental (EIS) para el corredor node de la I-25 (Front Range) EL ESTUDIO DE TRES ANOS DE DURACION EXAMINARA ALTERNATIVAS PARA MEJORAR LA INFRAESTRUCTURA DE TRANSPORTE EN EL NORTE DE COLORADO • LOVELAND,Colo., 6 de enero del 2004.- El Departamento de Transporte de Colorado(CDOT),junto con la Administration Federal de Carreteras y la Administration Federal de Transito, anuncian el inicio de un estudio de impacto medio-ambicntal (Environmental Impact Statement, EIS,en ingles)para el corredor norte de la I- 25, en la zona conocida como Front Range. El estudio determinara el efecto que la adiciOn de varios nuevos elementos de transporte en el norte de Colorado tendril en las vidas de los residentes y automovilistas del area. El estudio producira un informe preliminar, un informe final,y un Registro de Decision, como se requiere dcbido al use de fondos federales de transporte para futuras obras. "La prioridad de CDOT es proveer medios seguros y eficientes de transporte para los ciudadadnos de Colorado", dijo David M. Martinez, director de proyecto de CDOT para la 1-25 Norte Front Range. "Este proceso es el siguiente paso importance para asegurarnos que el sistema de transporte puede satisfaccr las futuras necesidades de los residentes del none de Colorado". El estudio EIS de la 1-25 None Front Range usara estudios anteriores,como cl Estudio de Posibilidades Alternativas de Transporte en la Zona Norte del Front Range, del aiio 2000. Ese estudio puso en marcha una vision, la de conectar ciudades y localidades por medio de mejores carreteras, mils transporte publico y mils • ferrocaril suburbano de pasajeros. -MAS- Page D-11 North 1-25 Front Range MS-ESPANOL • CDOT anuncia nuevo estudio Vagina 2 El nuevo estudio que ahora se anuncia es el siguiente paso para mejorar la movilidad y la seguridad en el corredor de la I-25. El nuevo estudio explorara optiones regionales de transporte a lo largo de la 1-25 y entre los centros poblados del none de Colorado,incluyendo a Fort Collins, Loveland y Greeley. Al este, el limite del estudio es el corredor de la carretera US 85. Y al oeste, es el corredor de la carretera US 287. Para evaluar adecuadamente el uso de las opciones de transporte publico en esta region, el limite sur del estudio incluye a la Denver Union Station,por posibles servicios de trenes suburbanos y de autobuses regionales. Mientras dure el estudio, ingenieros y analistas del medio ambiente evaluaran distintas opciones de transporte, incluyendo la construction de nuevos carriles y la instalacion de medidas de seguridad en la I-25, la creation de carriles exclusivos para vehiculos con mas de un ocupante(HOV,en ingles), el uso de carriles con peaje, carriles para autobuses, y la ampliacion del servicio de buses. Ademas de la construction en la carretera, se evaluara la e£ectividad del transporte de pasajeros por ferrocarril para servir a los pasajeros del none de Colorado. Y como to prescribe el Acta Nacional de Politicas del Medio Ambiente, el estudio tambien evaluara • la alternativa de no hacer nada. El estudio cuenta con el respaldo de una equipo consultor contratado por CDOT. Ese equipo incluye a la firma de ingenieria Felsburg Holt& Ullevig, a los consultores ambicntalistas do Carter& Burgess, Inc., y a la agenda de relaciones publicas PRACO, Ltd. Parte del proceso del nuevo estudio es invitar la participation del public()para solicitar opiniones sobre las distintas altemativas en las comunidades comprendidas en el estudio. Para Ilegar al publico se usaran varisas estrategias, incluyendo un sitio de Internet y una serie de rcuniones publicas. La primera serie de reuniones tendra lugar en estos dias y horarios: • 3 de feb. del 2004—4-7 p.m.—Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10th Avenue, Greeley, 80631 • 5 de feb. del 2004-4-7 p.m.-Southwest Weld County Services Building—4209 Weld County Road 24 '/1 • 10 de feb. del 2004—4-7 p.m.—Lincoln Center, 417 Magnolia, Fort Collins, 80521 • -MAS- Page D-12 • North 1-25 Front Range EIS—ESPANOL CDOT anuncia nuevo estudio Pagina 3 Para mas informacion sobre este estudio, visitar www.i25northforty.com/EIS o llamar a Kim Podobnik, coordinadora de alcance al publico, al 303.689.0704. ### • • Page D-13 /• i OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kim Podobnik 303-689-0704 (office) 303-907-6110 (cell) The Colorado Department of Transportation is Listening PUBLIC INPUT IS CRITICAL TO STUDY EXAMINING IMPROVEMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN NORTHERN COLORADO LOVELAND, Colo.,Jan. 28,2004—Like most people,you have probably headed out of your neighborhood one morning and been surprised to see that orange cones and"Road Work Ahead" signs have appeared • seemingly overnight. Do you ever wonder how the decision is made to rebuild the road that takes you back and forth to work everyday?How can you have a voice in that decision?Now is your chance. The Colorado Department of Transportation will host open houses to take public input about which transportation options will most improve mobility and safety for those who travel 1-25 north of Denver. The open houses are part of a three-year study called the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This study is co-led by the Federal Highway Administration,Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with CDOT. When complete, the study will produce a draft EIS, a final EIS, and a Record of Decision. Initial open houses are scheduled for the following dates and locations: • Feb. 3,2004—4-7 p.m.—Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10th Avenue, Greeley • Feb. 5,2004—4-7 p.m.—Southwest Weld County Services Building—4209 Weld County Road 24 %2 • Feb. 10,2004—4-7 p.m.—Lincoln Center, 417 Magnolia,Fort Collins -MORE- • Page D-14 • North 1-25 Front Range EIS CDOT is Listening Page 2 The public will have the opportunity to share their thoughts and feelings on how they envision the future of transportation along I-25 in Northern Colorado. "Public input is one of the most important elements in this process," said David M. Martinez, CDOT Project Manager for the North 1-25 Front Range EIS. "In order to make recommendations that best serve people commuting and traveling in Northern Colorado, we must hear from them as to which options most closely meet their needs."Anyone interested in this corridor is encouraged to attend the open houses. While the open houses provide important opportunities for citizens to learn about the project and provide comment,they are not the only means of communicating with the project team. Log on to the project Web site at www.i25northforty.com/eis/to submit comments electronically at any time. Comments can also be made via phone at(970)352-5455 or by U.S. Mail to the project office at: N. 1-25 Front Range EIS c/o CDOT Region 4 Engineering Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 About the North 1-25 Front Range EIS: The EIS will explore regional transportation options mainly on I-25 in Northern Colorado,and perhaps also US 85 and US 287. The eastern boundary of the study area will be the US 85 corridor, and the western boundary will be the US 287 corridor. The study will examine the effects various transportation improvements would have on the local environment, as well as the lives of residents and commuters. Engineers and environmental specialists will study a range of alternatives that address highway system connectivity, various forms of public transit,traffic demand/capacity, safety, improved levels of services,and solutions to problems with deteriorating structures and roadways. A"no-action" alternative is also being studied. For more information on the North 1-25 Front Range EIS, go to the study's Web site at • www.i25northforty.com/eis/or contact Public Outreach Manager Kim Podobnik at 303-689-0704. ### Page D-15 NORTH 1-25 EIS • NEWS RELEASE information. cooperation. transportation. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy Crane 303-757-9469 - office 303-207-0179 - pager North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) Announces Second Round of Open Houses Planning,for future transportation improvements in Northern Colorado continues LOVELAND, Colo., June 9,2004—The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, announces the second round of the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)public open house meetings. The events are scheduled for late-June and early-July and are critical opportunities for residents to take an active role in transportation planning in their communities. Four public open houses have been scheduled for the following dates and locations: • June 22, 2004—4-7 p.m.,presentation 5:30 p.m.—Evans Recreation Center Multipurpose Room, 1 100 37th Street, Evans • • June 24, 2004—4-7 p.m., presentation 5:30 p.m. —Loveland Museum and Gallery Auditorium, Fifth Street and Lincoln Avenue, Loveland • June 29, 2004—4-7 p.m., presentation 5:30 p.m. —Thornton Recreation Center Room A, 11151 Colorado Blvd., Thornton • July 1, 2004—4-7 p.m., presentation 5:30 p.m.—Lincoln Center Columbine Room, 417 Magnolia, Fort Collins The first round of open houses, in February 2004, focused on gaining input into which alternatives or solutions the study should evaluate. The second round of meetings represents an opportunity for citizens to review a draft statement outlining the purpose of and need for the EIS. The draft list of alternatives that will be carried forward to the second level of screening will also be available for public comment. "The first round of meetings were tremendously valuable to us in that we received fantastic input from the public on topics that concern them when it comes to transportation," said David M. Martinez, CDOT Project Manager for the North I-25 EIS. "We want to check back in with the public now that the list of alternatives has begun the first round of screening." -MORE- • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-16 NEWS RELEASE NORTH I ZS PAGE 2 • NORTH 1-25 EIS EIS SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES information cooperation. transportation. One of the more important aspects of any EIS is the collection of public comments. Members of the public who are unable to attend any of these events are encouraged to submit comments via the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, phone the project office at(970) 352-5455 or(303) 779-3384 or send a letter to: CDOT Engineering Office, Attn: Dave Martinez, 2207 E. Highway 402, Loveland, CO 80537. About the North I-25 EIS The north I-25 corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years, with 1-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. These growth pressures have brought substantial increases to transportation demand in the corridor. Adding to the pressure, the corridor is a major link in the nationwide interstate highway system serving long distance travel and the transport of goods via truck. As traffic volumes and accidents have increased on I-25 and parallel roadways, there has become a growing awareness of the need to plan for • transportation improvements within this corridor. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated the North I-25 EIS to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. In order to include consideration of multimodal transportation alternatives, the study area extends from US 287 in the west to US 85 in the east. The study area spans portions of seven counties, includes more than 30 communities, two metropolitan planning organizations as well as the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission. The North I-25 EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods and services and represents the next step in evaluating and planning for implementation of transportation improvements in this corridor. For more information on the North I-25 EIS, visit the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ or contact CDOT Public Relations Coordinator Mindy Crane at (303) 757-9469 or North 1-25 EIS Public Involvement Manager Kim Podobnik at(303)779-3392. ### • Page D-17 NORTH I--25 EIS NEWS RELEASE information. cooperation. transportation. PARA DISTRIBUCION INMEDIATA Contacto: Mindy Crane 303-757-9469 - oficina 303-207-0179 -celular El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIS) de Ia 1-25 Norte anuncia su segunda serie de reuniones publicas Continua la planificacion de las mejoras futuras para el transporte en el none de Colorado LOVELAND, Colo., 14 de junio del 2004-El Departamento de Transporte de Colorado (CDOT, en inglos),junto con la Administracion Federal de Carreteras (FHWA) y la Administracion Federal de Transito (FTA), anunciaron la segunda serie de reuniones publicas y recepciones comunitarias sobre el estudio EIS de la I-25 Norte. Estas reuniones, a finales de junio y principios de julio, son oportunidades excelentes para que los residentes de la zona participen activamente en la planificacion del transporte en sus comunidades. Las reuniones publicas y recepciones comunitarias seran estos dias, horarios y lugares: • 22 de junio dcl 2004 —4-7 p.m., presentacion a las 5:30 p.m. —Evans Recreation Center • Multipurpose Room, 1100 37`h Street, Evans • 24 de junio del 2004 —4-7 p.m., presentacion a las 5:30 p.m. — Loveland Museum and Gallery Auditorium, Fifth Street and Lincoln Avenue, Loveland • 29 de junio del 2004 —4-7 p.m., presentacion a las 5:30 p.m. — Thornton Recreation Center Room A, 11151 Colorado Blvd., Thornton • 1 de julio del 2004—4-7 p.m.,presentacion a las 5:30 p.m. — Lincoln Center Columbine Room, 417 Magnolia, Fort Collins La primera serie de reuniones publicas se realizo en febrero del 2004, enfocandose en recibir opiniones sobre las alternativas o soluciones que el publico creia este estudio debia evaluar. La segunda serie de reuniones es una oportunidad excelente para que el publico revise los criterion que se usaran para evaluar las alternativas, y para que analice la lista de alternativas que se aceptaron para formar parte del segundo nivel de seleccion. "La primera serie de reuniones fue muy valiosa para nosotros porque recibimos ideas fantasticas del pUblico sobre los temas que le interesan con respecto al transporte," dijo David M. Martinez, director del proyecto de CDOT para el estudio EIS de la I-25 Norte. "Queremos toner una nueva serie de conversations con el publico ahora que ya ha concluido el primer nivel de seleccion de altemativas." -MAS- • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration-Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-18 NEWS RELEASE NORTH I-2S PAGE 2 • NORTH 1-25 EIS EIS SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES information cooperation. transportation. El estudio EIS busca ademas recibir los comentarios del publico. Las personas que no puedan asistir a las reunions u otros eventos pueden enviar sus comentarios por medio de Internet, en www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, por telefono al (970) 352-5455 o al (303) 779-3384 o por carta a: CDOT Engineering Office, Attn: Dave Martinez, 2207 E. Highway 402, Loveland, CO 80537. Sobre el Estudio EIS de la 1-25 Norte El corredor de la I-25 none es una de las zonas de mayor crecimiento en Colorado en los ultimos altos. Y la columna vertebral de esa sistea es la I-25. Las presiones del crecimiento significan un sustancial aumento en las demandas de transporte en este corredor. Ademas, este corredor es un eslabon importante en el sistema de carreteras interestatales, especialmente para el transporte de bienes por medio de camiones. Al aumentar el trafico, tambien aumenta el numero de accidentes en la I-25 y en calles paralelas. Por eso es necesario un plan para mejorar el transporte en este corredor. • CDOT, FHWA y FTA iniciaron el estudio EIS de la I-25 Norte para identificar y evaluar multiples mejoras de transporte en la I-25 Norte entre Fort Collins-Wellington y Denver. Para estudiar varias alternativas de transporte, el area de estudio va desde Ia US 287 al oeste hasta la US 85 al este, incluyendo porciones de siete condados y 30 comunidades, dos organizaciones de planificacion, y la Comision de Planificacion Regional del Norte del Front Range. El estudio EIS de Ia 1-25 Norte analizara el movimiento regional e interregional de personas, bienes y servicios, y representa cl siguiente pasao en la evaluation y planificacion de alternativas a scr implementadas para mejorar el transporte en este corredor. Para mas information sobre el estudio EIS de la 1-25 Norte, visitar el sitio www.cdot.info/northi25eis/o llamar al Mindy Crane, coordinadora de relaciones publicas de CDOT, al (303) 757-9469. ### • Page D-19 NORTH 1-25 EIS NEWS RELEASE information cooperation. transportation. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy Crane 303-757-9469 -office 303-880-2136 -cell North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Hosts Public Meetings Public invited to comment on transportation improvements for northern Colorado DENVER, October 20, 2006—The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, announces the next round of North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) public meetings in an effort to encourage public participation in future transportation planning. The meetings scheduled for mid-November will provide a first look at the proposed commuter rail alignment that would connect Longmont to Denver without traveling through Boulder. The proposed rail extension would connect northern Colorado passengers to the FasTracks system at both Longmont and Thornton utilizing one station, which will reduce travel time to downtown • Denver. This proposed option was designed in response to the community's interest after the last round of public meetings. The two public meetings have been scheduled for the following dates and locations: • Monday, November 13, 2006, 6-8 p.m. Northglenn Recreation Center- Parkview Room 11801 Community Center Drive, Northglenn • Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 6-8 p.m. Southwest Weld County Complex— Meeting Room 4209 Weld Co Rd 24 '1/2, Longmont "Public participation remains important as design elements are developed and evaluated," said Dave Martinez, CDOT Project Manager for the North 1-25 EIS. "This round of public meetings is an opportunity for the public to learn about the new alignment features and how they will serve surrounding southwest Weld County communities." -MORE- Federal Highway Administration'Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-20 NEWS RELEASE PAGE 2 NORTH I25 • • NORTH 1-25 EIS EIS HOSTS PUBLIC MEETINGS information. cooperation. transportation. Those who are unable to attend the public meetings are encouraged to submit comments via the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, phone the project office at (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 or send a letter to: CDOT Engineering Office, Attn: Dave Martinez, 2207 E. Highway 402, Loveland, CO 80537. About the North I-25 EIS The north 1-25 corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years, with 1-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. These growth pressures have brought substantial increases to transportation demand in the corridor. Adding to the pressure, the corridor is a major link in the nationwide interstate highway system serving long distance travel and the transport of goods via truck. As traffic volumes and accidents have increased on 1-25 and parallel roadways, there has become a growing awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements within this corridor. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, has initiated the North 1-25 EIS to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins- • Wellington area to Denver. In order to analyze a variety of multimodal transportation alternatives, the study area extends from US 287 in the west to US 85 in the east. The study area spans portions of seven counties, includes more than 30 communities, two metropolitan planning organizations and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission. The North 1-25 EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods and services and represents the next step in evaluating and planning for implementation of transportation improvements in this corridor. For more information on the North 1-25 EIS, visit the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ or contact CDOT Public Relations Coordinator Mindy Crane at (303) 757-9469 or North 1-25 EIS Public Involvement Manager Kim Podobnik at (303) 779-3392. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-21 OTNews From • The Colorado Department oraim • of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.dot.state.co.us December 1,2005 Contact: Mindy Crane—(303)757-9469 Cell-(303)880-2136 ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY ARISES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE NORTH I-25 EIS Larimer and Weld Counties—As part of the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has developed another forum for community members to become involved in the study process by creating Transit Stations Working Groups. "Currently, three transit alternatives are being studied in the North 1-25 EIS: Commuter Bus, Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)," said CDOT Project Manager Dave Martinez. "The working groups recently organized will allow members of the community to discuss and share ideas regarding transit station • locations, bike and pedestrian connectivity and maintenance facilities. We strongly encourage those who are interested to participate in one of the groups." Four North 1-25 EIS Transit Station Working Groups have been geographically established: North I-25 (north of SH 66), South 1-25 (south of SH 66), US 287 and US 85. Community members who reside in or frequently drive any of these corridors are encouraged to participate. Below is a list of the upcoming meetings that will be held in December: North I-25 group December 5, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. CDOT Region 4, 2207 E. Highway 402 US 287 group December 8, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Longmont Recreation Center, 310 Quail Road South I-25 group • December 12, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Frederick Town Hall, 401 Locust St. -more- "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-22 • US 85 group December 15, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10th St. Those who cannot attend any of the meetings can submit their comments on the project Web site by visiting www.cdot.info/northi25eis/or calling 970-352-5455. ABOUT THE NORTH I-25 EIS The north I-25 corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years, with I-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. Traffic volumes and accidents have increased on 1-25 and parallel roadways; therefore, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements within this corridor has significantly increased over the years. The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), initiated the North 1-25 EIS in 2003 to • identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins- Wellington area to Denver. As one of the state's largest EIS studies, the North 1-25 EIS study area spans seven counties and more than 30 communities. In order to include consideration of multimodal transportation alternatives, the study area extends from US 287 in the west to US 85 in the east. For more information on the North I-25 EIS, visit the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, or contact CDOT Public Relations Coordinator Mindy Crane at(303) 757-9469. ### • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-23 News From The Colorado Department 'o OT • of TransportationMIMMIMIMai DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.dot.state.co.us December 2,2005 Contact: Mindy Crane: (303)757-9469 Cell: (303) 880-2136 CDOT VISITS MORE COMMUNITIES FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE NORTH I-25 EIS Larimer and Weld Counties—The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)project team and the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) are taking a new approach to public meetings in order to enhance and encourage public participation in the EIS process. Since the study area spans a vast area that includes seven counties and more than 30 cities, CDOT and its partners have scheduled 12 town hall public meetings in January and February 2006, marking the fifth round of public meetings since the EIS inception in 2003. • "Public involvement at this stage of the study is very important, and we hope that by holding numerous meetings at convenient locations, more community members will be able to attend," said CDOT Project Manager Dave Martinez. "The project team will offer new findings in the North 1-25 EIS, and we encourage the public to voice their opinions and needs of their communities." In this fifth round of public meetings, information will be shared regarding the results of the third level of screening. In this third level, eight alternative transportation packages were developed and evaluated and the packages that performed best will advance into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The results will be discussed at the town hall meetings, scheduled for the following dates and locations: January 23 250 I1th St. Fort Collins Aztlan Center 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. January 26 112 E.Willow Thornton City Hall 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. January 25 9500 Civic Center Dr. Frederick Town Hall 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. January 24 401 Locust St. • Windsor Community Center 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-24 January 30 4616 S. Shields Gilcrest Valley High School February 2 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. • 1001 Birch Street Loveland Public Library 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. 300 N.Adams February 15 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. Southwest Weld County January 31 Building Mead Town Hall 4209 Weld County Rd.24 1/2 441 Third St. February 6 4:30 p.m.to 6:30 p.m. 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center 651 10`"Ave. February 16 February 1 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Milliken Town Hall Longmont Museum 1101 Broad St. 400 Quail Rd. February 7 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. Fort Collins Harmony Library ABOUT THE NORTH I-25 EIS The north 1-25 corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years,with 1-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. Traffic volumes and accidents have increased on 1-25 and parallel roadways; therefore,awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements within this corridor has significantly increased over the years. The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), initiated the North 1-25 EIS in 2003 • to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. As one of the state's largest EIS studies,the North 1-25 EIS study area spans seven counties and more than 30 communities. In order to include consideration of multimodal transportation alternatives, the study area extends from US 287 in the west to US 85 in the east. For more information on the North I- 25 EIS,visit the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/,or contact CDOT Public Relations Coordinator Mindy Crane at(303) 757-9469. ### • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-25 NORTH I-25 4 FRONT RANGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT y I t ,N Northern Colorado's Growing Need. Public Open Houses The North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement invites you to Tuesday,February 3,2004 a series of public open houses to help us plan for the future of transportation 4-7 p.m.,come anytime along 1-25. Greeley Recreation Center Open Space.Mild weather.Good schools. 651 10th Avenue Northern Colorado is a wonderful place.Planning for the future will help us • Greeley preserve this character. Thursday,February 5,2004 Anyone who has traveled I-25 through Northern Colorado has already experienced increasing congestion and decreasing safety.After 40 years,daily volumes of traffic 4-7 p.m.,come anytime Southwest Weld County on the highway now exceed what it was intended to serve.If no changes are made Services Complex to the I-25 corridor,it is likely that travel times will double or even triple in the next couple of decades. 4209 Weld County Rd 241/2 Del Camino It's time to plan for a different future. That's why the Colorado Department of Transportation,the Federal Highway Tuesday,February 10,2000 Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are studying options to 4-7 p.m.,come anytime improve mobility by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. Lincoln Center 417 West Magnolia The EIS,a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act,evaluates an Fort Collins area's social,economic and environmental characteristics.During the next three years, we'll be looking at ways to improve safety and mobility by building on alternatives developed in previous area transportation studies.The results of the EIS will identify the best alternatives for improving safety and mobility along I-25.The study will � Federal Highway also evaluate the"no-action"alternative. 4tlAdminisirohon We can't complete the study without you. ^''• Please attend one or more of our public open houses to share your thoughts on the future of transportation along this corridor.If you can't attend,submit your comments at our Web site and register there to receive regular project updates. For more information on the study or open house schedules,or to arrange • for special accommodations or translation services,visit www.i25northforty. com/eis/,or call 970.352.5455. Page D-26 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information. cooperation.transportation. Imagine the possibilities. The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is studying future transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. You are invited to a series of public open houses to help us plan for the future of transportation along 1-25. Many of you attended the previous round of open houses for the North I-25 EIS and gave us your opinions on the best solutions to the transportation challenges facing Northern Colorado. We've taken your comments into consideration and are initiating the process of developing the list of 'possibilities so we can come up with the best alternative. Now we need your help again. You are invited to the next series of open houses where you can help us ensure the alternatives we're developing are the best ones for the future of transportation in Northern Colorado. If you haven't yet given your opinion, we extend a special invitation to do just that. This is the time to join the dialogue. We look forward to hearing your ideas about the possibilities. For more information on the study or open house schedules, or to arrange for special accommodations or translation services,visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, or call (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Public Open Houses Tuesday,June 22,2004 Thursday,June 24,2004 Tuesday,June 29,2004 Thursday,July 1,2004 Open House:4-7 p.m. Open House:4-7 p.m. Open House:4-7 p.m. Open House:4-7 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Project Presentation:520 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Evans Recreation Center Loveland Museum/Gallery Margaret W.Carpenter Lincoln Center,Columbine Multipurpose Room Auditorium Recreation Center,Room A Room 1100 37th Street 503 North Lincoln Avenue 11151 Colorado Boulevard 417 West Magnolia limns Loveland Thornton Fort Collins (brederal Highway - �Adminisrrarion via Page D-27 tea : _ NORTH 1-25 URI ` r S '4- t EIS Z information. cooperation. transportation. '' Your community. Your travel . Your future. Your ideas? Public Meetings The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is studying future Tuesday,October 19,2004 transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/ Presentation: Wellington area to Denver.You're invited to a series of public meetings to 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. Small Group discussions: help plan the future of transportation along 1-25. 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. More than 1,500 comments have been received from residents of Northern Commerce City Recreation Center Colorado since the North 1-25 EIS be in January 2004. Those comments have •Multipurpose Roomg 6060 E.Parkway Dr. helped shape a draft list of potential solutions for the region. You're invited to join Commerce City us to learn about the transportation improvements under consideration and how Thursday,October 21,2004 they might successfully address congestion and safety concerns in the study area. Presentation: To fully understand the transportation alternatives currently under development, 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. we ask that you plan to attend the entire meeting and participate in each of the Small Group Discussions: small group discussions. 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. A presentation will outline the types of technologies and alternatives being McKee Conference&Wellness Center considered. The project team will also share information about the criteria to Friends Room be used in evaluating alternatives in Level Two Screening and outline the 2000 Boise Ave. environmental data collection process.The small group discussions will provide Loveland you the opportunity to speak directly with those doing the research on how Tuesday,October 26,2004 each technology or alternative can work to improve the movement of people Presentation: and goods along the corridor. Topics for the small groups include: 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. • Commuter Rail and High Speed Rail Small Group Discussions: g p 6:15 to 830 p.m. • Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Lincoln Center,Columbine Room • Highway and Congestion Management 417 W.Magnolia St • Travel and Land Use Patterns Fort Collins Thursday,October 28,2004 For more information on the study or public meetings,or to arrange for Presentation: special accommodations or translation services,visit www.cdot.info/ 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. northi25eis/, or call (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. • Small Group Discussions: 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center,Room 101 :... P"'. a ar 651 10th Ave. m Federal Highway Greeley ��Adminiso-onon ®...er.a...,a„.r"C, Page D-28 w _ t _ • ORTH I-25 + . EIS _ , 1 information. cooperation. transportation. 3 ,�Su comunidad. Su viaje. Su futuro. LSus ideas? Reuniones Publicas La Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental (EIS,en ingles)de Ia 1-25 Norte esta Manes 19 de octubre del 2004 estudiando futuras mejoras de transporte a lo largo del corredor de Ia I-25 Vistazo: none desde el area de Fort Collins/Wellington hasta Denver. Lo invitamos 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. a participar en una serie de reuniones pUblicas para que nos ayude a Discusibn en grupos pequenos: planificar el futuro del transporte a lo largo de Ia 1-25. 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. Commerce City Recreation Center Desde que comenzo el estudio EIS de la I-25 norte en enero del 2004,ya se han •ultipurpose Room recibido mas de 1.500 comentarios de los residentes del norte de Colorado. Estos 60 E. Parkway Dr. comentarios han ayudado a redactar una lista inicial de las posibles soluciones Commerce City para en la region. Lo invitamos a participar en las reuniones para aprender como Jueves 21 de octubre del 2004 mejorar el transporte y como las tecnologias podrian ayudar exitosamente para Vistazo: reducir la congestion y aumentar la seguridad en el area de estudio. 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. Para entender adecuadamente las alternativas de transporte que ahora se estan Discusibn en grupos pequenos: desarrollando,le pedimos que haga planes para asistir a las reuniones y que 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. participe en los pequenos grupos de intercambio de ideas. McKee Conference&Wellness Center El Vistazo incluira un bosquejo de los distintos tipos de tecnologias y altemativas Friends Room que se estan considerando.El equipo del proyecto tambien compartira la informaciOn 2000 Boise Ave. sabre los criterios que se usaran para evaluar las alternativas en el segundo nivel de Loveland selecciOn y sobre el bosquejo del proceso de compilaciOn de datos sobre el medio Mertes 26 de octubre del 2004 ambiente.Los grupos de intercambio de ideas son la oportunidad que usted tiene Vistazo: para hablar directamente con aquellos que estan estudiando como cada 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. tecnologia y cada altemativa funcionara para mejorar el movimiento de bienes y Discusibn en grupos pequenos: personas a lo largo del corredor.Los temas para estos grupos pequenos son: 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. • Tren de pasajeros de alta velocidad Lincoln Center,Columbine Room • Transporte rapido de pasajeros por trenes y buses 417 W.Magnolia St • Regulacion del congestionamiento en las carreteras Fort Collins • Modelo de viaje y de use de terrenos Jueves 28 de octubre del 2004 Vistazo: Para mas informacion sobre este estudio o sabre el calendario de 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. reuniones publicas,o para solicitar arreglos especiales o servicios de Discusibn en grupos pequenos: traduccion,visite www.cdot.info/nothi25eis/, o (lame al (970)352-5455 15 to 8:30 p.m. o al (303)779-3384. eley Recreation Center,Room 101 1 10th Ave. Greeley ..-*,%;--, ..- Ir. eOT f1us oo�,m�oi rva.ro+as.. L ...,r �/Federal Highway er Administrationne„o, r.,.. Page D-29 NORTH 1-25 a EIS information cooperation. transportations ` Which alternatives make the grade? You're invited to look over our report card on alternatives for the North 1-25 EIS. The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is studying future Public Meetings transportation improvements along the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/ Wellington area to Denver. Tuesday,June 14: In Level 1 screening,each alternative was judged by its suitability to the Open House:4-7 p.m.; corridor,its typical costs and its potential effect on environmental resources. In • Project Presentation 6 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center Level 2,the evaluation criteria are more detailed:specific measures and travel 651 10th Ave.,Greeley analysis are being developed for each of the purpose and needs elements;costs Multipurpose Rooms 101 A,B,and C are being developed;and an inventory of environmental resources and potential impacts is underway. Thursday,June 16: We invite you to come learn the results of our Level 2 screening.Just like in Open House:4-7 p.m.; school,each alternative will receive a report card explaining how it compared in Project Presentation 6 p.m. Fort Collins Lincoln Center the evaluation process.Alternatives will be graded on travel times,congestion 417 W.Magnolia,Ft Collins relief,preliminary cost estimates and environmental impacts.Recommendations Canyon West/Columbine Rooms on which alternatives will be carried forward into more detailed evaluation will be presented. Tuesday,June 21: More important,we invite you to give us your thoughts and comments Open House:4-7 p.m.; about the alternatives that are being recommended for further development and Project Presentation 6 p.m. Loveland Police&Courts Building screening. 810 East 10th Street,Loveland So please plan on joining us at one of our next public meetings to help plan Conference Rooms North/South the future of travel along I-25. Thursday,June 23: For more information on the study or the public meetings,visit www. Open House:4-7 p.m.; cdot.info/northi25eis/or call (970)352-5455 or(303) 779-3384. Project Presentation 6 p.m. • Longmont Radisson Hotel& Conference Center 1850 Industry Circle, Longmont -•;•1;.*. Silverthorne Ballroom �4!✓Federal Highway Administrahon •.•• �,,,,e„a,,,,,,b,,,,,„„ Page D-303845/05 _ 2 7 " i\ Vublic Meetings j ^ \ { January23 I � Fort Collins Aztlan Community Center t 112 E.Willow St .; 5:00 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. January 24 Windsor Community Center 25011th St 11:00 a.m.t°1:°D p.m. January 25 Reaching Farther Jan Frederick Town Hall 401 Locust St 5:00 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. January 26 Thornton City Hall More public meetings on the North 1-25 AS mean more chances for you to 9500 Civic Center Dr. help decide the future of transportation in Northern Colorado. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. P January 30 If you've ever wondered what the future of transportation and transit in Gilcrest Valley High School Northern Colorado might look like,here's your chance to find out.Even better, 1001 Birch St it's also your chance to shape that future. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. January 31 The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)project team has just Mead Town Hall completed Level 3 of the EIS process.Eight alternative transportation 01 Third St packages were developed and evaluated,and now we're ready to show you :00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. the results.At the upcoming fifth round of public meetings,we will unveil the February 1 packages that performed best,and which we would like to move forward into Longmont Museum 400 Quail Rd. the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. Before moving forward,we need your input.Please plan on attending one of February 2 the 12 scheduled public meetings to explore,discuss and learn about the future Loveland Public Library of transportation in Northern Colorado. 300 N.Adams Ave. 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. The North 1-25 EIS study is one of Colorado's largest,spanning seven February 6 counties and more than 30 communities,extending from US 287 in the west Greeley Recreation Center to US 85 in the east. 651 10th Ave. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. For more information,visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ February? or call (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Fort Collins Harmony Library 4616 S.Shields St 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. February 15 Southwest Weld County Building NORTH 1-25 4209 Weld County Rd.2414 EIS 4:30 p.m.to 6:30 p.m. February 16 information. cooperation. transportation. Milliken Town Hall 1101 Broad St OO p.m.to 8:00 p.m. ..... •- rttiHaw FTA ". • OT minT - - US Dcpanmum'ill f im.po-mnor Federal Transit Federal Highway -_1 ->�- Administration II Administration oo„RrMEMCF _ . . . D-31 a Reuniones publicas _ _ R 23 de enero � ' . N Fort Collins Aztlan Community Center 112 E,Willow St. ,.. 5:00 p.m.a 7:00 p.m. 24 de enero Windsor Community Center 25D„thSt Llegando aun mas lejos m,a1:00p.m.25 de enero Frederick Town Hall 401 Locust St. 5:00 p.m.a 7:00 p.m. Mas reuniones publicas del estudio EIS de la 1-25 Norte significan 26 de enero mas oportunidaes para que usted nos ayude a decidir el futuro del Thornton City Hall transporte en el none de Colorado. 9500 Civic Center Dr, P 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. Si usted alguna vez se pregunto como sera en el futuro el transporte 30 de enero del norte de Colorado,incluyendo el transporte publico,ahora tiene una Gilcrest Valley High School oportunidad para saberlo.Ann mas,esta es su oportunidad para darle 1001 Birch St. fonna a ese futuro. 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. El equipo del proyecto de Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental(EIS,en 31 de enero ingles)de la I-25 Norte ya completo el Nivel 3 del proceso EIS. Se Mead Town Hall desarrollaron y evaluaron ocho paquetes de alternativas de transporte,y 441 Third a ahora estamos listos para mostrarles los resultados.En la siguiente serie • 11:00 a.m.a 1:00 p.m. de reuniones publicas (la quinta),daremos a conocer los paquetes con 1 de febrero el mejor desempeno,que quisieremos incorporar en el Borrador de la Longmont Museum Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental (o DEIS,en ingles). 400 Quail Rd. 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. Pero,para hacerlo, antes necesitamos su opinion. Por favor,haga planes 2 de febrero para asistir a una de las 12 reuniones publicas para explorar,debatir y Loveland Public Library aprender sobre el futuro del transporte en el norte de Colorado. 300 N.Adams Ave. El estudio EIS de la 1-25 Norte es el mayor de su clase en Colorado,ya que 7:00 a.m.a 9:00 a.m. abarca siete condados y mas de 30 comunidades, desde la US 287 al oeste 6 de febrero hasta la US 85 al este. Greeley Recreation Center 651 10th Ave. Para mas informacion,visite www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. o (lame al (970)352-5455 o al (303)779-3384. 7 de febrero Pregunte por Kim Podobnik(liable espanol). Fort Collins Harmony Library 4616 S.Shields St 11:00 a.m.a 1:00 p.m. 15 de febrero Southwest Weld County Building NORTH 1-25 4209 Weld County Rd.24'4 EIS 4:30 p.m.a 6:30 p.m. 16 de febroro information. cooperation. transportation. Milliken Town Hall 1101 Broad St. • 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. .''FTA* ++wa...,o.mm.. �n m r� DOT U.S.Dcpommem ok iran:pononoc Federal Transit Federal Highway - Administration e/Administration - NoxTx 1-25 PURI i ' EIS °.' r -� : information. cooperation.transportation. ap ar Ili Su comunidad . Su viaje . Sus opiniones. Venga a ver el alineamiento revisado del tren de pasajeros. El equipo del proyecto de la Declaration de Impacto Ambiental(EIS,en ingles)del la I-25 Norte ha tenido en cuenta los comentarios recibidos con respecto a las alternativas para el tren interurbano de pasajeros del estudio de la I-25 Norte.Por eso,el alineamiento del tren de pasajeros en el Paquete A de la version inicial del EIS se ha extendido para incluir a las comunidades del sur del Condado Weld,potencialmente eliminando asi la necesidad de viajar primero a Boulder para it a Denver.El nuevo alineamiento sera evaluado en la version inicial del EIS y queremos sus comentarios. • El alineamiento revisado del tren de pasajeros que se evaluara: • Conectaria los pasajeros con las lineas de FasTracks en Longmont y Thornton. • Reduciria el tiempo de viaje a Denver. iComparta su opinion! • LTuvimos en cuenta las cosas correctas? • LHay otra information que deberiamos considerar porque afecta esta nueva conexion? El estudio EIS de la I-25 Norte esta estudiando las mejoras futuras en el transporte a lo largo del corredor desde Fort Collins/Wellington y hasta Denver,y desde la U.S.287 al oeste hasta la U.S.85 al este. Para mas information sobre este estudio o sobre las reuniones publicas,o para solicitar arreglos especiales o servicios de traduccion,visitar www.cdot.info/northi25eis/o Ilamar al(970)352-5455 o al(303)779-3384. Public Meetings Monday, November 13,2006 Wednesday, November 15,2006 Open house: 6-8 p.m. Open house: 6-8 p.m. Northglenn Recreation Center Southwest Weld County Complex 11801 Community Center Drive 4209 Weld County Road 24%z • Northglenn Longmont 1 rra re aOT rFudr of Highway "^ 7�/Admm Aropon .....,µ. . Page D-33 . Yg NORTH I-25 � EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Your community. Your travel . Your opinions. Come see the revised commuter rail alignment. The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)project team has considered your input in regards to the commuter rail alternatives as it pertains to the North I-25 EIS.As a result,the commuter rail alignment in Package A of the Draft EIS has been extended to include the communities in Southwest Weld County and to potentially eliminate the need to travel through Boulder while heading to Denver.The new alignment will be evaluated in the Draft EIS and we want your comments. The revised commuter rail alignment to be evaluated would: • • Connect passengers to FasTracks rail lines at both Longmont and Thornton • Reduce commuter rail travel time to Denver Give us your opinions! • Did we consider the right things? • Is there information we should know that could affect the new connection? The North I-25 EIS is studying future transportation improvements along the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver,extending from U.S.287 in the west to U.S. 85 in the east. For more information on the study or public meetings,or to arrange for special accommodations or translation services,visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/or call(970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Public Meetings Monday, November 13,2006 Wednesday, November 15,2006 Open house: 6-8 p.m. Open house: 6-8 p.m. Northglenn Recreation Center Southwest Weld County Complex 11801 Community Center Drive 4209 Weld County Road 24 %z Northglenn Longmont • 1 Federal Highway nn_ m _...-� ��Adminlsliohon ne ,.,i„o, axn�a+wv�aies Page D-34 Northern Colorado's .� Growing Need. Anyone who has traveled I-25 through Northern Colorado has already experienced increasing . - I congestion and decreasing safety.After 40 years,daily volumes of traffic on the highway now exceed what it was intended to serve.If no changes are made to the 1-25 corridor,it is likely that travel times will double NORTH I-25 or even triple in the next couple of decades. FRONT RANGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Ifs time to plan for a different future. STATEMENT • Page D-35 NORTH 1-25 Volume 1 - February 2004 EIS III information cooperation. transportation. µ yA 4:IY -- --a " ;� � ~ N e •tM1 _.fir +mod . -111.*' . 74� y4 ''+n•A. I. :i•'' .1..c ;.T,W1- .t.lt - -G_ 9 .::1. y yIllitc : �4: A SCOPING DOCUMENT INTRODUCING ''-t • _ THE NORTH 1 - 25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. 1- _ J iw; What's Inside i "� , j.j: . - --- AGrowing deed er x.=7,"4 - .'1 I � _•C •ilia -s: Have a Voice ;:�, 4 t ,-,,.``' Good schools. .. Help shape the goals. 2 r'� ` . We Need Your Help Mild weather __Aggsiliorn 9,-.- 1r input is critical for us to Open space. • - ,- learn how communities in /`� ^` r' Regional Connections. �- i - Northern Colorado envision ..:_t ay - - the future of transportation. 2 Northern Colorado is a - Y`";.31-- -` _ ...... •Choices for the Future wonderful place. Planning .. , , for the future will help us. . • :. ' Environmental Impact Statements preserve this character. r • take a comprehensive look at % s: -,,,,e, many issues before submitting a Anyone who has traveled 1-25 ' recommendation. Learn about through Northern Colorado the process behind this EIS has already experienced increasing Administration and the Federal Transit and the subjects under study. 2 congestion and a growing concern for Administration are studying options to safety. After 40 years, daily volumes of improve mobility for local commuters as Contact Us traffic on the highway now exceed what well as those travelingbetweenneighboring Find out how to make your it was intended to serve. If no changes are states and throughout the region. The next voice heard. 3 made to the 1-25 corridor, it is likely that step, and one of the most critically needed Where and What travel times will double or even triple in toward addressing the future the next couple of decades. transportation needs of the region, is A map of the area we are underway: the North 1-25 Environmental proposing to study. 3 That's why the Colorado Department of Impact Statement. Transportation, the Federal Highway Project Timeline During the next three years, we'll look at A look at the various stages ways to improve safety and mobility, and phases of this EIS. 3 including those alternatives developed in ` w "9 Story of the North Forty , previous area transportation feasibility .."sob.;_. . . -n w,� and investment studies. And, we'll mak .)rief review of the proposed . I recommendation that best serves travele study area and previous _•„ `'I i :-.';a. , �,, y, -:'.: in Northern Colorado and throughout the transportation studies. 4 ► region. . -- ti 24 a - ': .�A g - Page D-36 *rata s. r f 4'tiL ;} , ! t f lii Choices for the Future Have a Voice For major transportation projects,the National Environmental Policy Act requires Ensuring the success of the North I-25 EIS that a range of alternatives be considered and that their environmental impacts be requires a full and complete record of public analyzed.This type of study is required prior to the commitment of federal funds comments and feedback throughout the process. to any major project,or prior to any action taken by a federal agency that might This feedback will help shape the options and cause a significant impact on the environment. alternatives considered by the study. It will be The North I-25 EIS is led by two federal agencies,the Federal Highway available for reference when decisions are made Administration and the Federal Transit Administration,in partnership with about future projects.Your input will help ensure CDOT.Basic steps in this process include: that the best possible transportation improvements are made,and that they meet the challenges A. Scoping:A public process to help define the purpose and need for the proposed faced by travelers in and through Northern action or project and to identify environmental issues that need to be studied. Colorado now and in the future. B. Data Collections Collecting transportation,environmental and land use data. This step will also include developing a tool for predicting future(year 2030)traveL We are committed to providing opportunity C.Development of Alternatives:Identifying a wide range of highway,transit and for frequent and meaningful public input at other types of alternatives,then narrowing these to the reasonable range of every step of the process.We resolve to foster alternatives for detailed study.This will include the"no-action"alternative. open lines of communication,develop mutually D.Analysis of Alternatives:Transportation,cn•ial,economic and environmental beneficial relationships,and act in a responsive impacts of a range of alternatives are studied in detail,and comparisons are made manner to all groups and individuals interested E.Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Aprinted report for this process. public review and comment is prepared documenting the need for the project, describing alternative courses of action,analyzing likely impacts from each Wmbers of the public outreach team will accept alternative,and describing any steps to be taken to avoid impacts or minirl comments and feedback through the following harm to the environment. means: E Public and Agency Review of the DEIS. Submissions to our Web site located at G.Preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement Documents the www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ preferred alternative and provides response to comments that were made on Public meetings the DEIS. This will be followed by a Record of Decision(ROD). Letters H.Record of Decision:Documents the decision and commits to mitigation of Comments made at small group presentations impacts by the lead federal agencies (i.e.,service clubs,environmental organize- The DEIS will evaluate the impacts of various actions to the following lions,neighborhood associations,civic resources and cultural features: organizations,etc.) Displays/exhibits in public locations Land use Social,economic and environmental Booths at public events Relocation/right of way impacts to low income or minority Other events/opportunities to be determined Noise populations Air quality Public safety and security Floodplains Farmlands We Need Your Help Water quality/water resources Hazardous materials One of the most important elements of an EIS Wildlife and fisheries Archaeological properties Wetlands Historic properties process is drafting the Purpose and Need Threatened or endangered species Paleontological resources Statement.This statement outlines why the study is Pedestrian and bicycle facilities Visual quality necessary and what transportation issues currently Recreation Energy exist in the area.The definition of purpose and need Economics Parks,historic properties and is crucial to the subsequent development of project wildlife refuges. and then the development of possible trans• lion options to address those needs and goals.iii The analysis of direct impacts will include those associated with construction Your comments are crucial. processes and operations.Not only will the direct impacts of various actions be studied,but also cumulative and indirect impacts and effects. Page D-37 LEGEND - Study Area • _ a f1 NI\GIMIVtiaten RiNOOd a„� - ' � "N,c'. n-,:*--, -,--; 1, n.s,,. /Y` ',04 .F, • .. - ■ Union Palle Railroad / 4 --•—•— le AEnndoned Rifted ROW ` \-1 —VI__- 11 ■ US or hwntur Meng Ft uw ■ SbM MpfwMy G W -s:ripe• i.•7 • Tilam: 1 . ..f - E ? !IOUCO onc ix ! 1 rth 1 �; Phone: (970) 352-5455 l r r .. Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ / N t Mail: CDOT Engineering Office • • 2207 E. Highway 402 I J ..� Loveland, CO 80537 „-N �' �� Project Team 1 Ir rw Jean Wallace, PE., a j Federal Highway Administration; 1 _ `---e to; ' a -- John Dow, Federal Transit Administration; '` 'e . , Re - /-, David M. Martinez, PE., 01 f r� E� CDOT Project Manager; . --- i� . - _ } ' Tom Anzia, PE., - Project Manager, --, Gina McAfee, AICP, ";-J -7n ,� I Deputy Project Manager; APIlartullICAI ••�si , F ' Kim Podobnik, APR, ° Mai 'W Public Involvement Manager ri. All PNIII FEISBURG HOET i UFtEYIG CARTER-11020(5S PRACO N■••i Where and What The goal of the study is to evaluate alternatives to improve mobility for residents and commuters as they travel around Northern Colorado, to and from the Denver metropolitan area, and between neighboring states. It will also look at how people and goods travel through this area on their way to and from locations throughout the nation. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. Taking no action; 3. Transit options, including bus and rail technologies; and 2. Improvements to the existing highway network, 4. Constructing a highway on a new location. particularly I-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287; EIS Process -.. o 2 Is Z RECORD DATA DEVELOP -s EVALUATE I PREPARE PREPARE )- of SLOPING COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES a ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIS a FINAL EIS E3 DECISION CD 2 CD CD a a (ROD) oe m ro . vii m m a a III 2 0 0 4 I 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 . 6 2 0 0 7 Page 1'l-3R C- ti ,\e r • 0 , I •1';',ctit:---.e._,-_,_:4*- The Story of the North Forty As the primary route between Northern Colorado and the In the late 1990s, CDOT, in conjunction with regional planning Denver metropolitan area, the I-25 corridor has experienced groups (North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality considerable growth over the years. People are increasingly Planning Council, Upper Front Range Regional Planning aware that demands on the existing transportation system are Commission, and Denver Regional Council of Governments), exceeding its ability to serve travelers efficiently. Along with undertook the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives increased traffic volume on 1-25 and parallel roadways has Feasibility Study which included a study area from Denver to come an increase in accidents, resulting in a need to plan for Fort Collins. It evaluated an extensive range of alternative transportation improvements within the corridor highway improvements, transit alternatives including passenger rail, and travel demand management programs. This study, In 1993, CDOT initiated an "Environmental Assessment" for published in March 2000, produced a Vision Plan that included improvements to enhance the capacity and safety of I-25 an inter-regional bus service, combination general purpose/ between State Highway 7 and State Highway 66. The study was high occupancy vehicle lanes, and passenger rail service. followed by a "Finding of No Significant Impact" in 1995 that enabled CDOT to proceed with a series of construction projects More recently, a number of studies have been conducted to that are still ongoing. The current construction activities establish planning guidelines for growth in segments of this between State Highway 7 and Weld County Road 16 were corridor, addressing both land use and transportation issues. addressed in these previous studies. Also addressed were the right-of-way acquisitions and utility relocations currently The initiation of the North 1-25 HS represents the next step in underway between Weld County Road 16 and State Highway evaluating and planning for improvements in this corridor. 66. These are being done in anticipation of future construction. • L£508 OD 'puPiano- 0 Z0t AMH .3 LOZZ aaUJO Suuaaut&u3 LOUD SN0IlJ3NN0J Page D-39 NORTH 1-25 Volume 2 - June 2004 EISIII information. cooperation. transportation _ , s - 1 NorthLink ...... .. „....... 1 � Mme•_.. '. 1 yy , . . v,,,,,..„,,,i THE NORTH 1-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING , • `' FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE 1-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. • ,� •.4'mitt 1 What's Inside Purpose � ti . . .: g 614 Purpose and Need and Need ;� - �._ ; ; _ .j, An important element of an EIS, The ��'r '* s I A criticalpart of framing the ' `fr r,,. ,.s. . F • - .7 Purpose and Need frames the scope S.' .. F It the study 1 issues under study for the .r.4 �'', z . 1''" ` .7 , C ' ,, r - r- fi-. North 1-25 EIS is developing a �� f' ,; . ..,4": w : • Boiling it Down Purpose and Need statement. ,414 ,.:7,niii, ., t/ �j;' - so P i - ' The process involved in selecting the Purpose and Need identifies �` 'mow .✓et 4 :,. , . best options 2 the needs and frames the ( _ • -�' search for solutions to address - We Hear You those needs. It is used as a - A brief summary of comments benchmark to screen possible transportation alternatives. ilSe received so far 2 p ' We'll Come to You It is vitally important that a Our speaker's bureau is ready to Purpose and Need statement accurately describe the challenges related A draft Purpose and Need statement has meet with your group. Find out what we have to offer 3 to the transportation system in the been developed for the North I-25 EIS. region. It ensures that the issues and The Purpose and Need for the action Contact Us current conditions identified in the study currently states the following: Find out how to make your area are fully addressed by the alterna- voice heard 3 fives selected during the EIS process. Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to improve Imagine the Possibilities mobility of persons, goods, services and Dates and locations for the next information between the Denver metro- round of public open houses 4 ii ; I ti „ , politan area and population centers . 1 _ along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort ( Collins/Wellington area. 'I continued on pa rei Ill Page D-40 , 0 Boiling it Down — Alternatives Development We Hear You and Screening The alternatives development and screening process starts with a broad range At deadline for printing this newsletter, the North of alternatives and conducts increasingly detailed evaluations of the alterna- 1-25 EIS Project Team has collected nearly 1,000 tives to refine and narrow the list of alternatives to a preferred option that best comments from the public. These comments have addresses the issues identified in the Purpose and Need. been collected at our first round of open houses in February 2004, through our Web site, via The initial list of alternatives will encompass a broad range of potential pho , e-mail and standard mail, as well as transportation improvements throughout the project study area. Potential comments voiced during our recent meetings with improvements include but are not limited to passenger rail, highway widening, small groups such as chambers of commerce, bus transit, and congestion management measures. In addition, a "no action" Rotaries and Lion's Clubs. alternative will be included. The "no action" alternative will include improve- ments that have not yet been built, but for which funding identified over the Including a rail component as the preferred alter- next three to five years. This is the baseline to which all other potential improve- native is popular in Fort Collins, while those who ments will be compared. submitted comments from the Greeley area tend to indicate their preference for improvements to The three steps of the screening process will be: be made on US 85 to help alleviate congestion on 1-25. Some people across the study area indicated Level 1) Initial Screening - The initial list of potential transportation improvement they would prefer an alternative that includes a rail alternatives will be qualitatively assessed to identify "fatal flaws." Critical concerns ponent and/or expands the local bus service. will include non-responsiveness to the project's Purpose and Need, likelihood for irresolvable environmental impacts, and excessive complexity or cost It is critical to note that public comment, while important, is part of a larger process that is con- Level 2) Comparative Screening - Alternatives that are advanced from the sidered in determining the preferred alternative. initial screening will be further developed for comparison on a more In this situation, each comment is not considered quantitative level. At this level, screening criteria will include more a vote, but an indicator of which alternatives the quantifiable measures of mobility, safety, environmental impacts, costs and public is likely to support. other implementation issues. Level 3) Detailed Screening — At this level the remaining alternatives (probably Lastly, we want to remind you that we will accept packages of improvements) will be refined in greater detail and will be assessed public comment throughout the entire EIS process with a larger number of criteria. and look forward to hearing your thoughts on what alternatives you support. You can let your The final evaluation will identify a preferred alternative that will be voice be heard by participating in our open house recommended as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. meetings in late-June and early-July, visiting our Web site to contribute electronically, sending us a letter or reaching us by phone. *a 01 ' fP � •'f-' ,r ' . Fes J 11 „ '. K Lf�1. I!` ��yy • r t-�JI♦ r—'�' ,... �! r�I��1 �?am �1. 9' r Ins,-If.1'a'Jt III c 4, ' •- . rci -}jam1 . ♦� 111 :i?r j. 1'3 1 it 1� _ ^ _ ,_ . .. yr .�s Std : i ..� , , �- ,.., _4;.E, c r: +« ��a ��r - ,..J .• :-,�-• "-Y 1 �Y _ .i r.. . _ 1-- cai 1 _. ,� D-41 rurpose and Need (continued from cover) Contact Us Need for Action North I-25 EIS Project Office The need for transportation improvements along the corridor can be summarized as Phone: (970)352-5455 follows: (303)779-3384 Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Safety Concerns Mail: CDOT Engineering Office The number and severity of accidents along the I-25 corridor have increased 2207 E. Highway 402 over the last decade. Loveland,CO 80537 Several segments of I-25 experience more accidents than would be expected Project Team when compared to comparable facilities. Jean Wallace,P.E., Federal Highway Administration; Capacity Needs John Dow, Portions of the I-25 corridor are currently experiencing congestion. Federal Transit Administration; Even with the improvements currently committed, the capacity of the I-25 David M. Martinez,P.E., corridor will be inadequate to meet the needs of future traffic projections. CDOT Project Manager; Tom Anzia, PE., Aging Infrastructure Project Manager; Many bridges and drainage structures in the North I-25 corridor are Gina McAfee,AICP, approaching the end of their life expectancy. Deputy Project Manager; Segments of pavement on I-25 are reaching the end of their life expectancy, Kim Podobnik,APR, • and surface conditions are deteriorating rapidly. Public Involvement Manager Several major drainage structures do not provide the hydraulic capacity required by current design criteria. Modal Alternatives and Interrelationships Optional travel modes for trips between Northern Colorado to Denver are limited. Demand for the movement of goods in the region is increasing. Economic Growth Demands Continued growth pressures are causing potential right of way along the I-25 corridor to increase dramatically in cost. Access to existing and planned activity centers along the I-25 corridor is limited. To view the entire document,including details related to the points above,please log on to our Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ to download a copy. As always, we're looking for comments from the public to help us make the best recommendation to address the future trans- portation needs of Northern Colorado. Comments can be submitted through the above Web site. We'll Come to You Are you a member of a group,such as a chamber of commerce or Rotary who feels your friends and colleagues would enjoy learning more about the North I-25 EIS?If so,call the project office at(970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384 to set up a time for us o make a presentation, answer your questions and record your feedback. Morning, noon or night, we really look forwar to meeting with your group. .. . Jam. ' L5u ..� -„ ` .. - i.tk_. _r ' " • .:; ..,._ r # va- ! isti. : k: till -.. ‘ • r': 3C- •ti - r lei..,.. ."1-4L � , I • 0 . S. Imagine the Possibilities Many of you attended the previous round of open houses for the North I-25 EIS and gave us your opinions on the best solutions to the transportation challenges facing Northern Colorado. Now we need your help again. You are invited to the next series of open houses where you can help us ensure the alternatives we're developing are the best ones for your community. If you haven't yet given your opinion, we extend a special invitation to do just that. This is the time to join the dialogue. Tuesday, June 22 Thursday, June 24 Tuesday, June 29 Thursday, July 1 Open house: 4— 7 p.m. Open house: 4- 7 p.m. Open house: 4— 7 p.m. Open house: 4— 7 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Evans Recreation Center Loveland Museum /Gallery Margaret W. Carpenter Lincoln Center Multipurpose Room Auditorium Recreation Center Columbine Room 1100 37th St. 503 N. Lincoln Ave. Room A 417 W. Magnolia Evans Loveland 11151 Colorado Blvd. Fort Collins Thornton ill L£S08 OD 'pueiano3 0 ZOV 'X^,H '3 LOZZ aD?33O $ulzaauc$ug .LOUD Page D-43 ,•, "rt..-•_- ,-••x.1).1.).-,a.K ��r v7-:�tyy -' .. %� . _ NORTH I-25 __ Volume 1 - October 2004 EISIII . _ . . information. cooperation. transportation. ,�•�.l �I•. r.T--��r om Y,••+'- r —• ri:%.1:L •: •r::11. • Sin-..• `c."' w ''..:•.1 -:`^ ,. •, �•,. THE NORTH 1-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE ``•----\ ,)tt,'!;•7.L.R.„ -• s , •-,.< - , -t'•t*t ,;_''"" --"s TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I- 25 CORRIDOR FROM THE ,),_ ` , ` ``• ;.v. FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. : ...1; , ,1 . .�# Alt rna � . _ _etives � . .70 - • What's Inside. in Level Two ., .., __ - - _,. _- _..„- ,,_,-. . ' Alternatives in Level Two: -- � � ..,�.��. . ,. •.,� The North I-25 EIS is moving into - - - _ -- ,• •.� „�:: alternatives move forward the Level Two Screening process. A -�. „-- " ` . ' ',- tor further development in _` . - F P comprehensive list of alternatives tea- ►, : :•� :•- Level Two Screening </ %7 . 1 was developed during the first /ice phase of the project, called Scoping. �. �' y(cc 7 I Stand Alone vs. Complementary: -�� " ' ( �, Level One Screening looked at how r ,/�� .t Some potential alternatives can well these alternatives met the ' meet the identified Purpose Purpose and Need Statement for the `!� ,' �``- - and Need while others play a project, if they impact the environ- / ____ _alas supporting role 2 ment in a manner that could not be i 1iii r avoided or mitigated, and if they No-Action: were practicable in terms of cost, technolo- Level Two Screening will take a closer No-Action doesn't mean gy and logistics. The Level One Screening look at how well the remaining alternatives no action 2 process identified some alternatives that will help relieve congestion and improve were not recommended for further devel- safety along the I-75 corridor between Here We Are: opment. Examples of those alternatives Denver and the Fort Collins/Wellington An update on progress of the EIS 3 included restriping the highway to create area. Level Two has been identified as The Environment and the EIS: additional, narrower lanes on existing Comparative Screening and will consist of a Learn about the approaches pavement and the elimination of super high combination of qualitative and quantitative to collecting data about speed rail, MagLev, monorail and heavy rail analyses. If an alternative would perform (subway) technologies from consideration. the same or at a similar level of transporta- environmental impacts 3 tion service and improvement but is much Your Community. Your Travel. more complex, the more complex alternative Your Future. Your Ideas?: may be set aside from further consideration _ " . _.:.: " .,- "— , while t,, -..- maintaining a reasonable range n us at the public meetings '- �. .� r.._ _ ~ k 5 , .. ,, 1 ':A' alternatives. in October to see the latest in -•• -:`: .M„a alternatives development 4 ... ' -a There are 36 alternatives that will be - 4 ' i _, developed further in Level Two Screening. .- ,� continued on page 2 ?: Page D-44 w. Ili I. F 0 1L' !q ,„ + +1 _,. , - ,-,--1,:.„,,i, r t�4,; ,. . .,,, . .........._ . __ Alternatives in Level Two Stand Alone vs . Complementary continued from page 1 They include the No-Action alternative During the EIS process, alternatives are labeled as either stand alone or which is required by the National complementary based on their ability to resolve the issues outlined in the statement of Purpose and Need. An alternative would be considered stand-alone if it would Environmental Policy Act and is used as a baseline against which the other priniarily serve the need. In other words, if just that one alternative were built the alternatives are evaluated. See the article on average person would think it provided an acceptable solution. Complementary alternatives are used to improve the functionality of a stand alone alternative. this page for further information about For example, a passenger rail system might be considered as a stand-alone No-Action. Congestion management alternative with a local bus system that takes passengers to their final destinations measures include four options: travel demand as complementary management, intelligent transportation P It's important to ppoint out that there are some stand-alone alternatives that systems, transportation systems manage- meet, and bike and pedestrian facilities. would not function correctly without complementary alternatives in place. An additional lane of highway might primarily serve the Purpose and Need but Of the 13 highway alternatives identified couldn't be done without the complementary alternative of improved interchanges. during the scoping process, 12 will be carried Because of this, alternatives are often packaged together to provide a comprehensive forward for additional evaluation in Level solution. Packaging Two Screening. Alternatives in the highway allows for detailed category include replacing or upgrading analysis of fewer, better terchanges, improvements to local roads alternatives. Packaging ill an effort to move traffic off I-25, adding generally clocPr to the end of the E. arses to existing roads, and toll and high ;1 r :t':1t">> I project. Watch future occupancy lanes among others. c.11"11 ►t • i'' i ' editions of NorthLink - - I I,%,;,, W4 e II- Of the original31 �""'� ' for information proposed, 20 transit :�--�• • ? ,. F='; - -- • _), ,_,} `t - about the alternatives will move forward to Level Two - •• i need for packaging in -Screening. These include traditional bus, bus c the North 1-25 EIS. rapid transit, and a number of passenger rail options. Those passenger rail options could include service along existing highway corridors including I-25, US 85, or US 287. N o _A c t i o n The EIS will consider using existing freight rail corridors as well as the possibility of new alignments. Commuter rail, light rail and The No-Action alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and is used as a baseline against which the other alternatives are evaluated. The high-speed rail are technologies that will be purpose is to determine what effect on level of service future improvements would evaluated during Level Two Screening. have as compared to making no improvements beyond those already committed. Additional information about the alterna- No-Action consists of existing roadway and transit facilities, committed capacity fives moving forward to Level Two improvement projects that have identified funding, and committed capacity projects that have a dedicated source of funds such as bonds or money from the 7th Pot. Screening, including potential alignments for highway or rail alternatives, will be available No-Action does not mean that no projects will be completed as the EIS process at the public meetings in October 2004. moves forward. CDOT continues to make safety improvements along I-25 as they Times and locations for the public meetings are identified. For example, a cable median bather is currently being installed in the are included on page 4 of this edition of median of I-25 between SH 7 and Fort Collins. This project will be completed by the NorthLink. The project management team end of 2004. There is also a widening project in place between SH 7 and SH 66 y'- ,t Ilitsavailable for group presentations. To includes the modification of interchanges, overpasses, and frontage roads. The :ule a presentation, call (970) 352-5455 section of I-25 from SH 7 to Weld County Road 16 is expected to be completed in the or (303) 779-3384, or visit our project Web site fall of 2004. Final design is complete for the section from Weld County Road 16 to at www.cdot.unfo/northi25eis/. SH 119 and preliminary design is complete for the section from SH 119 to SH 66. These improvements will be included in the No-Action alternative. Page D-45 ' • I/ C i - F �II lij LI 0 R Contact Us F North 1-25 EIS Project Office Phone: (970) 352-5455 (303) 779-3384 7777- ; �:' r .,' 4DEVELDP ) EYAIdIAiE PREPARE 4 i, PREPARE [DECISION : . .. , .. aIAriv�s ALTERNATIYE5 DRAFT EIS RNALHS Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Mail: CDOT Engineering Office 1 Id 2207 E. Hig hway ghway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 Project Team e o i 1 : o o s j 2 0 0 6 I z o a i) Jean Wallace, PE., Federal Highway Administration; David Beckhouse, We Are Here Federal Transit Administration; David M. Martinez, P.E., CDOT Project Manager; Tom Anzia, P.E., Pro , ;�+' sect Manager; ,,,i 't ' a.: Gina McAfee, AICP, I• V • . -../1.4 Deputy Project Manager; III ,. .„...„,.. ,. ...0 f ;t_ . • r1., :i.,: , . , ...: , Kim Podobnik, APR, ;,�', Public Involvement Manager ` ' ° , . •. There are several sources and approaches for the identification ''` • f r and collection of the data in the resource areas for the North I-25 f ; ,a.' • EIS. These include: •'.4, ,• .u� ..4i,,.... ': • . •i • Data will be collected per guidelines specifically established by •• •i. �i Ill i • federal governmental policies and procedures - for example: w, • wetlands, threatened and endangered species and parks. t., '.-. -1.; ,r, yid;!'y :/1' 1\ - '� � \ r� • Data is available and will be collected from state and regional 1 i resource agencies - for example: information about wildlife t : .;'', '.' will come from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, historic/ ' '~ ` cultural data from the State Historic Preservation Officer and water quality data is collected from the Colorado Department Theof Public Health & Environment. Environment a n d the EIS '. • Local jurisdictions and agencies can provide data related to land use, parks and recreation, bike and pedestrian facilities, An outline of environmental and traffic data. • Data is collected during in-the-field reconnaissance or from data collection specific expressions of interest by the public identified during project scoping - for example: noise, vistas and neighborhoods. It goes without saying that one of the most important goals of All data collected is further field-checked to verify its accuracy an Environmental Impact Statement is to determine the impact and relevance to the project. The data being collected at this stage ;' potential alternatives will have on the environment. of the process is general and broad in level of detail because of ironment is broadly defined as natural and cultural resource size of the study area. More detailed data will be collected d areas that include both physical and cultural elements. These the spring and summer of 2005. The collected data will be used resource areas are required by the National Environmental Policy the subsequent development and screening of transportation Act that governs the preparation of an EIS. alternatives in the North I-25 study area. Page D-46 Vii.,- ,, ":"Tr � '< " fit _ Public Meetings Tuesday, October 19, 26O4 Presentation: 5:30 - 6:15 p.m. j "' *.w. - ::L '' 1? Small Group Discussions: 6:15 — 8:30 p.m. ' Commerce City Recreation Center n . s"','c f -,- 1 .x�'"``.. ; F)� - a ... Multipurpose Room 6060 E. Parkway Dr. • Commerce Cit, Thursday, October 21, 2004 Your Community. Your Travel . Presentation: 5:30 - 6:15 p.m. Small Group Discussions: 6:15 — 8:30 p.m. Your Future . Your Ideas ? McKee Conference & Wellness Center Friends Room More than 1,500 comments have been received from residents of Northern Colorado 2000 Boise Ave. • MLoveland and those who travel the 1-25 corridor since the North I-25 EIS began in January 2OO4. Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Those comments have helped shape a draft list of potential solutions to improving Presentation: 5:30 - 6:15 p.m. transportation in the region. You're invited to join us to learn about the transportation Small Group Discussions: 6:15 — 8:30 p.m. improvements under consideration and how they might successfully address conges- Lincoln Center, Columbine Room tion and safety concerns in the study area. 417 W. Magnolia St • Fort Collins Thursday, October 28, 2004 A presentation will outline the types of technologies and alternatives being Presentation: 5:30 - 6:15 p.m. considered. The project team will also share information about the criteria to be used Small Group Discussions: 6:15 — 8:30 p.m. in evaluating alternatives in Level Two Screening and outline the environmental data Greeley Recreation Center, Room 101 collection process. The small group discussions will provide you the opportunity to 651 10th Ave. • Greeley speak directly with those doing the research on how each technology or alternative can work to improve the movement of people and goods along the corridor. To fully For more information on the study or public understand the transportation alternatives currently under development, we ask meetings, or to arrange for special that you plan to attend the entire meeting and participate in each of the small group accommodations or translation services, discussions. Topics for the small groups include: visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, or call Commuter Rail and High Speed Rail Highway and Congestion Management (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384. Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Travel and Land Use Patterns • L£508 OD 'puejano7 Z0v .J(MH .a L0ZZ aor33O 8uuaaur2u3 .LOAD alib£ti ON 11W83d .uoveuodsueu uoijeiadoo3 'uol Jew Jo;ui 00 'S0dS 0100 Sl a 0IYd 30VIS0d .ssn CZ--I HINON 01S 1bS2id Page D-47 NORTH I-25 __ ` " Volume 2 - June 2005 EIS �"'''' information. cooperation. transportation. r f '. r . +� . • • ' .. r-. i ' . ' v v. - -�tir ;, � THE NORTH 1-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE • 'Z = - `� '"'�`=°'. ~'"- - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE '. '`s " '-''--- ---•>‘, FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. Household Survey Results Anyone who has traveled I-25 through census data, including information What's Inside? through Northern Colorado has already about the trips people make to and from experienced increasing congestion and a work. However, we have heard from a Household Survey Results growing concern for safety That's why significant number of people that they • liminary results of a household the Federal Highway Administration, the travel 1-25 between Northern Colorado survey completed this spring 1 Federal Transit Administration and the and Denver for many other reasons, such Colorado Department of Transportation as entertainment, shopping, and to get to Studying Future Travel are studying options to improve mobility and from Denver International Airport. Try your hand at an exercise for local commuters as well as those To gain a better understanding of these that demonstrates how travel traveling between neighboring states and trips, the North I-25 RS project team demand forecasting helps plan throughout the region. This study, called contracted with National Research Center, for the future 2-3 the North I-25 Environmental Impact Inc. to conduct a household travel survey. Report Card Statement (EIS), will address the future transportation needs of the region. The following table reports the number Our method of clearly andof times, on an annual basis, people travel easily sharing the latest results of One of the methods used to deter- from Northern Colorado to Denver on a alternatives evaluation 2-3 mine future transportation needs for the weekday or weekend to participate in the region is called travel demand modeling — types of activities identified. For example, Which alternatives make the grade? see page 2 for additional information Jane Smith travels on a weekday from Information about public meetings in June 4 about modeling. Most of what we needed Northern Colorado to Denver to shop three to know to effectively estimate future times a year travel patterns was readily available Purpose for traveling to Denver Weekday trips per year Weekend trips per year Sporting Events 17 1.6 ICultural and Special Events or Attractions 1.e 2.1 ' •} eXw wu' . Social or Recreation Trips to 4.0 ei -- . _` i a - . Shopping or Personal Business 30 2.0 ime III • j . • ',, Work or School Commute 10.0 N/A ";Alilz :-.03 , 7L ' °T it- i''{hA _I i I Work-related Trips 6.0 "V� le:� ' r •. . :�i ;` ii 01 ., Travel to N/A 1 h�• ANN 3� 2.7 5$ - - - Pa g�onnTinuEd-bn page 2 .+ -.It_...`_ _- __._ �.��_ '•' e'_ '� _ �__ -' .,r • „raj.- �c tik I' tic:14c • I .c •_ter: ._ pi Ay fps\ i :4\ ((i _ _. 0 _ 1 • ;i r Survey Results (continued from page 1, Studying Future Travel One other interesting point: A key basis for evaluation of the trans- approximately 46 percent of travelers portation alternatives is future travel estimates. said they regularly avoid traveling on ' ' .• 5 .- .1 -,'. • • • • . A computerized model has been developed I-25. The top reasons given include too = ' • T •- � - • 6• _..:.i�15; < :eel: •, . L, �,.,��,. that simulates multimodal (roadway and - much congestion, a sense of not feeling �-�`� '�� ' - r*• —' c C>, - - transit) travel on the transportation system. safe, and that it takes longer than other ''r �' � ' .,, Future alternative transportation system routes. cal—i� N �T� ;• ' scenarios are coded into the model, along '� t...::.. , N.. with estimates of future population and Additional findings along with 1037,11 r ,w information about the methodology �'• 1.:: .;` employment, obtained from the North Front '," ''' "' Range Metropolitan Plannin Or anization used to conduct the survey will be g P g g available at the public meetings in June. (NFRMPO) and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). The North 1-25 EIS travel forecast model turns the future population and employment into trips Please see page 4 for public meeting dates and locations. of different kinds - work trips, shopping trips, etc. The model results include estimates of traffic volumes on roads and transit patronage on bus and potential rail lines. The modeling process helps us understand the alternatives, in terms of their effectiveness 0 to serve the future population and their impacts on the environment. Report Card Evaluation of alternatives involves collecting and analyzing alternatives could be a primary component of an acceptable detailed information related to the categories of purpose and transportation solution. For example, a highway alternative will need, practicability and environment. As a way to clearly and receive a "satisfactory" grade for Purpose and Need if it provides easily share the results of this effort, we are developing report sufficient capacity to comfortably serve future traffic volumes in cards for each of the alternatives. The report cards will reflect the a safe manner. Under Environment a "satisfactory" grade will be grades including S, NI and U (Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or given to alternatives that will not be likely to have a significant Unsatisfactory), and will include our preliminary recommendations impact on the environment. for which alternatives should advance for additional evaluation. Needs Improvement Alternatives that receive this grade The completed report cards will be presented at the public may not fully meet the criteria but if modified, or combined with meetings in June. Here is an example of what the report card will other improvements, may justify further consideration. These look like, as well as an explanation of the grading system used. alternatives are considered complementary, meaning they are Alternatives will be given a grade of S, NI or U according to used to improve the functionality of a stand-alone alternative. how well they address the subject areas as they are described Unsatisfactory: If an alternative is identified as being too above. Here is how the grades are assigned. costly, doesn't serve a significant number of travelers, or has Satisfactory: An alternative will receive a "satisfactory"ip potential to significantly affect the environment it would be t, ..ii ode if it addresses the criteria identified for the subject. These an "unsatisfactory" grade. An unsatisfactory grade will result in would be considered stand-alone alternatives, meaning the an alternative not being recommended for further evaluation. Page D-49 `,, �� 41 4% 4)'^m �` . i 1 " 1 .� . _ - . r -,1 rx • Contact Us What is a Travel Demand Model? North I-25 EIS Project Office A travel simulation program that uses a road network connecting Phone: (970) 352-5455 population and employment locations. (303) 779-3384 Home Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Mail: CDOT Engineering Office Simulates people traveling between home, work, 7 2207 E. Highway 402 shopping, entertainment, etc. Loveland, CO 80537 Finds the quickest route for each trip 2 ehool 12 Project Team This example model has 6 zones and 9 roadway links. Theatre 13 10 Jean Wallace, RE., Can you find the quickest route from home to work? ` Federal Highway Administration; Shopping Now envision a model that connects the Northern Center David Beckhouse, Colorado cities with metropolitan Denver and has Federal Transit Administration; 3,500 zones and 21,000 roadway links, and you have 5 David M. Martinez, PE., the North 1-25 EIS Travel Demand Model. 6 Dry COOT Project Manager; LEGEND Cleaner Torn Anzia, PE., I Areas of population and employment / Project Manager; called Zones Answer: Roadway Link Work Gina McAfee, AICP, soznuiw p i. Deputy Project Manager; X Travel Time in Minutes Kim Podobnik, APR. Public Involvement Manager 0 REPORT CARD FOR LEVEL 2 EVALUATION Nom1-25 EIS Warner wpratia. traapa'. *n SUBJECT PURPOSE FINAL and PRACTICABILITY ENVIRONMENT GRADE NEED HIGHWAY The grade in this subject area Considerations in this subject The grade In this subject area Alternatives will ALTERNATIVES will reflect how well each area include how much each will reflect how much impact receive a cumulative Widen 1-25 alternative addresses safety alternative costs as compared to the human environment grade of S. NI or U. i. New Toll Lanes on 1-25 concerns and future travel to the other alternatives. each alternative will have as High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes demand on !'25. compared to the others, as well Improve Parallel Roads (US 85, as how much impact it will US 287) have to the natural f. Build New Parallel Arterial environment as compared to Build New Highway the others - Congestion Management TRANSIT Each transit alternative will In this subject area, each The grade In this subject area Alternatives will ALTERNATIVES be graded on how well it transit alternative will be will reflect how much impact receive a cumulative Bus Rapid Transit serves population and graded on cost as compared to the human environment grade of S, NI or U. High Speed Rail employment centers, how well I to other alternatives, how well each alternative will have as Light Rail it serves prominent travel I suited each is to longer- compared to the others, as well II Commuter Rail patterns, and how much I distance tnps, and how much as how much impact it will ridership it generates. coordination with transit have to the natural agencies or other agencies is environment as compared to required the others GRADING KEY: S: Satisfactory NI : Needs Improvement U: Unsatisfactory Pa0P n 50 Which alternatives make the grade? Public Meetings Tuesday,June t4,4-7 p.m. You're invited to our public meetings to look over our report card Project Presentation 6 p.m. e alternatives for the North I-25 EIS. Greeley Recreation Center Multipurpose Rooms 101 A,B,and C The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is studying future trans- 651 10th Ave.,Greeley portation improvements along the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington Thursday,June 16,47 p.m. area to Denver. Project Presentation 6 p.m. Fort Collins Lincoln Center During the initial evaluation of transportation improvements,alternatives were Canyon West/Columbine Rooms evaluated for fatal flaws.Each alternative was judged on its suitability to the corridor, 417 W Magnolia,Ft Collins its typical costs and its potential effect on the environment.The project is now finishing Tuesday,June 21,47 p.m. the second level of evaluation with more detailed measures and travel analysis. Project Presentation 6 p.m. Loveland Police&Courts Building We invite you to review the results of our Level2 evaluation.Just like in Conference Rooms North/South school,each alternative will ie&eive a report card explaining how it compared in 810 E.10th St,Loveland the evaluation process.Alternatives will be graded on travel times,congestion Thursday,June 23,4-7 p.m. relief,preliminary cost estimates,environmental impacts and other measures. Project Presentation 6 p.m. Recommendations on which alternatives will be carried forward into more Longmont Radisson Hotel& detailed evaluation will be presented.We invite you to give us your thoughts Conference Center erthome Ballroom 1850 Circle, comments about the evaluation results and the alternatives that are being Si Industry Circle,Longmont recommended for further development and screening. For more information on the study or public Please plan on joining us at one of our next public meetings to help plan meetings,or to arrange for special the future of travel along I-25. accommodations ortranslation services, vFor more information on the study or the public meetings,visit (970 wwv5455 or(3 3)779-3 84. or call (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. w.cdot.info/northi25eis/or call(970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. L£5OB OJ Puelanol tot'LMH'H LOZZ ammo 2u;iaauiSu3 ioco • 'uoileUodsue, uagmad000 10newle;ul SI3 cZ I H.RION Page D-51 yiy-I. 'i _ �` -• ,• r - I- • --.• .. •1. ;•f:Li t.••=-ts ;rte'` r4 • -r0'ti: ' • . , r ... NORTH 1-25 • , -.-. r, T , .rte „r • ' f; ,— -. II O r:. a • . .. ;- ', -.� h - ` .� Volume 3 - January 2006 EIS , -,:l.r r -+. / ' � .' . .t ,-,� ,.'�. �:<<, ,;� ' a information. cooperation. transportation. • `nr';; + 7`' Mti t•,- 7 .t:r f •.• . . , ---.777-: ,t , .. SA fit. '� `6 , t ^ t `y • •i. r} • 0 ;.,1 y Ir ,9. • ^; • r f -fit r t'ill' � • • • • • • 1 � t • /. • ' : ..‘.N,,,:.Z.C.S.t.:'. . ‘:"' te 1;t-, ti ter „,, .,fL. r, , THE NORTH 1-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE ' '= "�''�.', • ": :�` TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE 1-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE , • :*:.,-rti•..;:`•, , " ;' FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. .1 . <��• What's Inside? Town Hall Meetings Join us at one of 12 town hall meetings and view transportation improvements anticipated to move forward into the More Town Hall Meetings on Onsit 1-2 70 Station Working Groups the North 1 - 25 EIS .• Working groups provide a hands-on opportunity for Northern Colorado Help decide tha future of trans ortation in communitymemberstoprovideinput p on potential transit alternatives. 2 Northern Colorado . Gasoline Prices and Travel Behavior How gas prices influence transit ridership and highway travel. 3 If you've ever wondered what forward into the Draft Environmental What's Next The DEIS the future of transportation in Impact Statement (DEIS). The next step in the North 1-25 EIS Northern Colorado might look like, Please plan on attending one of involves the development of here's your chance to find out. Even the 12 scheduled public meetings to improvements in the Draft better, it's also your chance to shape Environmental Impact Statement. 3-4 that future. explore, discuss, learn and provide Interchange input on the future of transportation Planning: A Public Process Here's another opportunity for the The North I-25 EIS project team in Northern Colorado. project team and public to work has just completed the third level of To view a listing of town hall together. 4 evaluating transit improvements. Eight meeting dates and locations, please alternative transportation packages see page 2 of your North Link were developed and evaluated, and newsletter. For more information, now we're ready to show you the visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ } results. At the upcoming fifth round . of town hall meetings, we will present or call the Public Involvement Team at (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384.•t -'�, the packages that performed best, at (970) 352 5455 or (303) 779-3384. -4 --- --' and which we would like to move 4;1J9a I�" 'i+�• lip nF ' )• ' •, . t-i it • d ` !' 1ji 't AP' '' Qwr.r.r,.- ih?. Page D-5,� r � soma iv.,. Continued on page 2 � ; `.'r.. L� .i.s .Se's �►;�t ~.L' ' .^ f�� rp4S ;?a 7 .: 1 s'.- : : ...- 7:.* """1:117. .:;. , '7. • ..' 7 . 1 ,--T-FTH—T-t--.7.4...: ..V . , _., -. . 'IT -..:.__,_ / , . .. ,...-._,- -N-._. : ,-_ _ , __ _ . , ___: ._ , e - ---=—.—__ •--- .,.,— _ III .1 . , ,Axi ' LL: . ::_. a 2 ___, . . - , iyA - \ .--....4 't _i -.y / / .t G'� .e -iC�'�. .....c...- a Town Hall Meetings in„, nnrd fro„, pa, J, Transit Station \/Vorkingti Groups : Town hall meeting dates and locations An Interactive OpportUnityare a January 23 In October, the North I-25 EIS launched Transit Station Working Groups. This Fort Collins Attlan Community Center hands-on process is another way for community members to have an impact on the 112 E. Willow St. p 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. study. Transit Station Working Groups discuss transit stations (Commuter Rail, January 24 Commuter Bus and Bus Rapid Transit), bike and pedestrian connectivity, and Windsor Community Center maintenance facilities. 250 11th St. 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p m. Northern Colorado community members - January 25 who reside in or frequently drive our Study '' ‘ Frederick Town Hall Area are encouraged to participate. ' :t"." i • - -- — 401 Locust Si. ' f . a 9 • . p ?. 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During the first two meetings, s ,� I . n", "•� January 26 discussed evaluation criteria that can influence u 4-. ' Thornton City Hall the location of stations (land use, bus service ! 4 .Y. 9500 Civic Center Dr. _�w 6:00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and zoning, for example), and reviewedE."" 1 `" 1 January 30 proposed station locations in each corridor. _ care Gilcrest Valley High School To view information from the first two 1001 Birch St. meetings, please visit the project Web site at 6:00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. January 31 Mead Town Hall The third round of working group meetings will focus on the results from 441 Third St. Level 3 Evaluation and how the results affect the transit station process, modeling 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. results, station program, station site evaluation criteria and maintenance facility. February 1 Longmont Museum One or more of the transit technologies may be eliminated in Level 3, so be sure to 400 Quail Rd. attend Town Hall Meetings to view the results. 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. February 2 The next Transit Station Working Group meetings are as follows: Loveland Public Library • Monday, March 20, 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 300 N. Adams Ave. Frederick Town Hall 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 401 Locust St. February 6 ! • 1:I-II- 1; . • Thursday, March 23, 5:30p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center I-J'Ci . , 1 y 651 10th Ave. ', c. :.1.11 CDOT R4, Loveland `l +v` ! • 2207 E. Highway 402 6:00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. i ` 11 9 Y February 7 :"..:0;.- . .L :fj '-i. � \ If you were unable to attend either of Fort Collins Harmony Library I ` 4616 S. Shields St. • i LI . I the first two rounds of working group 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. •l`,-; meetings, you are still invited to attend i f LI u and participate in future meetings. Please February 15 � ' _ 1 !�, ,.1. 1• p p g -- - 1-.7 ;4 .11 Southwest Weld County Building _-- � , contact the Public Involvement Team at 0 4209 Weld County Rd. 24.4 !� -! • a t i�'' 1�t; (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 if y' 4:30 p.m to 6:30 p.m. ""a 4:30 i would like to get involved. February 16 Milliken Town Hall 1101 Broad St. 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Page D-53 f • •�rai- �" (1 4-,44:..,.. 2 te r.., , ,' ~".� '� , Ivf, r ' v c ;m ` }i ter.: ® ___.L.-. ` t om ' .• - - _ 'i . 5 % '.. rinnallillilgarili •r r" - alba ; - al. r,— Contact Us Gasoline Prices and Travel Behavior North I-25 EIS Project Office Phone: (970) 352-5455 Several unexpected natural disasters during 2005 resulted in notable increases in the (303) 779-3384 price of gasoline. And a recent sampling of U.S. transit systems finds increases of transit Web site wwwcdot.info/northi25eisi ridership ranging from eight to 17 percent compared to last year'. So how is the price of Mail CDOT Engineering Office 2207 E. Highway 402 gasoline considered when evaluating transit ridership in the North 1-25 EIS? Loveland, CO 80537 Travel forecasts for the North I-25 EIS process assume that the relative price of fuel Project Team Jean Wallace, PE , remains constant through the year 2030. This is a standard and well-accepted forecasting Federal Highway Administration, practice because of the uncertainty of predicting the price of fuel. But how much do David Beckhouse, travel patterns really change when gasoline prices increase? Federal Transit Administration; David M. Martinez, PE , With the abrupt rise in gasoline prices in recent months, CDOT Project Manager: ... o 9 record numbers of people are turning to mass transit as their ::3 . w 9 Torn Anzia, PE , 4 mode of transportation. Washington Metro olitan Area Project Manager; P Gina McAfee, AICP, Transit reports system ridership was up 10 percent for the 9 Deputy Project Manager; year, compared with a normal annual growth rate of two Kim Podobnik, APR, percent. In Texas, traffic on the Trinity Railway Express, Public Involvement Manager =7 39 ^h links Dallas to Fort Worth, was up 16 percent for the III ft,_ four weekdays of September compared with the same period one year earlier" we i ` - - What's Next: The DEIS Similarly, Colorado carpool and vanpool programs managed by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Level 3 of the evaluation screening Organization (NFRMPO) and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) process has been completed and we are now ready for the next step in the both report a large increase in inquiries since the recent rise in gasoline prices. EIS process: preparation of the Draft Automobile travel also changes if fuel prices increase. Historically, the amount of Environmental Impact Statement. vehicle miles traveled (VMT, a common measure of automobile travel) has outpaced The DEIS donurlent will include the population growth. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. population has increased about one following: percent per year, while VMT has increased about three percent?. However, an exception 1) Development of DEIS was after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo of Alternatives: Alternatives that 1973. Comparing 1974 to 1973, national VMT declined by 2.5 percent, even though U.S. remain after Level 3 screening population grew about three percent. In general, it has been estimated that a 25 percent will be defined to a greater level increase in the price of gasoline would result in about a five percent drop in VMT. of detail so that a full analysis can be completed. This greater level of It is interesting to note that the amount of fuel consumed would decrease more than detail will include areas such as: the decrease in VMT, given rising fuel prices. As gasoline prices go up, people tend to a) Layout of right-of-way modify their driving habits by accelerating slower and reducing travel speed to conserve needed fuel. Also, for drivers with two cars, the more fuel-efficient vehicle is driven more often. b) Location of bridges, Eventually, people purchase smaller, more fuel-efficient cars to replace larger vehicles retaining walls and fill slopes 5. as SUVs. It is estimated fuel consumption would decrease 1.5 to two times as c) Location of stations ant much as the decrease in VMT. interchanges t American Public Transportation Association (APIA). March 2004 to September 20O5, for transit systems without any major improvements d) Planned frequency of to transit service. 2 US. Census and U.S. Department of Energy data transit service e) Cost of Cnstruc#ioe4 l operations maintenance What's Next: The DEIS (cn„►isvu d from page 3) 2) Analysis of DEIS Alternatives: The DEIS Alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, will be fully analyzed, according to such areas as: y = - -4 ' w a) Transportation impacts and performance - ;., b) Impacts to properties (access, right-of-way, visibility, etc.) ' '.\ --c) Impacts to natural resources (wildlife, water resources, wetlands, etc.) 'at \";`)1k. ' kr ,' d) Operational impacts such as noise or air quality e) Impacts to social and economic conditions Interchange Planning: f) Costs and funding possibilities A Public Process 3) Documentation on the DEIS Chapters: The information developed In Level 3, the project team began throughout the entire study will be documented in a federally required the interchange planning process and report. This will include: this process will continue through the a) Purpose and need for improvements DEIS. Interchange Planning Groups b) Alternatives considered and/or public meetings will soon be c) Transportation impacts underway and we invite community d) Existing conditions and environmental impacts members to participate and share e) Summary of public and agency involvement f) Funding options their opinions. 4) Review Process: Before the DEIS enters the public and agency comment The I-25 corridor will be divided process, it is reviewed in detail by CDOT, FHWA, FTA and the Cooperating into six segments for interchange Agencies (RID, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Railroad planning meetings. Please call Administration). the Public Involvement Team at 5) Public and agency comment period (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 for more information about becoming involved. L£508 OD 'puvjano-1 Z0t Alvin '3 L0ZZ aDTfO Suuxaarn2ug .LOAD •uoileuodsue4i ualeiadoo3 •uouew►o;w kid SIB. SZ I HDION Page D-55 Sliii Volume 3 - October 2006 .. . , .. • y. NORTH 125 ' ?;'‘ ;. EIS information. cooperation. transportation. THE NORTH 1 -25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE TRANSPORTA- TION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I -25 CORRIDOR FROM THE FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. c - Introduction to th e Draft EIS Process Level 3 Evaluation is complete and the • Of the various tolled Express Lane alterna- n s i d e This North I-25 EIS project has entered the Draft tives, tolled Express Lanes with Bus Rapid Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) phase. Transit (BRT) would provide the most con- Issue Based on Level 3 Evaluation findings, two DEIS gestion reduction and would have the high- Introduction to the Draft Packages have been developed and will un- est utilization. Based on this, a variation of EIS Process dergo even more detailed analysis in the DEIS tolled Express Lane alternatives with BRT Learn more about the next steps process. Steps in the DEIS: will be included in the DEIS. in this evaluation 1 1. Development of DEIS Alternatives Transit Evaluation DEIS Pkgs. A and B An -^9w of the proposed 2. Analysis of elements of Packages A & B • Commuter Rail (CR) service attracts the Ill tra( ition packages. 2 and No-Action Alternative highest level of ridership but bus alterna- 3. Documentation of the DEIS Chapters dues are the most cost effective. Transit Station Planning Learn how transit station 4. Review Process by the Colorado Depart- • CR service along the western Burlington locations are selected 3 ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor Administration, Federal Transit Adminis- Awould be significantly more effective than Look into Commuter building CR along I-25 and /or U.S. 85 Rail and Bus Rapid tration and cooperating agencies corridors. Transit lines on I-25 compete Transit in the EIS 5. Public and Agency Comment Period for riders with transit services along the A detailed look at the types BNSF railroad corridor and U.S. 85. of transit options 4 Notable Level 3 Facts to • Bus transit service to Denver International Interchange and Highway Consider in the Draft EIS Airport attracts more ridership and has the Access Planning potential to improve the cost-effectiveness Detailed diagrams help explain Highway Evaluation of bus service. the differences between the interchange possibilities 5 • Evaluation of various transit and highway Your Community. Your improvements indicated that I-25 would Environmental Analysis in Travel. Your Opinions. need to be widened to accommodate future the Draft EIS Public meetings on new laddevelopment regardless of transit improve- alternatives 6 ments provided. The North I-25 EIS environmental resource • 1-25 could be widened to accommodate specialists are completing data collection and Contact Information. 6 future growth and development in three updating existing conditions for DEIS Pack- age A and DEIS Package B. Environmental basic ways: additional general purpose lanes, tolled Express Lanes or combination resource specialists have been collecting data of both. on wetlands throughout the North I-25 EIS • study area, along the BNSF railroad corridor • Using general purpose lanes, a six-lane and from historic and archaeological resources. cross-section is sufficient in much of the Currently, the environmental team and many �_ . area while eight lanes and/or auxiliary municipalities are identifying important com- i ' lanes would be required in select locations. q munity resources in order to avoid any poten- / _,�: • tial negative impacts. g r } A. 1 'i Page D-56 ',71:..r\ '` r� , 1;. ;ii„a 0 — / ''------- .......< t„,‘ -- _ . DEIS Package A: 6 GP + WCR + CB85 DEIS Package B: Express Lanes + BRT 4 LEGEND LEGEND ea 1 New General Purpose o C • rreCt ge • metric .� IBuffer-sepentedExprsa t Csrrect •e ' metric tan. in Each Direction 0 • sCfICIC7ICICS LeaelnEsehDlroetioa (jL'1iCietICICS � � � P an • rC Ia ce a • In( a s . u lnd re lace a • In • 1 New General Purpose n • J 2 Barrier-Sep D r�cNoe ret {� Lane+Auxiliary Lena In . infrastructure tunes in infrastructur( Each Direction a'-- ` '4 BRT Route(Uses Express i Commuter Rail Fort Collin Lanes on I-Z51 a Fort C • Itin• • / •, sa Cometutor Bus Service in Feeder Bes Service rtel b,,, General Purpose lanes ♦ ►-•� itA •-...— •y— '' P "•7 a" 0 interchange Upgrades ,� Feeder Bus Service ♦ --- ia 101011•.• .... 0 Number of Lanes: General la .I -►-•. 0 Interchange Upgrades Purpose/Express Lenin el) Love nd _ _ Lowl>tnd ' 414 Number of Lanes •• •• Groel•ya — Bus Rapid Transit Station Q k dreary .L Commuter Bus Stetlon r'44-3 6+ '� _� .......Des FasTreoks Rail Line - I •••'- O Commuter Rail Station ( O ' ) RID Transit Station .• •• . S I,• 1.•••. 00 FasTrecks Ref Line � w u• RTD Transit Station 4 © • 's^"" 6 • /2 is I? •t (>f o►Zu. r -wr;•lt O y 1 Longmont ,' ongmont *1Fnduraillit)hwn}• >. g, JI 7Fndnrnlltigltv:;y n i (✓A dinini;lialhon t • 0.-- 1N rib ratio abon �J " ,i-W r r9 f ....�.. ...w 1 w.w # IA • ,p I • ,d • Q .,.. � ••• 612 r . t Boulder ® t oulder ti- stt y. ��'�•••'•��•1 N.ruN••t •r/i1�-: 1 1 •f �Mi•rnn n IL • -— �` 1^^""'^ CHstrwit :41. J taste. is. ste InlIJIC'RIent ""! .2•.r. n orwattw • (e , ' rat w N . 0 + 7 G^+.a 1 /2 `•'""q ."- • Itcrnativc ' t er t , it • • r.jects � I �� ee.t rd WI i NOT TO SCALE m , na •r • ; I �' NOT TO SCALE '. s;tl�:. D1"' •r �-- • mirth I-4 \ N•.lU r NOTE: NOTE - Select sections of 1-25 would require auxiliary lanes and/or an — A wider barrier and Express Lanes cross-section is included additional through-lane in addition to this 6-lane cross section. between SH 60 and Harmony Road. — Where widening is needed between State Highway 66 (SH 66) — BRT stations could be located within an expanded median area. and SH 7, the median would be used. — Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7, the median would be used. Congestion Management Measures could include: • New local transit routes • Variable message signs at all transit stations • Signal coordination along U.S. 34 and • New express transit routes • Automated Vehicle Locaters on all transit Harmony Road [Package B] 0 Enhanced carpool lot parking capacity and vehicles — "next bus" technology • Continuous links to local bike and pedesc) amenities • Ramp metering and variable message signs at systems • Courtesy patrol (incident management) from selected interchanges • Support for development of a Transportation SH 14 to SH 7 • Access management along U.S. 85 [Package A] Management Organization (TMO) 2 _.-- Page D-57 Vim- H r- - . . .� Pk t _ .I q ' .... ` 1,1 'el lw L' ! 1 i `I •ill r i S. •1 . . �_ , �-i.,, , . ,., , -T. ii ..-..< y I �" , _ . ransit Station Planning The design team has considered many Once a general facility location was de- pedestrian and bicycle access, platform/ potential station locations for Bus Rapid termined, the team identified numer- site relationship, land use compatibility, Transit (BRT), Commuter Rail (CR) and ous sites for each station. The specific joint development opportunities and Commuter Bus transit corridors. Criteria sites were identified and sized to serve environmental impacts. As a result of such as station spacing, vehicular access the park and ride facility, feeder bus this evaluation, one to two sites per and proximity to population and activity system, passenger drop-off and pedestri- station were recommended to move centers were all taken into account as well an connectivity. The specific station sites forward and be evaluated further in as committee and stakeholder support. were evaluated looking at vehicular, the DEIS. • One platform 20' x 300' Bus Rapid Transit Typical Station located in the median of 1-25 • Bus loading lanes will be located on either side of platform +� +z it +r ,r r Ir _ xo _ u r it u ' it +x If TRAVEL • Bypass lane, barrier and LANE "NIL MANAG€Scull pYPAE LOADING PLATFORM 1 LO 811.6S M►EE' TO Ee TRAVEL LANEL OULCEY shoulder provide a 23' buffer ,, __ I 'MM1M[M ��IUill - Witt* .. x[11 12 from bus loading lane to the ( 1 / through-lanes of 1-25 I l • Pedestrian circulation will be 0 provided with a pedestrian I L r EA I1 overpass from the median �i _ _ __ platform to parking, which will be located on either the S81-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NB 1-25 east or west side of I-25 • Stairs and elevator will be provided • Parking is located adjacent or close to station 50 5C Commuter Rail Typical Station rBNSF ROW 8NSF ROW • Two platforms 19'8" x 400' (allows for compatibility with RTD I '6'6' '4 28' 4 19'r transit system) j PLATFORM PLATFORM I • One platform will be located to the west of the southbound track and one platform will be located to the east of the , northbound track � "I ��l��1��"� • Pedestrian circulation will be provided with a pedestrian overpass between each platform to prevent unsafe crossings —,• , __ ,• 23.6' of the railroad tracks ir1I MIt I � -�::� - Stairs and elevator will be provided TRACKS i narking is located adjacent or close to station COMMUTER RAIL STATION • 3 Page D-58 '` ..::-- --P..0 I r - ii‘ .---: 1144teltit- - f i i 4. ,. di t i 77 La litiMf- ' I :ear r�.�I /I/ . .I �/ „tite •rte -r. - ��tS-`"' ,- r _ ;,'''. . .... ,,d,,. s-AIIIIIIIIMO A Look into Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit in the EIS Commuter Rail and Integration with FasTracks The passage of RTD's FasTracks proposal in November 2005 The project team evaluated numerous CR alignments for the ex- brings Commuter Rail (CR) service to the doorstep of the North tension from Longmont to the North Metro Corridor. The align- Front Range. The North I-25 EIS project team will analyze con- ment chosen for further evaluation in the DEIS would extend east necting the proposed CR alignment shown in Package A with from Longmont along the SH 119 corridor, then continue south the FasTracks lines that include both the North Metro Corridor along WCR 7 through Erie before crossing I-25 at WCR 8. After through Thornton, as well as the Northwest Rail Corridor up crossing I-25 the alignment would continue south in the Union to Longmont along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Pacific Railroad corridor to meet the North Metro Corridor at (BNSF) railroad corridor, which parallels U.S. 287. However, the St. Vrain junction, where the northernmost FasTracks sta- "connecting the dots" isn' t as easy as it sounds. tion is planned. Benefits of the alignment include a shorter track length, utilization of existing rail line, and the fewest impacts to To maximize the FasTracks investment and avoid paying communities, parks and open spaces of all the alignment options more of the operations cost than absolutely necessary, service considered. extended north from the FasTracks stations should be at the frequencies planned by RTD, which is currently every 30 min- The CR alignment will feature a station located in the Tri-town utes to Thornton and Longmont. Therefore, every 30 min- area. The project team has selected two sites, one along WCR 8 utes a train from North Metro would continue north to the west of I-25 and one near the intersection for WCR 7 and SH 52. opLongmont station, meet the RTD train pulling in and allow The CR alignment and both station locations will proceed into assengers to transfer to the northbound train. This allows the DEIS for further evaluation. Further components and d -n passengers from Fort Collins to Denver to ride without trans- elements of the station and CR alignment will be presente . Jr ferring, but passengers from Fort Collins to Boulder would public comment during the DEIS evaluation. have to transfer to the RTD service in Longmont. Bus Rapid Transit: A New, FlexibCe Transportation Option in Colorado Picture a large, swift and futuristic- blending local service with several stops service would take Harmony Road and looking vehicle, much like ones seen at near neighborhoods or employment U.S. 34 to get to 1-25. Along these roads themed amusement parks. Now picture centers to provide sufficient access, with the BRT is proposed to stop at both that same vehicle in a special lane of a commute service that has fewer stops street-side stops as well as park and ride the highway, stopping every few miles and higher travel speeds along freeway lots, and to utilize signal treatments and at bus station platforms built into the lanes. Distinct from typical bus ser- intersection modifications that would highway median. This new transit tech- vice, BRT typically runs in a dedicated, be designed to help the service avoid nology, known as Bus Rapid Transit special-use lane. But that, too, is flexible, congestion. Along I-25, the service (BRT), has gained widespread interest as the lane can also be utilized by other would run within the tolled Express and appeal as a comparatively lower- high occupancy vehicles, or for other Lanes and stop at station areas that are cost high capacity transit investment. special purposes like tolling. built into the freeway median. They In Colorado, it is being considered in would be accessible to pedestrians via a the North I-25 EIS and is planned for In the North Front Range, BRT is pro- pedestrian bridge. Freeway station areas the U.S. 36 Corridor. posed as part of an alternative that in- would be buffered by passing lanes and eludes tolled Express Lanes along North other treatments to provide adequate The benefits of BRT relate to flexibility. 1-25. The service would consist of two space and roominess for passengers. The bus can be powered by a variety of routes: one from Greeley going directly illel sources and runs on rubber tires like to Denver Union Station, and the other The BRT alternative will be compa o typical bus. Therefore, BRT vehicles can from Fort Collins, alternating destina- the CR service, and both will be tested be routed anywhere there is adequate tions between Denver International for ridership, costs and environmental pavement, which makes it ideal for Airport and Denver Union Station. The impacts in the DEIS. 4 Page D-59 Mic).° ifin- b.? 11.!;9110 VAC 7� • . S _ /T • Interchange and H � hwa Access Planningg v In late 2005, the North I-25 EIS project team recognized that most I-25 Corridor interchanges would need to be rebuilt or reconfigured to handle future traffic volumes. In February 2006, a series of small group public meetings commenced to collect input and better understand the issues associated with each interchange. Since February, the project team has developed and analyzed new interchange configurations while continuing to meet with the small groups. Preferred configurations have been recommended for many locations; however, the planning effort is ongoing and the project team will continue to meet with the small groups this fall. IA _ II j f L cross street IP cross Street 1 r % Diamond A Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) The Diamond interchange is the most commonly used interchange on 1-25. A SPUI is similar to the Diamond design except the SPUI is smaller and its Ramp intersections with the cross street are typically controlled with stop ramps converge to one intersection at the cross street controlled with a traffic signs in low volume situations and with traffic signals in moderate to high signal. Typically used when there is limited right-of-way, SPUI interchanges volume situations. Occasionally, roundabouts are used such as along 1-70 in are being proposed at U.S. 34 and Rocky Mountain Avenue along with the Grand Junction and Gypsum. Diamond interchanges at Harmony Road, State U.S. 34 and Larimer County Road 5 intersections. Highway 52 and Weld County Road 8 have ramp intersections and multiple left and right turn lanes. • Direct Connect Ramps Typically used at interstate intersections or at the intersection of t an interstate and major cross street, these ramps support all turn cross street movements including specific turn movements with high traffic volumes. This type of ramp is being considered for the 1-25 and U.S. 34 interchange. -pa�e�D=605 _ �_ . .7---,--:----- r. - - . y^ _ �t4Y.'�gf[�^_ _ _ .. ,,,,,::„. 7,,.:.):.........L ..~-.a.,. • __ rf -- i / Your Community. Your Travel . Your Opinions. Contact Information North I-25 EIS Project Office During the last round of public meetings, the communities expressed interest in a Phone: (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 rail alternative that would conned to Denver without traveling through Boulder. In Web site: www.cdot.info/norihi25eis/ response, the North 1-25 EIS project team has extended the Package A rail line into Mail: CDOT Engineering Office southwestern Weld County. 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 The modified rail alignment would connect northern Colorado passengers to the Do we have your e-mail address? FasTracks system at both Longmont and Thornton, reduce travel time, and have If not, register it by going to our Web site minimal impacts to natural resources and adjacent communities. and clicking on "Contact Us." Project Team We invite you to attend one of the scheduled public meetings to review the new Monica Pavlik, P.E., alternative and provide input. Come see how your opinions continue to shape your Federal Highway Administration transportation. David Beckhouse, Federal Transit Administration Monday, November 13 Wednesday, November 15 David M. Martinez, PE., Open house: 6-8 p.m. Open house: 6-8 p.m. COOT Project Manager Tom Northglenn Recreation Center Southwest Weld County Complex ect P Man nager nager 11801 Community Center Drive 4209 Weld County Road 24 1/2 Gina McAfee, AICP, Northglenn Longmont Deputy Project Manager Kim Podobnik, APR, • Public Involvement Manager LCS0S OD 'puelano7[ Z0t XUMi1 H 3 L0ZZ aDyjo S'uuaaut2u3 soap IIIuoileoodsueJ1 uo!leiadoo3 .uo!leWJolu, SIB SZ-I H.L≥ION Page D-61 FACT SHEET NORTH 1-25 North 1-25 EIS EIS I11, - Page 1 of 2 information cooperation. transportation. Project Description : The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated a project to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The study will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods and services. Why an EIS Must be Completed: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as well as many state and local laws enacted during the late 1960s and early 1970s mandate that Environmental Impact Statements be completed before major development projects can begin. Producing an EIS requires analysis of the impact that a proposed development will have on the natural and social environment. It includes assessment of long- and short-term effects on the physical environment, such as air, water, and noise pollution, as well as effects on employment, living standards, local services, and aesthetics (R. K. Jain, L. V. Urban, and G. S. Stacey, Environmental Impact Analysis (2d ed. 1981). Study Boundaries: The North 1-25 EIS will be limited to areas along the existing I-25 corridor from the Denver metropolitan area to Northern re;GCNO 1ii0lelliklik ""'•— Colorado communities including Fort - BtMOIon Wein Santa Fe • • Gent wevem Railroad / Collins/Wellington and Greeley. US 287 • �° ° KI /l/ • ACenOoned RiMoed ROW " and US 85 transportation corridors will . us«be1..,1.1. •e, nt • SLIe/fyhesrM u also be included in the final analysis of .'-.. .. _. .�: potential alternative route locations. The ,. ` `� study area spans portions of seven .,-:4 1 „� ‘„ Lovel nd I counties, includes more than 30 ,�"" �� Greet 1 eat•v.r communities, two metropolitan planning ri ,.. organizations (the Denver Regional C-a- ...-.._- Council of Governments and the North " g" .-W L Front Range Metropolitan Planning \\:Organization) as well as the Upper Front '"" w —�-••• Range Regional planning Commission. At �. . worm approximately 1,300 square miles, the ., study area is larger than the state of Rhode - " •--�• Island. -2 - ",i - - �--v�•. - Boo Ad. Contact: North 1-25 EIS Project Office - 2207 East Highway 402 `�., - -_ -- F' Loveland, Colorado 80537 -,. .. / .L 1 , (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 J£FFERSON ` �e al risassommis mo l:. Alai Ini iiiik Su) Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-62 FACT SHEET ° ,fir NORTH 1-25 '14' 511�,f' North 1-25 EIS EIS '`� Page 2 of 2 information cooperation transportation Purpose and Need: Project Purpose The purpose of the North 1-25 EIS is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. Need for the Action The project purpose can be explained through four major need categories. The study has identified the need to: • Improve safety • Improve mobility and accessibility • Replace and/or rehabilitate aging and obsolete infrastructure • Provide for modal alternatives and interrelationships The project needs will relate differently to highway transportation solutions and transit solutions. Highway alternatives will be evaluated on all four of these needs. Transit alternatives will be evaluated only on two of the needs: Mobility and accessibility, and Modal alternative and interrelationships. Alternatives Under Consideration: Alternatives are defined as any improvements that can be made to the existing transportation system to improve the level of service, safety or efficiency. These include, but are not limited to, the following: • No-action • o Completing projects that are in progress or that have been committed to by CDOT,the transportation planning organizations or cities and counties within the study area o Used as a basis against which other alternatives are evaluated • Package A consists of: o One new general purpose lane in each direction along 1-25 between E-470 and SH 52 and between SH 66 and SH 14 o Commuter rail service connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and downtown Denver via FasTracks rail lines o Commuter bus service connecting Greeley to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport via US 85 • Package B consists of: o A combination of single buffer-separated tolled Express Lanes and barrier-separated tolled Express Lanes along 1-25 from US 36 to SH 14. o Bus rapid transit service operating in the tolled Express Lanes along 1-25 connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport. Complementary features of the alternatives under consideration include connections to the Denver metropolitan area's FasTrack rail lines, carpool lots, real-time transportation information, upgraded interchanges,transit stations and a feeder bus system. We Need Your Help! The North 1-25 EIS project team is soliciting public comment via submissions to our Web site,comments at public open houses, letters,phone calls,booths at outdoor fairs, meetings with civic groups, displays at libraries and other places people gather. For more information on this study,to learn about upcoming public meetings, alternatives being studied and to • weigh in on the discussion,please visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/or call the project office at(970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-63 HOJA DE DAT'OS NORTH 1-25 Proyecto North 1-25 EIS EIS information cooperation. transportation. III Descripcion del proyecto La Administracion Federal de Carreteras (FHWA, en ingles), la Administracion Federal de Transporte Public() (FTA), y el Departamento de Transporte de Colorado (CDOT) han iniciado un proyecto para preparar la Declaracion de impacto Ambiental (EIS) para identificar y evaluar mejoras multimodales en el transporte a lo largo del Corredor de la I-25 desde Fort Collins/Wellington hasta Denver. El estudio analizara el movimiento regional e interregional de personas, bienes y servicios. Por que es necesario el estudio EIS: El Acta Nacional de Politica del Medio Ambiente de 1969, conocida en ingles por las siglas NEPA, asi como leyes estatales y locales de las decadas de los afios sesenta y setenta, exigen que el estudio EIS se complete antes de que puedan comenzar cualquier gran proyecto de construccion. Producir el EIS requiere analizar el impacto que el desarrollo propuesto tendra en el ambiente natural y social. Tambien incluye evaluar los efectos a corto y largo plazo en el ambiente fisico, como aire, agua y contaminacion de ruido, asi como los efectos en el empleo, calidad de vida, servicios locales y estetica. (R. K. Jain, L. V. Urban, and G. S. Stacey, Environmental Impact Analysis (2d ed. 1981). Area del estudio: El estudio EIS de la 1-25 Norte esta • limitado a las areas junto al corredor existente de la I-25 desde el area / LEGEND 1 i - metro olitana de Denver hasta • ° °on n 5"x'Fe . , • , 1.i P 4 • Railroad...Western R. ,oiCIII/,. comunidades el norte de Colorado, - _ - • °n PEAK Railroad A Abandoned Railroad ROW incluyendo Fort Collins/Wellington y . us Wh. Ft. C • lies o •Greeley. Los corredores de las carreteras K slaw noisily n J •... .....:a t-- US 287 y US 85 tambien se incluiran en el ,� ' �, L analisis final de los potenciales lugares `��►el lid .� alternativos de las rutas. El area de estudio 34 Creel incluye partes de siete condados asi como mas de 30 comunidades, dos .`.. i organizaciones de planeamiento regional (el Denver Regional Council of �,t ', . ~ Governments y la North Front Range "" Metropolitan Planning Organization), y la �. , J— comision planificadora Upper Front Range - PP " ....... •6 Regional. El area abarca unas 1 .300 millas 7^ cuadradas, es decir, una zona mas grande que todo el estado de Rhode Island. M "'• •t Bs.M.R4 N �.. .. M • __ -__ Contactor North 1-25 EIS Project Office . /' 2207 East Highway 402 A• _ / t yo Loveland, Colorado 80537 . •if B (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 ......„ __, s,,,,,-, - ■� t0 6 M.„, • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of TransportationP age D-64 HOJA DE DATOS NORTH I-25 Proyecto North I-25 EIS EIS • information cooperation transportation. Proposito y necesidad: Proposito del Proyecto El proposito del estudio de Declaration de Impacto del Medio Ambiente (EIS, en ingles)es safisfacer las necesidades de viaje a largo plazo entre la zona metropolitana de Denver y los rapidamente crecientes centros de poblacion a to largo del corredor de la I-25 Norte hasta el area de Fort Collins-Wellington. Necesidad de Acciom El proposito del proyecto se puede explicar por medio de cuatro grandes categorias. El estudio ha identificado la necesidad de: • Mejorar la seguridad • Mejorar Ia movilidad y el acceso • Remplazar o rehabilitar infraestructura antigua u obsoleta • Proveer alternativas de modos de transporte e interconectividad Las necesidades del proyecto se satisfacen de distinta manera en el caso do las carreteras que en el caso del transporte publico. Las altemativas para las carreteras se evaluan de acuerdo con las cuatro necesidades cnumeradas. Las altemativas de transporte publico se evaluan solo de acuerdo con dos de las necesidades: mejorar la movilidad y el acceso y proveer alternativas de modos de transporte e interconectividad. Alternativas en consideraci6n: Las alternativas son las mejoras que se pueden hacer al actual sistema de transports para mejorar el nivel de servicio, la seguridad o la eficiencia. Las altemativas incluyen las siguientes opciones, • pero no se limitan a ellas: • No action o Completar los proyectos que ya se estan realizando o con los que ya existe un compromiso por parte del Departamento de Transporte (CDOT), las organizations de planificacion del transporte, o las ciudades o los condados dentro del area de estudio. Esta altemativa se usa como criterio de evaluation de las otras alternativas. • Paquete A, que incluye: o Un carril de use general en cada direction en la 1-25 entre La E-470 y la SH 52 y entre la SH66ylaSH14 o Tren suburbano de pasajcros conectando a Fort Collins y a Longmont con el centro de Denver por medio de los ferrocarriles de FasTracks. o Buses suburbanos, circulando por la US 85, conectando a Greeley con el centro de Denver y con el Aeropuerto Internacional de Denver. • Paquete B,que ineluyc: o Una combination de carriles expresos(separados por barreras o no)en Ia 1-25 entre la US 36ylaSH14. o Buses rapidos circulando por los carriles expresos de la I-25, conectando a Fort Collins y a Greeley con el centro de Denver y con el Aeropuerto Internacional de Denver. Estas altemativas incluyen otros elementos complementarios,como conexiones con los trenes de FasTracks en la zona metropolitana de Denver, lotes de estacionamiento para carros compartidos, information en vivo sobre transporte publico, mejoras en las intersections iNecesitamos su ayuda! • Para mas information sobre el proyecto, el calendario de reunioncs publicas, las alternativas en consideraci6n, o para compartir su opinion, visite www.edot.info/northi25eis/o llame a la ofieina del proyecto al(970)352-5455 o al(303) 779-3384. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of TransportationPage D-65 North 1-25 EIS Project Office 2207 East Highway 402 NORTH 1-25 Loveland,Colorado 80537 • • • (970)352.5455 EIS (303)779.3384 www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ information. cooperation. transportation. August 10, 2007 Organization name Address City, State Zip Dear As the primary route between Northern Colorado and the Denver metropolitan area, the 1-25 corridor has experienced considerable growth over the years. People are increasingly aware that demands on the existing transportation system are exceeding its ability to serve travelers efficiently. Along with increased traffic volume on 1-25 and parallel roadways has come an increase in accidents, resulting in a need to plan for transportation improvements within the corridor. As you may be aware, the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is underway. The purpose of this project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 to the Fort Collins/Wellington area Solutions under study include, but are not limited to, construction of passenger rail, addition of highway lanes, improving bus service, or some combination of these alternatives. As the North 1-25 EIS moves forward, transit and transportation alternatives are narrowed down and • public input is critical. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with members of your organization to present information about the North 1-25 EIS and transportation alternatives that are currently being reviewed directly in your area. In addition, we welcome comments on if and how the alternatives are meeting the community's needs, will the options be utilized, and any additional information members of the community can provide. Presentation times can easily be scheduled around your regular meeting times and location. We look forward to hearing from you. Please don't hesitate to contact Francisco Miraval at 720-936- 1769, or myself with any comments or questions you may have. Sincerely, Jessica Woolery Public Outreach Team North I-25 EIS 303-779-3383 • Federal Highway Administration 'Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-66 NORTH 1-25 ` " -, L._. • EIS information cooperation. transportation. HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Please have the person in the household aged 16 or older who most recently had a birthday complete this questionnaire. (Year of birth does not matter.) Your responses are confidential,and will be reported in group form only. The completed questionnaire can be returned in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. 1. In the past year,about how many times did you attend sporting events at the following locations? Examples of sporting events: Denver:the Broncos,the Rapids,the Rockies,the Avalanche,the Nuggets,the Mammoth, DU Hockey,etc. Boulder: CU Buffaloes football, basketball,etc. Ft.Collins:CSU Rams football, basketball,etc. Greeley: UNC Bears football, basketball,etc. Budweiser Center: Eagles hockey,etc. About how many times on WEEKDAYS(Monday through Friday,including Friday nights)? • more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to 2 25 times times times times times never a. For a sporting event in Denver ❑ O U O 0 ❑ b. For a sporting event in Boulder ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For a sporting event in Fort Collins ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Fora sporting event in Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U e. For a sporting event at the Budweiser Center ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f. For a sporting event somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: About how many times on WEEKENDS not including Friday nights, which should be included in weekdays)? more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to 2 25 times times times times times never a. For a sporting event in Denver ❑ O O ❑ p ❑ b. For a sporting event in Boulder ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For a sporting event in Fort Collins ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For a sporting event in Greelev ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For a sporting event at the Budweiser Center ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ •f. Fora sporting event somewhere else O ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: HOUSEHOLD TRAVFL SURVEY pace ipf Page D-b7 2. In the past year, about how many times did you attend cultural events,special events,or visit other attractions at the following locations? Cultural events:Attend a concert,watch a play,see a ballet, etc. • Special events: Special events or festivals such as Taste of Colorado, Parade of Lights, Boulder Creek Festival, Loveland-Fort Collins Balloon Festival, etc. Museum/zoo: Museums,an amusement park,the zoo,or some other type of attraction. About how many times on WEEKDAYS(Monday through Friday,including Friday nights)? more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to 2 25 times times times times times never a For a cultural or special event or attraction in downtown Denver 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 b. For a cultural or special event or attraction elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c. For a aural or special event oratbadiunin Boulder ortont[anont 0 ❑ ❑ 000 d. For a cultural or special event or attraction in Fort Collins. Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 e. For a,aWMr*or special event or attraction somewhereelse......—.0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Cl 4 where: On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to 2 25 times times times times times never a. Fora cultural or special event or attraction in downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b. For a cultural or special event or attraction elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c. For aural orspecial event or attraction in Boulder or Lon miont....❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d. For a cultural or special event or attraction in Fort Collins. Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 e. For a atldual or special event or attraction somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 4 where: • 3. In the past year,about how many times did you travel to the following locations for social or recreation trips? SociaVrecreation:Entertainment or recreation;for example,to visit friends or family,to dine at a restaurant,see a movie,participate in a sports activity(or take children to a sports activity),etc. This category also includes trips to attend a religious service or do a volunteer activity. About how many times on WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a For soda)or recreation trips in downtown Denver 0 0 0 0 00 d. For social or recreation trips elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 e. For social or recreation trips in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 00 f. For social or recreation trips in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 g. For social or recreation trips somewhere else 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 4 where. On WEEKENDS(not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For social or recreation trips in downtown Denver 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ d. For social or recreation trips elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 e. For social or recreation trips in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ 00 f. For social or recreation trips in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 • g. For social or recreation trips somewhere else ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 4 where: HOUSEHO/D TRAVEL SURVEY Face D-01i 4. In the past year,about how many times did you travel to the following locations to shop(at the grocery store, a mall,other shopping center,etc.)or conduct personal business(e.g., going to the doctor, post office, hair stylist,etc.)? • On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice in downtown Denver per week per week per month ❑ O ❑ 2 to 4 mon ths in the past year never a. For shopping/errands ❑ ❑b. For shopping/errands elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For shopping/errands in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For shopping/errands in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley...0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For shopping/errands somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: On WEEKENDS(not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For shopping/errands in downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For shopping/errands elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For shopping/errands in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For shopping/errands in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For shopping/errands somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: 5. In the past year, about how many times did you travel to Denver International Airport to fly yourself,or to pick-up or drop-off family,friends or associates? • 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never On WEEKENDS(not including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Are you currently employed or a student? 9. How many days per week do you usually use each of ❑yes ❑ no 4 GO TO QUESTION#12 ON PAGE 5 the following types of transportation to get to and from 6a.Do you work or attend school in . . . work? ❑ Fort Collins ❑ Boulder ❑ Loveland ❑ Longmont drive alone ❑ Greeley ❑ Broomfield ❑Thornton/Northglenn ❑ Downtown Denver drive with at least one other person ❑ Denver Tech Center ❑ Other Denver County ❑ Other Adams County ❑ Other Weld County vanpool ❑ Other Larimer County ❑ Other Bounder County walk ❑ Jefferson County ❑ Other 7. What is the zipcode of bike your workplace or school? ride the bus/light rail for any part of the trip 8. Do you typically travel a significant distance work at home (approximately 5 miles or more)on I-25 for your work or • school commute? other, please specify ❑ yes ❑ no HOUSEHO/0 TRAVEL SURVEY face,I age,Q 10. In the past year,about how many times did you travel to the following locations for the work or school commute? On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never • a. For work commute trips to downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For work commute trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work commute trips to Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ CI ❑ ❑ d. For work commute trips to Fort Collins,Loveland or Greeley..❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For work commute trips to somewhere else 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 4 where: On WEEKENDS(not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For work commute trips to downtown Denver 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For work commute trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work commute trips to Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For work commute trips to Fort Collins,Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For work commute trips to somewhere else ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ 4 where: 11. In the past year,about how many times did you travel to the following locations for work-related trips(trips made for work purposes such as attending meetings, making deliveries,etc., but NOT the work commute)? On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For work-related trips to downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 b. For work-related trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work-related trips to Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d. For work-related trips to Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley...❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For work-related trips to somewhere else 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For work-related trips to downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ U ❑ b. For work-related trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work-related trips to Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For work-related trips to Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For work-related trips to somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 where: • HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY pace gyf 5 Page D-/0 12. In the past year,about how many times did you make trips foray purpose on Interstate 25? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never • On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never On WEEKENDS(not including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Do you regularly avoid traveling on I-25? ❑ no ❑yes 4 13a.Why?(Please check all that apply.) ❑ I don't feel safe ❑ it takes longer ❑ too much congestion ❑ other 14. Before taking this survey,had you heard of the North 1.25 EIS Study? ❑ no 4 GO TO QUESTION#15 ❑yes -3 14a. How had you heard of it?(Please check all that apply.) ❑ newspaper articles ❑television ❑ Council or Commission meeting ❑ radio ❑ public/community meetings ❑ "word of mouth"from friends or family ❑ committee meetings ❑ don't remember ❑ other 15. How would you like to be informed about matters related to the study of North I-25? (Please check all that apply.) • ❑through a newsletter ❑ newspaper articles ❑the project website http://www.dot.state.co.us/Northl25eis/ ❑ ads in the newspaper ❑ public community meetings ❑television or radio public service announcements ❑ via e-mail ❑other DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Our last questions are to ensure a valid sample of survey 19. In what type of home do you live? responses. Again, all of your responses to this survey are ❑one family house detached from any other houses completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. ❑a duplex,townhouse,or other building with two or more apartments or condominiums 16. How old are you? ❑mobile home ❑ 17—24 years old ❑other: ❑ 25—34 years old ❑ 35—44 years old Thank you for completing the survey. Please return it in the ❑45—54 years old enclosed postage-paid envelope to: ❑ 55—64 years old National Research Center, Inc. ❑ 65 years or older 3005 30th Street 17. What is your gender? Boulder,CO 80301 ❑ male If you have any questions about this survey, ❑female please contact Erin Caldwell via e-mail:erin@n-r-c.com or phone toll-free 1-877-467-2462. 18. Do you rent or own your residence? If you would like more information about the North 1.25 EIS ❑ rent study, please call the project hotline at(970)352-5455 ❑ own or visit the project website at • http://www.CDOT.info/Northl25eis/ HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY pace,gyp Page D-71 NORTH I-25 EIS infonnaomi m, n2r'rn vanepwtanoe • Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners The Colorado Department of Transportation is studying several alternatives in Northern Colorado to alleviate congestion on 1-25 and make travel safer. The range of alternatives includes improvements to the roadway system and/or to the transit system. Each alternative would have different effects on businesses. As part of our investigation of the potential social and economic effects in the study area, we are contacting all local businesses that may be affected as a result of these alternatives. In order to determine potential effects on your business and employees, we would like you to answer ten (10) questions. Your answers will be used to help identify which alternative is eventually chosen and to quantify social and economic impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is required for this project. All of the answers you give about your business will remain confidential. All the data we gather will be discussed in general terms in order to protect the privacy of your business and your employees. 1. Name of business 2. How long has your business been at this location? 3. What types of services does your business provide? • 4. How many full-time and part-time employees are employed at this location? Full-Time Part-Time 5. What percentage of the employees at your company are unskilled workers, e.g., manual laborers? What percentage are skilled or professional workers, e.g., electricians or engineers? According to the US Department of Labor"unskilled labor"is labor that requires less than two years of training or experience:"skilled labor"is labor requiring at least two years of training or experience;and"Professional"means a qualified person who holds at least a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and who is a member of the professions. a. % Unskilled b. % Skilled or Professional 6. Approximately how many minority employees (i.e., African American, Native American, Asian, or Latino) are employed at this location? [Actual number or percentage] Full-Time Part-Time 7. Does a minority person or persons own this business? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, Which minority group? 8. Are you aware of any transportation issues that your employees may have? [For instance: a long commute to work, restrictions preventing use of vehicle to get to work, etc...]. Please elaborate. ❑ Yes: Details • ❑ No Page D-72 NORTH 1-25 EIS • uc.,.num r[IcreM'or narnpvn..,. Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners 9. Please estimate the percentage of employees using the following modes of transportation to get to work: % Vehicle • Bus/Transit Walk % Bicycle • Other 10. Had you heard of the North I-25 EIS prior to receiving this survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No 11 . If yes, where did you hear about it? ❑ Newspaper articles ❑ Television ❑ Word of mouth • 11 Radio ❑ Public community meetings ❑ Council/Commission meeting ❑ Committee meetings ❑ Other: ❑ Don't remember 12. How do you prefer to receive information about the North I-25 EIS? ❑ Newspaper articles ❑ Public service announcements ❑ Through a newsletter 7 The project Web site ❑ Ads in the newspaper ❑ Via E-mail n Public community meetings ❑ Other: • Page D-73 NORTH I JS 4 ,M' EIS r9o,nidUwl vweiaaon IraasoorTo mu Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners Please return the completed survey in the envelope provided. If you are not presently occupying this address, or if there are multiple businesses at this address, please provide us with a contact or contacts who may be able to answer these questions. If you would prefer to complete this survey over the phone please contact Lindsey Larson with PRACO at 303-779-3383. For questions pertaining to this survey or to the North 1-25 project or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Lindsey Larson with PRACO at 303-779-3383 or visit the project website at http://www.dot.state.co.us/northl25eis/index.cfm. Esta iinspeccion se puede hacer disponible en el espanol sobre el pedido. Contact info?? Comments: • Thank you for your participation! J: _Transportation\071609.400\manage\pubinv\Research Questions for Affected Business Owners.doc • Page D-74 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • • Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS Northglenn Recreation Center November 13, 2006 information cooperation. transportation Purpose The Southern Connectivity Public Meetings were held to introduce the Sugar Mill to North Metro connection that has been developed in response to public's request for a commuter rail connection that would connect North Colorado to Denver without traveling through Boulder. Presentation The presentation introduced the two connections under consideration. Representatives from CDOT, FHWA, FHU, Carter-Burgess, and PRACO were available for questions and comments. Attendance There were 10 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. • 1. Q: Why can't you impact the bike path near 112th and community center and shift 1-25 in that direction? 2. Don't take our garage. Our subdivision backs up to 1-25. 3. It doesn't seem like you are solving the bottleneck near 104th. 4. We have concerns about noise moving closer to our house. 5. Q: How many lanes up to SH 119? 6. What is the time period for improvements in our area near 104th? 7. Safety concerns regarding 128th at Dry Creek. There are lots of accidents. 8. Q: Is this the same process that was followed for T-REX? 9. Q: Could the funding for this be put up to a vote? 10. Q: Is this on the same schedule as T-REX? 11. Q: What is RTD's role relative to CDOT? 12. Q: How will this impact our homes in Northglenn? • 13. Q: Will the current wooden noise fence be kept? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-75 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS • • Northglenn Recreation Center November 13, 2006 information cooperation transportation. 14. Q: Can Roadway move west between 104th and 120th to provide more room? 15. Q: Would metrovision affect our property? 16. We saw blueprints last February which showed a sound wall in our backyard. Is it still there? 17. Will you put up a concrete barrier before construction? 18. How do you get involved with DRCOG metrovision? 19. Has there been meetings for public since you were last here in Thornton? 20. If you go any further, we can't hear anything in our backyard. Even one lane, will increase the noise. 21. Safety is a huge issue. We deal with flying tires crashing into people's yards. Prefer having concrete walls for safety. Don't care about losing view of mountains. We are concerned about wall height. Short ones don't help. 22. There is trash between noise wall and CDOT ROW fence. It causes a problem with rats near 104th. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-76 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont information cooperation. transportation. November 15, 2006 Purpose The Southern Connectivity Public Meetings were held to introduce the Sugar Mill to North Metro connection that has been developed in response to public's request for a commuter rail connection that would connect North Colorado to Denver without traveling through Boulder. Presentation The presentation introduced the two connections under consideration. Representatives from CDOT, FHWA, FHU, Carter-Burgess, and PRACO were available for questions and comments. Attendance There were 27 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. • 1. Add "Maximize Ridership"to the objectives for the Longmont to North Metro study. 2. Adding one additional lane of pavement on 1-25 does not seem enough. 3. If safety is a big issue, tolled lanes will exclude general population putting them at more risk. 4. What is crash rate for the general purpose lane verses tolled? 5. Package A- Why is rail proposed along CR 7 when there is room in 1-25 ROW? 6. Those provisions for rail are already on 1-25? 7. What about WCR 13 and Huron to relieve congestion? 8. In No Action improvements to SH 66 are already proposed. 9. Not using the 1-25 median so that you can use it later makes no sense. 10. Makes more sense to place rail near populated area. Have it closer to Tri-towns where growth potential is currently higher verses Erie. 11. I'm right on CR 7. The train would be 50 feet from my bedroom. • 12. Did you take the old Union Pacific ROW into consideration? Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-77 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont information. cooperation. transportation. November 15, 2006 13. Why not go along Frontage Road? 14. Why not have the rail go along the east side of 1-25? 15. There are subdivisions that straddle WCR 7 at WCR 7 and SH 52. This would impact future plans for the subdivision with a rail going right through. 16. Move 1-25 over to run CR along 1-25. 17. Have you worked with Weld County on this? 18. If you are worried about wetlands why not use 1-25? 19. Impacts would be less along 1-25 for the environment. Don't use CR 7. 20.Avoid the west side of 1-25 wetlands. 21. Why not go out on 66? Fewer Businesses on 66 to Impact. 22. Are there Ecologists working on the project to evaluate wetlands? 23. The rail would decrease traffic on CR 7 and prevent need to widen it. 1000 people on • one train are better than 1000 people in 1000 cars! In favor of the rail on CR 7. 24. Safety during the winter will be an issue. There will be no crashes on the rail, but more lanes on 1-25 will mean more accidents. 25. Developments with build up around transit verses adding more lanes to 1-25. 26. Would rather have one rail verses 125 cars go by my house like I currently have. 27. Where will the future 8-10 lanes up north go? Denver is grid-locked and width expansion is limited. Won't all those cars just back up farther down 1-25? 28. Are there studies on what will happen without 1-25 lane expansion? 29. What are you doing about transit oriented development? 30. If you don't think transit will be used why are park-n-Rides currently full along 1-25? 31. Have you considered parking at the station locations? 32. Where does Union Pacific go from St. Vrain Junction now? 33. Is the abandoned rail corridor the standard 50 foot width? 34. How do you determine who will drive to get on at a station verses if it is in their own • backyard? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-78 Meeting Summary NORTH I--2S • Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont information cooperation. transportation November 15, 2006 35. Did you factor in existing and planned local transit services and connecting rail to those lines? 36. If you run on SH 14 you eliminate need for feeder bus to rail. 37. Station site at WCR 7 and SH 52 better because of the major activity line on SH 52. 38. Will the study look at noise and vibration? 39. Cannot go through wetlands that you are currently going through. 40. What rates higher on avoiding impacts to: a bedroom window 50 ft. away or wetlands? 41. Less likely to use rail if it just passes a mile away from my house. 42. I like the idea of no rail connection to north metro line from Longmont. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-79 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Milliken Town Hall February 16, 2006 information cooperation. transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 17 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. With central and west rail alignments won't environmental impacts translate into money? 2. Would existing track be leased from the railroad? 3. On both alternatives, what are the plans for the interchanges? Will they be upgraded or replaced? • 4. US 54 is horrible and the interchange at SH 392 needs work. 5. If we do these changes, how much space will that take up? Will it impact median and businesses along the highway? 6. East part of the highway is only for semis. Are you considering that? 7. Toll road won't do much because truckers won't pay more than they do now. 8. This is looking at long period of time. In the mean time I'm not sure howl-25 and US 34 can function until the intersection is improved. Can you stop their growth? 9. I thought CDOT had control of access. That is how it is on SH 402. Put the squeeze on central. 10. Assume you have population studies, what do they show in terms of growth? How does it impact? 11. From the model info, which is the better alternative? 12. With west, are you trying to move development off 1-25? 13. I don't see somebody on west side of Greeley driving to US 287 to take rail. 14. You see new development further out along E-470. • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-80 Meeting Summary :. . NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Milliken Town Hall February 16, 2006 information cooperation transportation 15. People on the east will drive or use bus if you put transit on west side. 16. If you had rail/bus along 1-25 it might mean more traffic on transit. 17. The only way to get people to ride rail is to not make improvements to the highway. 18. You have chosen commuter rail over light rail. Why? For safety? 19. What about ROW issues? 20. My property borders 1-25, if the highway is expanded I won't be able to talk to people in my front yard. 21. In committee meetings, who goes from Johnstown? 22. Heard rumors that they might widen WCR 13. 23. What questions have you heard at other meetings? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-81 Meeting Summary NORTH I--2S Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont information. cooperation. transportation February 15, 2006 Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 28 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Have the railroads agreed to shared use? 2. What is the frequency? I am not sure double tracking is necessary. 3. If taking freight for passenger where does freight go? • 4. What is more expensive, freight or passenger? 5. If growth is moving east, does it make sense to send people west for transit? 6. Are LAL meant to encourage toll lanes? 7. E-470 has to raise rates as there aren't enough users. 8. Have we done toll projections? 9. Don't we already have problems at SH 7 for installing tolls? 10. Are you planning to acquire more property on the southern end? 11. Why do you want access to my property? 12. Is the service road along 1-25 CDOT ROW? 13. What happens to access if frontage road becomes part of highway? Will we loose access? 14. You have been collecting materials/information since 1999. What is the projected date for doing something? 15. Could you talk about US 85? • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-82 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont information cooperation. transportation. February 15, 2006 16. Weld County has dangerous roads. Have you considered that? 17. Package B lacks east-west connection, which isn't beneficial if you are going from Loveland to Greeley. 18. Ridership for much of the toll lane is overestimated use and underestimates transit rail ridership. 19. What is the FasTracks plan along 1-25? 20. What speed will the rail go? 21. 1 don't understand VPD figures like WCR 13. 22. On the Web site under capacity inters of people per hour, do you count people or cars? 23. Are we allowed to consider number of people who come out of Wyoming who want the train? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-83 Meeting Summary NORTH I--25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Harmony Library, Fort Collins February 7, 2006 information cooperation transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 49 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. High speed rail on 1-25 is the obvious choice. High speed rail was sabotaged in the last round of public meetings. BRT is ideal for an urban corridor, but on 1-25 BRT is ludicrous. BRT on US 287 would be appropriate. Feel this project is rigged with meaningless transit alternatives. Poor communication by consultant team. Recommend public reject this project, and go back and develop meaningful transit alternatives. 2. What are funding mechanisms? • 3. Will locals be involved in interchange planning? 4. Will there be opportunities to look at interim improvements? 5. Do you have to transfer CR vehicles in Longmont? 6. What are travel times for CR on 1-25 central and US 287 western alignments? I find the times unacceptable. 7. How can you make assumptions about how long it takes to get from home to a station? 8. What about rail lines on both west and central? Can that positively influence economic growth? 9. We are eliminating options for future CR on 1-25 if the ROW is diminishing and all of it is being bought. 10. How will you upgrade the system into a regional system? 11. How does your project address increases in gasoline prices? 12. You stated that you referenced Texas and other metro areas, but this is not Texas. Northern Colorado is not a metropolitan area. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-84 Meeting Summary 'M NORTH I--2S • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Harmony Library, Fort Collins February 7, 2006 information. cooperation transportation 13. Projections shows only two percent of travelers will ride transit. Are we going to be paying money for something very little people use? 14. Package A offers a lot of support for current transportation needs. Northern Coloradans do a lot of short trips so Package A is good for this and it also allows for people to take advantage of transportation if they wish. 15. You project LOS D in 2030, but what are LOS levels today? Will we be experiencing gridlock in 2030? 16. What is the no build LOS? 17. Explain the feeder busses and commuter bus. Is there a difference? 18. What are the CR travel times on the track only, not including from home? 19. Is there an option for express CR service? Fewer stops? 20. Why did you select CR for Package A and not BRT and visa versa for Package B? 21. How much room is there really for mixing and matching the packages? If CR on US 287 is more costly can you substitute BRT? • 22. BRT on 1-25 shares lanes with HOV and HOT vehicles? Will this degrade over time? 23. Speak to the expandability of capacity for CR and BRT. 24. What are highway costs compared to CR and BRT in the DEIS packages? 25. Is CR going to share the rail line with freight? 26. What are completion dates for construction? Will things happen in phases or all at once? 27. I don't like package B since it is not rail. 28. Why is there no service to DIA from the western alignment? 29. What is the timeframe for a vote or decision on Package A and B? 30. How involved has the BNSF been so far? 31. What are bounds of gas prices you took into consideration for 2030? What about hybrid cars? 32. Population is increasing along 1-25, so why not rail centralized on 1-25? 33. TOD type areas are booming like in FasTracks. • 34. The option where even HOVs are tolled seems problematic. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-85 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Harmony Library, Fort Collins February 7, 2006 information cooperation. transportation. 35. What is happening with E-470 west of Denver? 36. Any plans to improve 1-25 in Northern Colorado before your plans come into place? 37. Do toll fees on 1-25 help pay for maintenance on frontage roads? 38. What is CDOT doing in regards to working with the Super Slab group? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-86 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center February 6, 2006 information cooperation transportation Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 19 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. What exactly is HOT? 2. How much did east-west connections pay part in your north-south modeling? What about rail east-west or diagonally? • 3. HOT uses existing or new roads/lanes. Does that mean you might make US 34 a toll road? 4. US 34 is already congested and you want to add busses onto the road? 5. I don't think people will want to take a feeder bus to 1-25 to get on another bus. 6. Are you addressing travel on bus between cities? 7. Is Colorado congestion going to be like L.A. on US 85 and 1-25? 8. Building more highway lanes entices people to drive. You need to provide more transit opportunities. 9. CR west alignment is more cost effective, but Cheyenne is a major up and coming population center, what about that 1-25 linkage? 10. How did you find that ridership on CR is higher than on bus? 11. Bus and BRT has to deal with accidents and vehicle problems where CR is less likely to be held up by these kinds of problems. 12. Limits of the study to 2030. There seem to be a lot of predictions that Weld County will be a major population center in 2025. Package B makes no sense, Package A at least spreads out travel options and serves the citizens that will be spending the money • building it. A more balanced, diversified transit solution may be very welcome.13. Why is Package B any good at all? Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-87 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS . Greeley Recreation Center February 6, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 14. Looks like Package A is deluxe and Package B is second best. Is Package A more expensive? 15. Who funds rail and bus? 16. One problem with CR is that people need to find a way to get to final destination from their CR stations. Are you looking at solving this issue? Can you force development near stations? 17. Is your travel time modeling based on projected increases in congestion, specifically on US 85? 18. Did you look at impacts of Super Slab or new airport in Ault? 19. How much uncertainty would you need if you were to evaluate beyond study area and beyond 2030? 20. Is your model already off by five percent or so? 21. Is it 24/7 transit service? 22. Who would manage transit? We need guidance support from MPO to help define a • transit authority. 23. If you are to partner with MPO whose goals are to provide regional multimodal transportation, shouldn't your packages reflect that? Package A does, B not so much. 24. What are the differences in travel time to bus from CR on 1-25 and US 287? 25. Are you working with John Peacock at CTA? 26. Local jurisdiction controls a lot of the land use. Things may change in the future especially on US 85. How much of what local jurisdictions plan play a part in your decisions? 27. Could a new EIS in five years after land use changes have different results and put rail on US 85? 28. An EIS is a decision informing document, not decision making. Narrowing and limiting your options seems flawed. 29. If this were done north of Seattle is would be done very differently. You aren't constrained to do it only this way. 30. Think outside the box. Keep flexibility and create something that won't make an L.A. in 2030. I don't see how adding to 1-25 will solve anything. Congestion is terrible today and we need to change the way we plan or we'll end up with and L.A. situation. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-88 Meeting Summary NORTH 1_25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center February 6, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 31. Is there a faster more direct way to get to Denver rather than going through Boulder? 32. Implementing package a would that proved quicker relief? 33. There is an existing Denver bus service that goes from SH 119 on US 287 into downtown Denver. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-89 Meeting Summary NORTH I--25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Loveland Public Library February 2, 2006 information, cooperation. transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 32 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. How to compare VHT in 2006 vs. 2030 VHT? 2. How does the percent of transit traffic compare to highway traffic? 3. Additional ROW easements for six or eight lane sections will need to be purchased? 4. SH 52 south to CR 7, can this be expanded to eight lanes with restriping. • 5. Did you measure peak hours, worst case a.m. and p.m., for LOS? 6. Was a cost applied to safety among alternative management lanes packages? 7. How does eight lanes compare to HOV, HOT and toll during hours of congestion? 8. What is definition of commuter? How many miles for a commute? 9. Can private transit operators operate in the corridor? 10. Do transit riders pay own way? 11. Has monorail been considered? 12. Study of those with and without drivers licenses? Potential ridership source. 13. Funding for feeder routes? How will locals operate? 14. Are feeder route costs included in evaluations of alternatives and packages? 15. Are employment/shopping locations considered in modeling? Stops and stations should be located near employment and shopping. 16. CDOT needs to compare notes with NCEDC or Northern Colorado Economic • Development Council. Do you need contact info? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-90 Meeting Summary fg .,•. NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Loveland Public Library February 2, 2006 information cooperation transportation 17. Is ridership modeled with cost for the rider? Ridership is dependent on fare. 18. Number of users for transit has a direct correlation to the cost of fare. 19. What was fare cost assumed? 20. What are the available hours that transit will operate? 21. Review central corridor for employment and other growth with NCEDC. 22. For BRT in Fort Collins, is it on Harmony? 23. Need to Test Public Acceptance of toll lanes. Any type of toll? 24. Roads and streets should be public. 25. Tolling only works with GP congestion. 26. What is point of toll roads? 27. Transit is not a good option for construction workers. Now a six lane section is • awesome. Barriers are difficult to maintain snow removal. 28. With CR there are a fewer number of stops compared to CB. Favor package with CB due to more stops. 29. Prefer CR, but want to go to DIA. Why should Colorado residents in north pay tolls and Denver does not? 30. Think outside box. 2030 cost of oil, conventional vehicles are not practical with expensive oil. Electric vehicles, one out at Europe transit, what is most affordable method of transportation beyond 2030? 31. Tolling differentiates between rich and poor. 32. Funding if it all goes to 1-25 corridor then what happens to funding for east-west state highways? 33. Bring public, western attitude towards transit. 34. Educate public and change culture from car to transit. Consider how to best serve the public and look globally. 35. Aging population, mobility and accessibility land use, transportation planning must be coordinated. • 36. Development needs to increase funding to transportation impacts system wide. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-91 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS •Loveland Public Library February 2, 2006 information cooperation. transportation. 37. Bike trails are an integral part of the transportation system. 38. Any federal funding available? 39. Can Exit 254 funding be provided by feds? If trucking stops America stops. 40. Is there a reason why eight lanes does not receive more consideration? 41. Eight lane section is better for private transit providers with less congestion. 42. Why does CR not go to Denver? 43. Any studies that verify if you build it they will come? 44. Projected population 2030? 45. Is inflation included with the cost estimates? 46. Acquire ROW now for identified corridors. 47. For Transit to work local plans must be coordinated. Transit options, grid systems which support transit developments. • 48. Grid system is important for highway operation. Parallel arterials could reduce demand on 1-25. 49. Commuter Rail in central corridor. 50. Timeline for project completion? 51. When do you expect DEIS for public review? 52. DEIS packages moving forward look good to business community. 53. How to gage public input? Do some groups/individuals have more influence? 54. City of Loveland Transportation Advisory Board meets the first Monday of every month. 55. Commuter Rail! We can't build enough lanes to keep up and stay safe. People wouldn't have to own cars to get an appropriate job. Even though it will be hard we must change our car culture. Hold off on extra lanes. Lanes are used. Development must pay own way. Municipalities must cooperate. Think of parking at transit stops. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-92 Meeting Summary NORTH I--2S • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Longmont Museum • • February 1, 2006 information cooperation transportation Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 42 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. When would construction begin? How much would it cost? 2. Widen 1-25 thru Weld County and you will wind up with heavy congestion. Pressure to develop that area is high. Eight lanes will make it worse. • 3. Transit saves auto maintenance money. 4. Are EIS packages locked in? What happened to CR on 1-25? 5. Explain modeling, how do you assess congestion? Travel demand forecasting, DRCOG, NFRMPO? 6. I commute SH 52 to 1-25 and congestion is bad. Is there any chance of commuter bus on SH 52? 7. Have you considered reversible lanes for peak travel hours? 8. A lot of accidents happen near Mead. 9. Do stations include park-n-Rides? 10. CR on US 287 doesn't seem reasonable. Direct line to DUS would be nice. 11. What is the interim plan since construction won't begin for at least 10 yrs? 12. People ride rail over bus. Greeley and Weld County expects tremendous growth. Why not build rail? People will ride it. 13. Does, CR become more feasible or cost effective beyond 2030, say in 50 years? 14. Is US 287 CR at grade crossing? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-93 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Longmont Museum February 1, 2006 information cooperation. transportation. 15. Front Range Commuter Rail from Cheyenne to Pueblo, FRCR is a non-profit looking for funding. 16. Talk about other 1-25 projects in particular 1-25 and Highway 34. 17. Is the Huron and Colorado Blvd expansion in your plan? 18. Will the lowest costing package most likely be committed? 19. Does CDOT enforce HOV lanes? So we don't have more dummies riding as carpoolers? 20. What types of noise will come from commuter rail? Looking at light rail because it is quieter? 21. SH 52 up toward SH 66 has become very dangerous. SH 7 area used to be bottleneck, but it's now moved north. We need more highway lanes. They give a lot of relief. 22. Rail transportation for both people & freight must be a part of the plan. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-94 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Mead Town Hall January 31, 2006 information cooperation transportation Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 17 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. SH 52 and SH 66 roadway improvements, six to eight lanes. 2. Design of shelf waiting for funding. ROW purchased SH 52 to SH 119 and ROW needed at SH 119 to SH 66. • 3. How many feet of ROW is required, straight sections? 4. No upgrade needed at SH 66 and 1-25. It will be upgraded with other projects. 5. HOT, does it mean HOV and Toll? 6. Will the access tunnel be closed on SH 52 north? 7. Will accesses be built to new standards if replaced? 8. Wetlands along 1-25. 9. Main purpose of HOT to provide choice or as a means to pay for facility? 10. Tolling on E-470 are well below opening day projections need to adjust model and verify accuracy for tolling model assumptions. 11. Where do you buy the transponders for E-470? 12. Package A, sharing ROW with BNSF freight rail, is this reasonable to assume you can share? 13. Possibility of moving BNSF completely? 14. MARTA, Atlanta, Europe and Japanese "Mistake". Technology was reviewed early in • process. HSR screened out no significant rise in ridership. 15. My property backs up to 1-25. What noise mitigation will be provided? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-95 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Mead Town Hall January 31, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 16. Package A, Package B, transit alternatives. 17. Is projected growth considered? 18. Elimination of frontage roads? Why? 19. What about people who use frontage roads instead of 1-25? 20. Why can't the speed limit be lowered? It is so dangerous right on the bumper. 21. Parallel arterials, is this a CDOT project? 22. Package B forces all/most north-south traffic to 1-25 Corridor. Package A is more north to south and more east to west transit connections which is critical as lots of folks do not drive. 23. How to educate community to use transit alternative? 24. Congestion management? 25. Safety replacement of GR with cable rail. 26. PNR along 1-25? • 27. Will it require payment? 28. Funding for busses, is this CDOT money? 29. Seem when a lane is built it is too late. 30. Why build roads? They attract traffic. 31. Document will look at phased improvements. 32. It is all about money. 33. Super Slab -There are toll road out east, why not move focus on this? 34. Which state has best DOT? 35. Are you communicating with other state DOTs? 36. Consider construction zones on 1-25 and mitigation money for alternative transit. 37. Gold plating CR does not need double track. Thirty minute service is generous. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-96 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Gilcrest Valley High School January 30, 2006 information. cooperation, transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 8 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Concerned about local access. 2. Is this related to the last study done? 3. Is there a timeline for improvements outlined in last study? • 4. US 287/US 85 improvements would take traffic off 1-25. 5. Bad accidents mean stop lights. They could close intersections instead. 6. Was concerned about closing intersections in Gilcrest. 7. I hate driving on US 85. There is so much traffic on it now. 8. One closure that was planned was for Min St, is that still planned? 9. Are those decisions still final? 10. It's amazing how well traffic moves along 1-25 where it has six lanes now. 11. Heard that Exit 254 will be closing. 12. Don't like toll roads. I've been on E-470 and it once cost $6. I won't do that again. 13. Where do these alternatives go now? 14. Will state widen north of SH 66 or does that depend on this study? • Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-97 Meeting Summary NORTH 125 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Thornton City Hall January 26, 2006 information. cooperation transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 12 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Has CDOT considered commuter rail on 1-25 from Fort Collins to Denver? 2. Why was CR connection between US 287 and 1-25 on Highway 119? Yore not utilizing rail to its fullest capabilities. 3. Tri-town area and all of 1-25 corridor will soon boom with development and not adding • Highway 119 connection will leave out many people. 4. Packages don't show any connection to DIA from Northglenn/Thornton. Demand is high for this type of airport service. 5. Did presence of E-470 toll road defer from your decision to go to DIA? 6. CR west: do your cost estimates reflect the use of existing BNSF rail line? 7. You seem to be divorcing from the Front Range Commuter Rail/Bob Briggs effort why? 8. All highway improvements are from E-470 North? 9. Is there room for additional HOT lanes on 1-25 and US 36? 10. When you say BRT and CB are less costly than CR, are you using operational or capital cost? 11. Are you working with FasTracks? North Metro study did not involve public. Has FasTracks already been set in stone? 12. Eight lanes end at E-470. Will this cause problems down South? Bottleneck effect? 13. Who will actually make the decision? 14. I live at 109th Ave. east of 1-25. Have they studied sound there? Secondly I am 60 feet • from 1-25, will I lose my home? When does this funding for this become available? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-98 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Thornton City Hall January 26, 2006 information cooperation transportation 15. Huge concern about dumping cars at E-470 for eight lanes into six. 16. Wood fences DO NOT work as sound walls. There is horrendous noise at homes that don't meet noise criteria; you need to raise that criteria. 17. My homes noise level is just as bad now as it was before the eight foot sound wall was built. 18. Any noise/pollution studies being done between 104th and 120th? 19. Can you reroute truckers around town on E-470? 20. Do tolls go on indefinitely or until road is paid for? 21. Has future growth been calculated into ridership? 22. Everyone out east has no rail option, only bus. Transit on west and east do not compete whereas transit on 1-25 competes with west and east. Sprawl is also an issue. Need strong feeder system bus. 23. I live in Northglenn at 109th and 1-25 and the noise is horrible. • 24. Why do you need to enter my property? I don't think this study will help anything. 25. Do you accommodate people with disabilities? 26. What will happen? 27. My house at 109th would most likely be directly impacted. Package 8 runs through my backyard. How long do I have to dump my house on someone else? 28. The value of my home will decrease if highway is expanded. 29. Will highway eliminate bike path on east side of 1-25? 30. It looks like my house is ok on Package A, but then on Package B it runs right over my house. 31. Will you consider alternatives to noise mitigation such as making a quieter road surfaces, etc? 32. What is the highway made of at south end of T-REX? It's very quiet. 33.Are you saying that you are trying to reverse development by putting CR on the west? 34. Regardless of what happens in this study, growth is happening, traffic is increasing, • people that live next to 1-25 will have to deal with it forever. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-99 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Thornton City Hall January 26, 2006 information cooperation. transportation 35. There are significant issues not only in Northglenn and Thornton but also further south to US 36. A lot of residential communities in this area. 36. Did you ever consider an elevated highway? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-100 Meeting Summary NORTH I--2S • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Frederick Town Hall January 25, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 26 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Was Package A once Package 7? 2. What is difference between bus services, commuter bus vs. BRT? 3. Would BRT be used on major roads? • 4. Difference between A & B, how many people will they move without expanding before 2030? 5. Which of the two would be easier to expand in 2030? 6. In 2030/2050 could trains run every 10 minutes and still be safe? 7. Is the east loop a dead issue? Would Super Slab effect it? 8. What is assumed population for area in 2030? 9. Is FasTracks light rail? 10. Living in Erie I can get anyplace today. They solved most issues in Chicago with rail. 11. Can CR go on rail that is there from Fort Collins to Denver without a transfer? 12. Existing rails present safety issues with grade crossings. 13. How much need for eminent domain will there be in each package? 14. Most towns along western alignment wave build along rail. ED develops along transportation 1-25 could have the same kind of draw have you looked at economic development impacts? • 15. Has there been discussion about cost to individual fare, toll and parking? Federal highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-101 Meeting Summary :.« . NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Frederick Town Hall January 25, 2006 information cooperation transportation. 16. Purchasing ROW, where is that now with BNSF? Are they purchasable? Could help finance more east for railroads. 17. What is time frame for completing study and beginning construction? 18. Are we looking at T-REX situation? 19. With the western railroad will we share rails with freight rail? 20. Do commuter trains have performance over freight? 21. When considering funding could stations be opened for private development? 22. Citizen participation notices at post office. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-102 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Windsor Community Center January 24, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 39 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Option B tolls collected to assist in capital cost or are tolls used to reduce use of Highway GP lanes? 2. Will tolls price be similar to cost on E-470? • 3. Hate to apply business logic to highway logic but what about pricing on toll lanes? 4. Who are we limiting on limited access highways? 5. Central rail has less impacts on endanger species? 6. Was cost of west CR alignment on environmental included in analysis? 7. Will final proposal be A, B or combination of A and B? 8. Pink routes are feeder routes and is this part of funding packages? 9. It is time to get in year 2030 by adding rail routes to Fort Collins to Denver. Station spacing comparable in Level 3 Screening. 10. No brainer! Need to consider trains! Embrace train! 11. Package B has more congestion to I-25. 12. What will stations be? PNR multilevel? 13. Number of transfers west for CR? 14. Which alternative uses the least amount of land? 15. Impact SH 392 and I-25 interchange. North I-25 interchange design clearance. • 16. 25-30 year design outlook is short sighted. Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-103 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • • Windsor Community Center January 24, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 17. Change way of thinking in regards to public transit. 18.Access roads to Johnson's Corner keep truckers safe. Provide access to Exit 254 Johnson's Corner. 19. Forget Boulder, most people want to go to Denver. 20. Were private transit providers considered during design? 21. Why was US 85 not considered for CR due to projected growth in Greeley? 22. Disappointed no alternative C with more transit. 23. Reality of transit is CDOT committed to looking at CR? 24. Purchase ROW now for future use. 25. Are there human nature factors considered with tolling option? 26. Who would use CB/BRT/CR? 27. Can trucks be restricted? Move trucks to the right lane. • 28. Have parallel arterials been considered? 29. Coordination between EAS/EIS/EOS? 30. Prioritization of interchanges reconstruction and how does SH 392 work into this? 31. Is private Super Slab toll road a possibility? 32. Electronic monitoring devices to catch super speeders. 33. Permission to enter, want a person to talk to. 34. Submit for public and agency review? Are we starting over the process? 35. Be aware of ROW acquisitions and condemnation as we move into ROW process. 36. Package B tolls: What is purpose of collecting tolls? CR is more expensive, are tolls used to deter drivers? 37. Not happy with CDOT's approach to tolling. Higher toll costs during peak hours, according to congestion. 38. Why not lower toll rates and accommodate service more people? 39. Explain LAL who are we limiting? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-104 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Windsor Community Center January 24, 2006 information cooperation transportation. 40. Endangered species impacts? Isn't it illegal to have any? 41. North 1-25 needs to work better with SH 392 EOS and others to communicate what will best solve our transportation issues. 42. Land will be more expensive in 30 plus years. Why don't we acquire all the land along 1- 25 so at least we have if for future use. 43. Was mitigation included in the use of CR alignment? 44. Are feeder bus routes parts of your funding package? 45. Travel time and ridership on CR was destination the same? 46. Do you have to change trains to get to Denver? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-105 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • • Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 information. cooperation, transportation. Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 64 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment forms, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. Comment Forms There are development interests at all interchanges. It would be helpful to have individual interchange meetings. We're also concerned about what is happening to the east. Timnath and the City of Fort Collins need to coordinate information and land use issues. I'm concerned about categories of improvements and want to look at alternatives to diamonds so that less land is • impacted. There is a possibility of adding a new interchange at Kector. How does adding new interchanges benefit the highway system and how will it impact the local transportation? Vine Street is on the City plan for a new interchange and should be analyzed in the EIS. We are more comfortable with Vine than Kector. Incremental improvements make sense. Does CDOT update the models with changed land use? A lot is changing from the NFRMPO model projections done years ago. Changing land use from industrial to commercial greatly affects transportation on those roads. Kathleen Bracke City of Fort Collins kbracke@fcgov.com I attended the Town Hall meeting last night in Fort Collins. You ran out of handouts with the two packages and I was told they were on the Web site and I could find them there. I'm having a hard time finding them. Please send me a PDF of the materials handed out at the meeting. Also of note, I arrived at 6 p.m. not realizing that the presentation began at 5 p.m. You might want to emphasize on your promotional materials that the entire time is presentation and Q&A rather than an open house. Thank you. Ann Hutchison 225 S Meldrum Fort Collins, Co 80521 ahutchison@fcchamber.org • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-106 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 information cooperation. transportation. I have concerns related to floodplains, drainage, and wildlife and wetlands, especially bald eagles. All interchanges impact wildlife or wetlands. Our role is to make sure CDOT works closely with corps, division of wildlife, etc. Natural Area Program with City has very specific policies. Doug Moore City of Fort Collins dmoore@fcgov.com Additional Comments 1. With Option B are tolls collected to assist in capital cost or are tolls used to reduce use of Highway GP lanes? 2. Will toll price be similar to cost on E-470? 3. Where are the costs of alternatives? 4. Package A's weakness is it ends in Longmont and most commuters want to go to Denver metro area. 5. What is transit time for the CR west alignment? • 6. How are costs of(plus or minus) $1.5 billion accounted for as a funding mechanism? 7. What is the travel time for all packages and all models? 8. Why is commuter bus not available now? Why wait? 9. There are gridlocks and bad conditions on 1-25 now. Why wait 30 years? 10. What is timeframe to reach Fort Collins? 11. No public transit from Loveland to Longmont. 12. Why does B transit only go to the south end and A transit goes to north end of Fort Collins? 13. How does BRT work in the College area? 14. Pop density used to 100K for planning. 15. When does the 30 year study period start? 16. People have choices in living and work locations. Do we consider impacts to people's choices due to packages? What is impact on land use? 17. Have improvements to north/south arterials been considered in modeling? • Federal highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-107 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2OO6 information. cooperation. transportation 18. Choice has impact on economies. I'm amazed at consideration of eight lane highway facility. Isn't this an environmental study? 19. How does regional funding impact local funding? 20. How do the fling options address needs in GP lanes? 21. Are GP lanes and toll lanes paid for by individual user or by general funds? 22. Need for study driven by growth. Why do we allow development to occur? Why not charge (+ or-) $300 per new house? For new residents? 23. People do not like to pay for unplanned growth. 24. Toll roads leads to a 2-tier society and public transportation system should be open to all. 25. Electric transit options are not pollution free. 26. Motorcycles get 50 mile per gallon, but current conditions are not safe for motorcycles. 27. What are the effects of gasoline supplies and pricing? 28. Type of road surface? • 29. LCCA of alternative modes of transportation. 30. Why do Colorado toll roads have different costs than other systems? Why have both (pay tolls) on line and not at exit? 31. The Autobahn in Europe has lower costs for repairs do to material and thickness. 32. How will ROW be acquired for design? Design expands outside or inside? 33. No tolls on T-REX. Should entire state pay for improvements in northern Colorado? 34. Did we look at tolling on old Boulder turn pike? 35. What are you doing about truck traffic? 36. What type of rail transit is used with commuter rail? 37. Were rail crossings considered in cost? Impacts to E-14 traffic? 38. Autobahn built with much thicker concrete and costs less to maintain. 39. Are property values affected when the highway is widened? 40. Will the highway be widened from the outside or inside? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-108 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 information cooperation, transportation. 41. No company paid for T-REX and there were no tolls. Shouldn't Denver pay for our roads? 42. Will you be tolling existing highways? 43. Encourage everyone here to get in touch with your legislators. CDOT needs its fair share of money. 44. Did you investigate US 36 Toll? It paid for itself in half the time because it was a toll road and restricted access. 45. Most of the cars on 1-25 from Fort Collins to Denver have one person. Transport now has 32 vans running on natural gas. 46. What are you going to do with major truck traffic problems? 47. What type of rail transit on US 287? 48. Is rail crossing safety equipment factored in? 49. Where are costs? How can I approve any if I cannot see costs? • 50. Package A has a weakness. It ends in Longmont. 51. Travel time for CR? 52. How will costs be supported? 53. Travel times for transit and highway from Greeley and all need answer. 54. Why not run bus now from Fort Collins to Denver? 55. I drive the highway twice a week. At Dacono there is a gridlock. What's the timeframe to do anything? Police in Fort Collins and Greeley are concerned we'll have gridlock in 10 years. Traffic has doubled, almost tripled, in 1 1/2 years. 56. I like the transit from Loveland to Longmont in Package A. 57. A lot of growth in northern Fort Collins. Why is Package B only to southern Fort Collins for transit? 58. Population density. 59. Seattle/Portland rapid transit is the best system. 60. With Fort Collins local transit, how will local and federal funds from this project be used • to enhance Fort Collins? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-109 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 61. Package B is not really expanding on the highway. Will toll/HOV be over sufficient? Can toll become "cheaper"than a tax increase? Which option will be more economical? 62. Some communities don't allow more growth where road capacity can't handle them. Why does CDOT allow development? Let's charge each new home $300 to pay for the $1.5 billion to expand. 63. Take into account gas price increases over the next 50 years. 64. If you don't take into account the change in gas prices you won't find a good system. We have already found all the oil we will find. 65. will new roads be built with cement?Asphalt uses gasoline. 66. Need to do something now, not later. Growth is here. 67. The longer we wait the more it will cost. 68. Consider SPVR at Harmony for turning trains. 69. Stations at 25th (Longmont) Berthoud station could be eliminated to reduce cost and improve travel time. 70. Need to stay away from fossil fuel (diesel). • 71. How long will it take to get from Fort Collins to Denver on commuter bus? 72. Can you operate an express bus from Fort Collins to Denver? 73. What year is this for? I don't know why we are even here we will be dead by then. 74. Is there an agenda for this? You started at five? In the past you have had an open house. 75. You have been talking about trying to build a self-supporting line of even 50 miles when 12-15 miles tends to struggle. 76. Would you consider opening with fewer stations on the western line in order to save travel time and station cost and then add them back in later? 77. I would be very disappointed if you didn't build rail. I would rather ride rail than get on l- 25 but I'm not going to go all the way to Boulder to get to Denver. I think toll roads are terrific. I would use those any time. 78. Eliminating 1-25 would be stupid. It is an established truck stop that I have used. • Federal Ifighway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-110 Meeting Summary • NORTH 1-L5 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Radisson Hotel, Longmont June 23, 2005 information cooperation. transportation Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 27 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. US 36 to Denver is not local to local. We need local to local. 2. N 1-25 to DIA uses Boulder branch from Erie to Brighton- US 85 to E-470, E-470 to DIA. 3. Ace is buying a transit. Bring it to Denver as it's currently stopped west of Denver. • 4. Cheyenne airport bus to DIA ridership should be in commuter RTD numbers. 5. Consider shoulder-like lanes, grades, and frontage roads for a biking corridor. Especially north of SH 66. Have separation of bike and pedestrian, as bike travel requires higher speed. 6. PNR at highway 66 instead of Sugar Mill. Pleasantly serviced. 7. Avoids SH congestion and makes northern connections. Move inside- split end of line service -take pressure off of Main Street. 8. Passengers from Cheyenne would love a rail connection to the airport. Can you figure them into the special events ridership? 9. You'll need fairly substantial improvements along US 287 to get a funding passed for this area as will Greeley, Ft Lupton and Brighton, along US 85. 10. CR system will need a bike rack to give commuters maximum options. 11. Would like to see improvements to I-25/56 interchange. 12. Why are there different environmental considerations for managed lanes 46B and 46D, for tolls and current existing impacts? 13. Show amount of traffic usage for each alternative with screening. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-111 Meeting Summary -• NORTH 1-25 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Radisson Hotel, Longmont June 23, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 14. To add train visitation, some systems compliment commuter service with special evening service offering dining. 15. The rolling terrain for CR will affect its engineering and it will be different. 16. Rate E would turn 1-25 into a high growth corridor like Colfax. 17. Should stick with existing rail corridors to help control growth to current communities. 18. Greeley needs to get some transit service. 19. Are you saying it is 1-25 that drives the study and what happens on US 85 and US 287? Is it incidental to how they address issues on 1-25 and are they not looking at city to city travel? 20. It appears the commute is east to west not north to south. 21. The radio reports incidents on 1-25 east-west facilities. 22. CR needs to drop out skips of Loveland and Berthoud. It zig zags and has long travel time. 23. Compliment highway results- I-25 needs widening. • 24. Consider DIA CR to airport instead of bus. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-112 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Loveland Police and Court Building June 21, 2005 information, cooperation. transportation. Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 24 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. US 36 to Denver is not local to local. We need local to local. 2. N 1-25 to DIA use Boulder branch from Erie to Brighton- US 85 to E-470, E-470 to DIA. 3. No left turn exits-all clear span structures. Roadway design is sufficient to accommodate • jet engine landings. No trucks allowed in innermost lane. Variable message signing should indicate what lane an accident is in either text or symbols such that the driver can get into the moving lane early. 4. She lives in Highland Meadows in Windsor, Larimer County near Loveland. Since the construction of CR 5, the neighborhood has had issues with traffic noise from vehicles, including construction vehicles using CR 5. She has contacted several agencies for resolution and has suggested several options including: 1.Constructing a roundabout at CR 5 and Highland Meadows as a traffic calming measure. 2. Using different pavement material to reduce the noise. 3. Constructing a beam between road and houses 5. Owns property and a business on the north side of US 34, east of I-25 and west of CR 3. He is concerned about impacts to his property with the interchange improvements at US 34 and 1-25. Concern for his employees if the business is taken. He drives a truck along 1-25 as part of his business. 6. Lives in Loveland on the west side of 1-25 along CR 7. She indicated that if the arterial improvements are done that it would impact her property that has been in her family for generations. She will attend the next meeting to determine if the arterials will move forward as a viable alternative. She will provide formal comments at that meeting. If the arterials are not included in the next phase she will coordinate with Weld County on the arterial road improvements. • 7. No one in Loveland wants to go to Greeley (Hwy 85) to catch transportation to Denver. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department ofTransportation. Page D-113 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Loveland Police and Court Building June 21, 2005 information, cooperation. transportation. 8. Consider Super Slab and how it affects 1-25 volumes. 9. Model options are important to those unwilling to drive to Denver (elderly, handicapped)- therefore ridership is not the only concern 10. Frontage roads are too close to 1-25. Especially at night, the headlights overlap. 11. Public built stations with houses and lots. 12. Private entry on the service. 13. City needs station (team with shamrock). 14. People need to know when it is coming. Have shelter and need information. 15. Would like to see CR in the mix. Tech jobs in Fort Collins are leaving people to commute to Longmont. 16. Would like it to run from Fort Collins to Boulder. 17. Buses can be as nice as CR if it runs in its own lane. 18. Need bus stations at major intersections, need bus stations with protected shelters, and • to attract riders buses need to run 24 hours a day. Bus shelters stations are critical to shifting travelers from the automotive to mass transit. Private enterprise would work best. Also most people consider buses as third class citizen mode of transportation. Need to encourage/change the way people think by making mass transit more attractive. 19. Were cost association fuels considered during screening? With fuel costs increasing such cost should be included in the screening criteria. 20. Improve bus systems to increase ridership make bus systems more rider friendly. 21. Need to put more emphasis on local commuters to develop local bus networks. 22. People avoid going to Denver because 1-25 is too fast and has too much traffic. 23. Buses need to be provided and would be well used. 24. Don't eliminate transit to build highway. 25. Like Package A CR best as it serves both FasTracks lines. 26. There is an obvious bias towards highway versus transit. 27. Need an RTA to fund transit. 28. What is the difference between light rail and CR? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-114 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Loveland Police and Court Building June 21, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 29. Are you considering both rail and bus or will it be either/or? 30. When more highway lanes are added, the more clogged it gets-are you predicting how fast 8 lanes will fill up? Will having alternatives such as rail, help us alleviate capacity? 31. Is ROW adequate through north-end of study area? 32. HOV lane is closed close to Denver and we are sitting with an empty lane open and complaining about congestion. 33.Are you looking at linking other projects like CR to Albuquerque? 34. Explain existing frontage roads and usage. 35. We're doing a great job! 36. How many times has this corridor been studied? 37. Has thought been given to expenses after highway is built, mainly fuel? 38. What is the status of 1-25 main? • 39. Are plans including future land use plans from surrounding communities? 40. The bus system in Loveland today is not user friendly. 41. What consideration has been done for pay-as-you-go improvements vs. pay in future? 42. I rode a bike here today. People will ride an alternative transit. 43. US 34 / 1-25 interchange needs to be addressed now. 44. Are you coordinating with communities to improve transit and other local improvements? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration-Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-115 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 62 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Highway report notes don't identify whether an alternative serves the population and employment centers, but transit boards do. 2. Fuel prices will rise soon due to decrease in oil production, so alternative roads will be favored. 3. I think more people will be traveling to Denver for high tech jobs. • 4. I don't use transit much and probably won't in future. 5. Interested in wildlife crossing. What species are considered? What species will be impacted the most? 6. Current transit wait time doesn't invoice use. 7. Lots of traffic between Fort Collins and alternative. 8. I'm Colorblind. Label the lines differently. 9. Look beyond 2030. We will all be here past then. 10. Alternative fuels should be considered. 11. Link to the airport with the alternatives. 12. Ninety minutes is too long. No person will express interest in local train to DIA. Compare trains verses gas. 13. BRT on Mason St and in Longmont as hub. 14. Don't spend Federal fuel tax dollars on improvements that are not available to those who pay the taxes (i.e. don't make me pay for HOV lanes I won't use, or buses I won't use, or • trains I won't use). Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-116 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 15. Please provide a white paper outlining FRA safety requirements for passenger rail cars. I want to know why we can't use European stuff on US rails. 16. Please evaluate using European passenger rail equipment on alignments that do not share freight rights-of-way (especially 1-25). 17. Does the high speed rail demand forecast take growth into consideration? What about the population that will live in Fort Collins and work in Denver? 18. Shortage of funding. When will this plan happen? The 22nd century? 19. What was the difference in the time service with commuter rail verses high speed? 20. I agree that widening lanes is not forward thinking. Yet how about those technologies that are not here but are in easy reach? Innovation reads the way of the future. I'm discouraged by the same number of"S" grades given to transit options. Can they be reconsidered after input and before going to Level 3? Have shifting demographics (aging boomers) factored into the desirability of transit? Why has transit not obtained all "S" grades for safety? So I understand now that you point out that safety is considered at Level 3, but why have so many more highway options reached Level 3? All but one of the transit option received "S." What about solar electric commuter cars used in the day • in Denver after disembarking commuter train? Monthly user fee to ride and drive? 21. There are not many choices around accidents on 1-25. It needs alterative routes. 22. Agree that high speed rail is too costly. 23. One difficulty with rail is that it is not flexible. 24. Buses make the most sense. 25. Rail advantages are its reliability to go even in harsh weather less use of fossil fuels. 26. Like the limited access alternative. 27. I like the idea of TDM, vanpools or carpools. 28. I would like to see something more than just widening highways or adding more pavement. 29. I think the commuter rail alternative along the BN line is the best. It should be in town so people won't have to drive or can just take a short bus ride. 30. Concerned about increased traffic and noise on CR 5. There would be accumulative impacts widening CR 5 and we will see a decrease in property value. • 31. Make sure you are coordinating with the truckers' distribution centers that are located along 1-25 and close to 1-25. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration-Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-117 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 '' Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 32. Put a hospital in the center development. Emergency access is a big concern. 33. I would like to see transit(rail). I am not interested in seeing more lanes being built. 34. Ballot measures C&D would override Tabor. Would that money be use on widening l- 25? 35. Would like the transit to connect to FasTracks. 36. SH392/CR 5 residents are concerned with improvements to county roads to improve 1-25. 37. Why is the cost of toll per mile more than HOT? Why so much more than general purpose? 38. Why are there less environmental impacts for toll and limited access lanes than eight lanes? 39. Why does commuter rail get a NI on US 285 and highway gets U for purpose and need? 40. A lot of the information is repetitive. 41. Need to consider the future when developing costs. • 42. Would like a single summary of the major findings of the meeting. 43. If commuter rail were to be an option how and when can commuter rail take advantage of existing rails? 44. Why is capacity not directly proportional to increased lane age? If you increase the number of lanes by 50% (4 lane to Greeley), the expected certainly does not necessarily increase by 50%. Why? 45. Has the impact of Super Slab been taken into consideration? 46. If light rail is considered as an option, will we be working with the individual communities to identify station locations? 47. What is the difference between light rail and heavy rail? 48. Can we still commute on the process?Adventure? 49. Why was safety not considered for transit? 50. Why does commuter rail rate get a NI while US 287 and US 85 improvements rated U? 51. Will rail be incorporated in each package? If rail is included, then no matter what • alternative is chosen there will be rail. Rail is very expensive! Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-118 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • June 17, 2005 information cooperation transportation 52. Study area is 1-25 corridor. Transit linkage to the airport without going to downtown Denver would be nice. 53. What is the study costing to date? 54. Are you giving weight to more highway equals more cars equaling more gas when rail would lessen oil use? 55. Do they have to have highway and transit in the Level 3 packaged alternatives? Is it based on the numbers? 56. Local communities can charge a fee. What would it take for CDOT to work with local communities? 57. Seems like balance of cost, but public and private trains have less cost for a person. Use car for personal insurance. 58. Will you look at alternatives and how they impact land use? 59. Influence developments and how people move around. • 60. Hybrid vehicles on the highway. It is naturally hard to get people out of their cars. 61. Troubling aspect of most transit is what are people going there for? 62. I don't understand adding a third lanes being funded by federal and state money. 63. Thrilled to take a train to Denver. About 50 family members along the way to Denver. 64. You're not going to have enough track. If you don't have an express tram you will not get finders. You need to take an aggressive approach. Rail that needs to be super sized like highway. 65. How extensive were the environmental studies? 66. HSR is 250 MPH x 70 MPH. 67. Would like a definition of the difference between CR and HRS. 68. It seems odd that we continue widening highways when it doesn't help. We need to think long term. 69. What is the criteria for practicability? How do we dig deeper? How is it relative to costs and environment? 70. What are the past and present efforts regarding urban area transportation lessons • learned? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-119 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 71. Cost is a big factor in evaluation. Did you consider safety and medical? There is no comparison between highway and rail. 72. I heard HOV/HOT do not provide much improvement over regular lanes. 73. Colorado builds and rebuilds. It is obsolete. If you put in CR can infrastructure be used for another technology? 74. Ninety minutes is too long. No one will ride. 75. Direct connection to DIA would be better. Look at a spur along E-470. 76. In the future I'm looking forward to more choices. 77. Is CDOT willing to work with Fort Collins on Mason Street? 78. What about Longmont as a hub? 79. You came to different conclusion than TAFS. 80. How much weight does air quality have in this evaluation? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-120 Meeting Summary NORTH 125 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center June 15, 2005 information cooperation. transportation Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 14 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Should only improve roads that are already there. No new roads. 2. Would like a train from these towns to Denver. 3. Glad to see that rail alternative are still being considered. • 4. It makes sense to have rail that goes up 1-25 and then have spurs that go along SH 34 to Loveland & Greeley or go along SH 119. 5. Should put transportation improvements where they won't mess up open space and views. Save them! 6. Agree that the front range toll road wouldn't take that much traffic from 1-25. 7. Should consider a rail spur from 1-25 out to Ft. Lupton. 8. Like widening 1-25. 9. Distinguishing between this and the Super Slab project. 10. Liked graphics and presentation materials. 11. Disappointed there is not much focus on US 85. 12. Think growth in Weld County. 13. US 85 is just now getting stop lights from Denver north through Brighton. 14. Weld County is looking at improving O Street and doesn't want it between SH 392 and US 34. • 15. Likes BRT more flexibility and easier to connect to other routes. Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-121 Meeting Summary NORTH I-2S Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center June 15, 2005 information. cooperation. transportation. 16. Concerns about US 85 lights not being synchronized. 17. Does model use existing signals and plan them out to 2030? Does this cause people to change routes? 18. Concerns about SH 392 and 1-25 interchange. 19. Concerns about lights on US 85 and congestion to Denver. 20. Concerns about O Street project. 21. Understands need for 1-25 improvements. EIS process and meetings are helpful to understanding. 22. Need to identify highways SH 53 or SH 49. If this alternative is rated satisfactory, we need to provide more information to identify. 23. Has the Super Slab been considered with respect to traffic model? How much traffic would be taken from 1-25 if the Super Slab were developed? 24. Need to use different types of transportation because we hate to see land swallowed up. 25. It is unsafe to travel 75 MPH on 1-25. I still travel 65 and am the only one going that • speed. 26. SH 52 to SH7 to 76 River Valley, gravel trucks and 50 car or more backed up at these signals. 27. Loop power point of where we have been to where we are now. 28. Noise from 1-25 is very loud at the Larimer County Fairgrounds. 29. The City has an office by Josephine Jones Park (sunflowers). It is also very noisy. It seems that the road surface in that area is the cause. 30. How do you guarantee that access remains limited on the HOT? 31. Add Collector to the Glossary. 32. 1-25 should not be a barrier to bicyclist and pedestrians. Many safe crossings should be provided to accommodate modes other than cars to cross 1-25. 33. Bike and Pedestrians facilities should be considered, especially between communities. 34. Highway alternative 39C is better from an environmental rating than alternative 39D (not what is shown). 35. Good to compare what we have at this meeting with presentation at next public meeting. • Federal Ilighway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-122 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center June 15, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 36. We should discuss land use implications or alternatives. 37. Sensitivity test on model to look at more or less signals on US 85? 38. bicycles 39. Ft Lupton commuter rail. 40. Commuter rail up 1-25. 41. Buy ROW early. 42. Windsor Bus to 1-25 commuter rail. 43. Park-n-ride 44. Disabled people make up 22% of Greeley and 21% of Colorado population. 45. Send them out in a more timely manner, day before. 46. Back roads are hard to reach. • 47. Concerned about the Super Slab toll road because my home/property is in the middle of the 12 mile wide swath. Highway problems should be highest priority for limited state and federal financing. This area is not going to be dense enough in populations even in the next 25 years to justify a rail solution. 48. Once this study is done in Denver will there be a study to go farther south? 49. Consideration to noise pollution to this area? 50. At the 1-25 and HWY 287 the classifications for commuter rail seem like a good deal. Can we see why you would do that? Can you have an off ramp to Greeley and Fort Collins? 51. In 2030 or 2050 the population growth in Greeley is high. 52. What happens with analysis of Super Slab? 53. Interested in eastern side of 1-25. I don't see a connection to DIA. Land prices are going up and it appears that going to the west may not be like going to the east for parking. More communities on both sides of 1-25 not just west of E-470. Already having problems getting land. Greeley is already having its own discussion about getting to 1-25. 54. When this EIS is done how long is it good for before you have to study again? What is the shelf life? • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-123 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center June 15, 2005 information cooperation. transportation. 55. City council is concerned about US 85 signals looking at expressway status. Though the potential for putting in interchanges is slim could it be modeled, signals with interchanges? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-124 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center October 28, 2004 information cooperation. transportation 17. Longmont to Boulder and Broomfield to Boulder means travel is missing. 18. Significant east-west problem may be as great as north-south problem. Are we coordinating with other east-west studies? 19. Are there Web site links to other transportation studies? 20. With westerly growth in Greeley, won't park-n-Ride be required? 21. Light rail is not shown for Greeley. 22. CR: 3 of 4 stars 23. Can we see some trip length comparisons? 24. Why use light rail (cost/low speed) when there are faster and less expensive alternatives? 25. What additional amenities can be added to CR to make it more business person friendly? 26. Service, reliability, and travel time during peak times are the most attractive features. • 27. End points of alignments may not be actual trip ends. Need to consider local distributors. Single ticketing for mixed mode trips. 28. Which technology is less polluting? Quieter? 29. Are the vehicles bigger and are they needing special lanes to accommodate these vehicles? 30. Has anyone tried this in adverse weather? Would it have priority? 31. Do we have comments about the negative image of buses? Need communities and shelter info. 32. Looking at the alternatives-how did you arrive at them? Why are there stops at Broomfield? Connect to existing. 33. The decisions [for alternatives] were made on what kinds of factors? 34. Travel time on system- doesn't include time to get on/off system- 15-20 minutes ride to transit. 35. People move to areas for easy transit access. 36. Have we estimated the capacity costs? • 37. Systems linking together-could these technologies be feeders? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-125 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center October 28, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 38. Travel times- 1 or 2 hours- not yet specified. 39. Does bus go faster than light rail? 40. Express bus is great. Transportation terminal should be integrated to connect to DIA, downtown and Colorado Springs. 41. Who will provide service? They will need to coordinate with existing service. 42. Could a private company use BRT system to take people from Greeley to DIA? They could pay for using lanes. • • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-126 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. Purpose The purpose of the Level One Screening public meetings was introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. Attendance There were 58 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Comment Forms 1. Please consider wildlife crossing and connectivity between habitats. 2. This project will surely influence the future trajectory of growth and development along the Front Range. Please use mass transit as a tool to direct growth to existing city/town centers rather than encouraging long term dependence on the automobile. 3. Widening highways to reduce traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to try to lose • weight. Please use this wisdom as a guiding principle. 4. None of the alternatives seem to stand alone. Start creating combined alternatives. Buffy Hastings 324 N. Grant Ave Fort Collins, Co 80521 hastings@cnr.colostate.edu 1. More maps in the presentation (i.e. Highway 7 mentioned in Super High Speed-where?). 2. Demand forecast- Mode can create demand. Travel behavior may increase with transit. 3. Evaluation criteria to 3rd parties- i.e.: freight rail 4. Schedule- Clarify. When can we see the end result of the study? 5. Make additional presentation materials available on Web site. The land use/travel patterns showed many more charts than handouts. 6. On the evidence presented this evening, commuter rail seems preferable. Randy Wright 5100 Saffron Ct. Fort Collins, Co 80525 r.f.wright@comcast.net Verbal Comments 1. Have you not heard about the trucking roadway? Safety is enhanced. 2. Building more roads means more traffic and the demand for cars, fuel and pollution increases. • 3. Different speeds on HOV lanes. Go faster and attract more users. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-127 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 information. cooperation, transportation. 4. High speed H0V lanes coupled with other systems. Transportation terminals with 24 hours a day operations. 5. Additional lanes on US 287. 6. Encourage fuel efficiency lanes as incentives. 7. Highway vs. transit- you know people will use the highways. 8. The whole package with rail? Can they all fit in the same corridor? 9. Happening in 20 years, but using it for many years to come. Are materials for the roadway being looked at? Plan for 100 years. Are other aspects being looked at such as tires? 10. In analysis is the cost per traveler looked at? Benefits per user? 11. Look at the big picture with the cost/benefit analysis. Impacts on public, health, nitrogen deposition in RMVP and other pollutants. 12. Numerous studies say that 1,500 of major roadways with more than 20,000 ADT equals 6% increase in health problems. 13. Low income communities will be considered and thank us for that. • 14. Happy with the railroad. 15. Widening roadways is like loosening your belt. Is that your philosophy? 16. Any smart roadway systems looked at? What are the travel time criteria? 17. What is the data for states that already expanded highways?Was there any kind of success? No. 18. Arterial alignments are good ideas. However, Timberline is a bad traffic jam. Consider TDM before building new roadways. 19. With the arterial road alternative, does the county bare the cost to build the road? 20. I used to be able to drive from one end of Fort Collins in five minutes, but I no longer can. We are ahead of the ball and we need to move people faster. Glad we're looking at it now. 21. How do the highways interact with the other alternatives? 22. Is there a correlation between willingness to pay the toll and length of the trip? 23. Are there studies that show that people look for other alternatives or just plan on being in • traffic longer? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-128 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 information. cooperation transportation 24. Do stand alone alternatives out of the stove pipe (North-South) and expand the options (East-West) combination of alternatives. 25. State funded improvements? East-West corridors could be built by county and city? 26. When does cost and environment get discussed? 27. What is the goal of the EIS? Reduce air pollution? Noise? Travel Safety? Transit and human behavioral component not discussed. 28. Are the number of accidents and deaths looked at? 29. What are the programmed capacity improvements? 30. New arterials, during high demand take out truck traffic. Split slow moving traffic during peak periods. 31. What are the goals for time to Fort Collins to Denver ridership, convenience, time and concern? 32. Are you ruling out High Speed Rail? • 33. What is the time difference on commuter verses high speed rail? 34. High Speed Rail costs more than commuter and is less flexible. What is the number of people who can use each system and the cost per passenger? 35. High speed does not offer many stations downtown to downtown. BNSF alignment is curvy. 36. What are the times of operation? Will it be 24/7? 37. Are you looking at transportation to DIA or Grand Junction? 38. Is the High Speed rail option ruled out? 39. What would people be willing to spend from Fort Collins to Denver? 40. Light rail has standing and seating. Commuter rail you sit. High Speed allows you to plug into internet. Increase tolerance with the type of amenities. 41. Commuter Rail is a great alternative! Is the cost low? Will we compensate railroads? 42. Is High Speed Rail separate? 43. Is High Speed Rail like a Cela system? • 44. Why is there no east-west alignment for commuter and high speed rail? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-129 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 45. Everything I've read says that train lines are not used or are underused. Are trains good for all? And is the capacity on rails correct? 46. What is the typical speed between stations on commuter rail? 47. Is there a possibility of upgrading or going faster? 48. Would commuter rail be in conjunction with another transit option? 49. In the traffic flow analysis there is high traffic between Broomfield and Boulder. Why is this not shown on maps? 50. What kind of speed is there for light rail? 51. What is a person's tolerance for standing? 52. Are people scared to stand at 50 mph? 53. Start with bus, go to light rail and then to commuter rail, please. 54. Do alternatives contain multiple routes? 55. Capitol costs and amounts are different. Why? • 56. What type of fuel does BRT use? What type of fare would it charge? 57. Could buses be retro fitted to use alternative fuels? 58. Has there been a study about ridership considering the negative image of bus verses the positive image of rail? 59. What are the operating costs per year? What about the cost per hour? 60. Can you figure out the cost for a longer period of time? 61. Buses are not user friendly. You need shelter, etc. so people will use it. 62.Are all modes evaluated on how many cars will be removed from 1-25? 63. Not sure high speed rail is faster. What will take longer to get to the station? Evaluate time it takes from where they leave home. 64. Transit authorities put together tax money and then turn it over to private operators so fare matches cost of ride. 65. Rail lines in the transit corridor have no east/west bound ability. It has got to have lateral mobility for it to work. 66. Shamrock shuttle operates to airport and is privately run. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-130 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center October 28, 2004 information cooperation transportation Purpose The purpose of the Level One Screening public meetings was to introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. Attendance There were 17 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Do HOV lanes encourage carpools? 2. What has the experience been with Denver's HOV? • 3. What is the practicability of studies like this with respect to funding? 4. What is the planning horizon, 30 years? It could be longer. 5. Some elements are being funded, like WCR 13. 6. Are there any incentives for developers to pay some of the cost? 7. I get frustrated when developers do not provide infrastructure: schools, roads, etc. 8. Developers are required to pay for roads and for the studies of the roads. 9. Technologies may change within 30 years. 10. Why CR 49? Would it create sprawl? I'm against that. 11. Will we look at a combination of lines? 12. Possible stations? Fare collection? Will be looked at later in the study. 13. DMU- Do operating costs triple with three-car trains? 14. How accurate are the projections? 15. Are the numbers the latest/most current ones? • 16. What are the advantages of Light rail vs. CR? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration-Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-131 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 67. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. How will you balance population east verses west? Limited dollars will not allow everything. 68. Will study look at usership in the area? 69. Have we done analysis of cost of running a car verses using transit? 70. Rail adds the cost of lateral transportation. 71. Need to figure out how to pay for things today as dollars get harder to find. By time this gets done, Fort Collins will have doubled in population. 72. Does CDOT work with communities regarding development along 1-25? 73. I moved here from St. Louis where they built a light rail downtown. There was no reason to take a car downtown. This can be done here. 74. If you went from Fort Collins to Denver it would not be very comfortable. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-132 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland information cooperation. transportation October 21, 2004 Purpose The purpose of the Level One Screening public meetings was to introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. Attendance There were 22 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Is the projection conservative? 2. Travel demand projections source? What percentage of mass transit is included? • 3. Are there any assumptions about capacity constraints? 4. Is there a relationship between population growth and travel demand? How are they related? 5. Date of O/D study? Growth demand in Fort Collins may not be one to one as indicated. 6. Relationship of land development and open (free)versus toll road? (i.e.E-470 and Dallas North Tollway) 7. Will alternatives be used to direct transit as a means to land use patterns? 8. Why are some travel patterns so strong and others so low? 9. Is there info on effect of transit to shape land use patterns and projections? 10. What about access to DIA- major destination from north Front Range? 11. Intraregional trips are most important- not just Denver. 12. Can we analyze growth as dictated by travel modes? What about starting with a desired plan rather than accommodating unconstrained growth? 13. The cost of housing determines living locations and that accommodates (car) travel to work because it is cheaper. • 14. If you build it they will come...You can't build your way out. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-133 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland information. cooperation. transportation. October 21, 2004 15. High speed rail travel time is not exclusive/grade separation. 16. ROW uses the same for class 7/8 position. Build a separate track. 17. Will you add additional stations and rotate? Yes, possibly. 18. Will local road alternatives require ROW acquisition of private property? 19. Will HOV lanes allow motorcycles? 20. There's a hill on 24 between 34 and Mead: raise the minimum speed limit to 70 mph to allow passing more easily (as a short term solution until money is available.) 21. Don't spend money on bike paths. They have lottery money. 22. Increasing speed will only add to the accidents numbers and straighten out the highway at 56. 23. I disagree about the comment on spending on bike path comment (don't spend money on bike paths-they have lotto). Paths to transit centers should be part of the project. • 24. How long until funds start building the recommendations? They may be stale by the time funds are available. 25. Travel time on South College Street is now higher than other routes. 26. How can toll roads save time if you stop to pay tolls? 27. Toll incentives for low emission vehicles? 28. Just adding more lanes to 1-25 is not the answer. We are not like L.A. 29. Adding more lanes to 1-25 makes more sense for trucks than out-of-direction alternative routes. 30. Focus on improvements on east-west highways between north-south arterial roads parallel to 1-25 (especially across 1-25). 31. Can we somehow train and discipline our drivers by limiting passing zones for trucks and slow RVs? (i.e. stronger laws) 32. Alternate routes with signals will not divert trips from 1-25. I don't use US 287 south of Loveland because it takes more time. 33. How do you reconcile "new interchanges" with "limited access lanes?" Aren't these opposing alternatives? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-134 Meeting Summary NORTH I--25 .° • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland information cooperation transportation October 21, 2004 34. How do you balance high population base west of 1-25 with the lower cost of improvements east of 1-25? 35. I live in Loveland and would use an improved US 85. 36. Do the costs on the handouts include all costs? 37. Are you considering the CDOT study to move railroad freight lines east of Greeley (Ports-to-Plains) making rail lines available for transit? 38. Will you consider improvements to SH 402? What about extending it east? 39. I'm opposed to toll lanes. 40. I like the current improvements to US 287. Can Longmont signals be timed better? 41. Will you consider adding more lanes? 42. Chances of funding for any of this? 43. The 20-yearold "Foothills Highway" was west of Fort Collins, but went further north to • Poudre River. 44. How do they share streets? 45. No vehicle used lanes, but could include carpool with priority for buses. 46. Owned/operated by private or state? 47. Convenience factor- list convenience. 48. Which is most cost effective? 49. How fast is rapid transit? 50. What are the safety issues [with rapid transit]? 51. BRT has a dedicated lane? It's not on the highway-does it have its own lane? 52. Bus is a good system. It reduces traffic on the road. Roads are full so people might use them. People could commute more effectively. 53. Glad we are looking at light rail-fast, efficient and clean. Might not have been light rail. 54. Most of commuting is from Longmont to Denver- have to stop to let people on/off. • 55. CR is faster than getting in your car. Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-135 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland information. cooperation. transportation. October 21, 2004 56. What is the difference between commuter and light rail? 57. Why use light rail? Why not use CR? 58. Pay now or pay later. Operating cost could reduce that. 59. The population here is getting older and will depend on that. 60. There's an AARP study that seniors don't use transit. 61. Has there been any interface with existing bus service? Greyhound is not making money. 62. I hate that we have to subsidize buses. 63. Having ridden RTD to Denver- how will travel times compare? Is there a difference? 64. We had light rail 50 years ago. The tracks were removed because it caused congestion and was not flexible enough. Buses can go with traffic so how will it be different? 65. Time for today as growth changes timing. 66. I don't understand how this will work if it moves with the traffic? • 67. Great deal because it moves people all over corridor- meat and potatoes system. 68. If you didn't have them all would there be bus too? 69. What's the feasibility of doing two or so alternatives on county roads? 70. What are the travel times? 71. What is the cost? $200-500 million means nothing. What are the parking costs? Will that work with the cost? 72. Concern about ROW and frontage road with widening the corridor. 73. What are the bridge concerns? 74. What security measures are being taken? 75. Where is our growth? 76. If FasTracks passes, what happens? 77. A and B look good if FasTracks passes. 78. Try to use existing tracks and saves costs. • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page 0-136 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland information. cooperation transportation October 21, 2004 79. Will the rail be put over highways? 80. 1-25 corridor is a better idea for a train. 81. For Loveland, high speed rail is not very accessible. 82. Station locations? Fort Collins/Loveland airport? 83. The G alternative is good for CSU/NCD school. Does it strictly isolate east/west? 84. How many stations would there be with CR? How long would it take? 85. How would the weather affect the train? 86. If they generally run off diesel is there pollution? 87. Center line seems the most fair. 88. How long until this is all operational? • 89. By staying on tracks are we limited by stations? 90. Is there room for park-n-Rides? 91. How much would it cost to ride? 92. Can we add stations as we go? 93. What is the impact to the cities? 94. Park-n-Rides are great. 95. People in college towns stay as college students. 96. Fixed manufacturing jobs are decreasing in the corridor. Probably increasing hours of service industry jobs. Look at this, this is often overlooked. 97. Look back 25 years (Boulder)-No Growth Policies. Is there a present day affect we're seeing in the projections? Cap on residential development but not on jobs. 98. Service industry trips not easily defined. 99. Looks at San Francisco region, 20-25 years ago they built parallel highway systems. Are there other alternatives to pursue to prevent grid-lock in existing corridors? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-137 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland information cooperation. transportation. October 21, 2004 100. How do you gather non-work related trips? 101. Most population is west of 1-25 but cheapest rail corridors are east of 1-25. How do you reconcile this? 102. Growth areas in Commerce City and DIA: How will they be served? 103. Future connections: DIA to Union Station (CR) 1-70 East for the east corridor. 104. The percentage of motorcycles in estimates seems low. How much certainty is there in future projections? 105. A lot of intraregional traffic/minimal travel to downtown Denver matches with CR alternative A, not so much alternative G. 106. Compare the alternatives to No Build. 107. East side alternative alignments require longer commutes. 1-25 would be a more central location. 108. Population greater on west side, so should alignments be on west side as well? • East side to be increased residential? 109. Mixed alternatives? Feeder systems to be provided? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-138 Meeting Summary :fir NORTH 1-25 • Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 information. cooperation transportation. Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 78 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment forms, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. Comment Forms I would encourage this project's management to ensure the final solution provides incremental segmenting of LONG TERM solutions to the undoubtedly significant and continuing growth along the northern most portions of 1-25. Donna Hanks 8233 Three Eagles Dr. • Fort Collins, CO 80528 donnathom@frii.com I would like to see the practicality of the various transportations be part of the study. What I mean is how practical are they in terms of user needs/wants. Be able to get where they want to go when they want to go, at a good speed and reasonable cost. Don Homan 1626 Adriel Cir Fort Collins, CO 80524 donhoman@jymis.com I am with the Cheyenne MPO. In the past the Cheyenne MPO and WYDOT have been on past CDOT studies, including the CDOT rail study and the CDOT North Front Range Rail Study, and the US 287 by-pass study as steering members. Tom Mason Director of Cheyenne MPO 2101 O'Neil Ave. Cheyenne,WY 82001 tmason@cheyennecity.org Too often, transportation planning and management is side tracked as a growth management tool, rather than a fundamental recognition of mobility among a growing population. Additionally, the cost of infrastructure has escalated well beyond the cost of materials. Joe Rowan 621 Gilgalad Way Fort Collins, CO 80526 • joe@fundingpartners.org Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-139 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. Thanks for keeping in mind the need for transportation. Alternatives that are in line with future revenue streams are best. As I see it, lower wage earning population, plus lower paying jobs, plus increasing older population appears to work when the funding of most of the project. Richard Shipman 4418 Goshawk Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 richs@frii.com I took the new northbound section of 1-25 today (south of Dacono). It looks really good. If possible, could you remove the traffic barrels over the steep grade on that stretch until they actually do the median work? It's about a 1 mile stretch that trucks use. Jack Cooksey 1037 Ogden Ct Fort Collins, CO 80526 jcooksey@larimer.org 1. Complete rebuilding to three lanes from the end of current construction at Hwy 52 on to Hwy 14. The present roadway is inadequate and getting extremely rough in places. 2. Extend RTD bus service along 1-25 to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Robert& Barbara, Sweat 1313 Alford Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 rsweat1313@aol.com • Doing nothing is NOT an alternative. Multipurpose lanes are a good choice. Rail-type transit to Denver is conceivable, but not financially responsible. Do NOT tell me to ride a bike. William Welch 4305 E. Harmony Rd Fort Collins, CO 80528 wwelch@connellresources.com Myself and my family are in support of a passenger/commuter rail system/train that runs from Cheyenne (perhaps) to Colorado Springs. A system of this kind is overdue. Our environment can no longer support the emissions from ever increasing auto use. Michelle Albert 6301 Compton Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80525 michelle_emily1@msn.com Light rail/commuter rail is the way to go. Operating costs for a bus system does not seem to include cost of maintenance for highways. Even if the use is shared with auto (no dedicated lanes), operating costs for road maintenance can be apportioned by number of opportunities. Ann Grant 4321 E.Vine Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521 caryoptens@cs.com • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-140 Meeting Summary . °a 4 NORTH 1-25 • • Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. It appears that the only really practical solution is some type of rail system. I think that it should be lighter than commuter rail system. Also a 30 year timeline is way too long. Every means to shorten the timeline should be exhausted. It would be great. Merritt Hankson 4321 E.Vine Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 hmohantz@cs.com Colorado recently ranked #1 in the US in number of miles driven per vehicle per year (20,000/yr). Some say we don't have the population density to warrant the expenditure for a commuter rail (light rail not appropriate for Fort Collins to Denver distance). We MUST have a long range plan! Angie Paccione 1331 Birch St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 angie@angiepaccione.com It is crucial to consider the long-term investment of the alternatives. New lanes on 1-25 cost $5- 15 million per mile and can only accommodate a fixed level of traffic. From the information we received tonight, commuter rail costs $8-15 million per mile. Doug Ryan P.O. Box 1190 • Fort Collins, CO 80522 ryandl@co.larimer.co.us Buses can be very hard for non-frequent riders to know where to go, etc. Where I'd use a fixed location rail readily, I would be very reluctant to use a bus. I have no confidence that CDOT will choose anything but more highway lanes, considering our cure. The final proposal should allow for growth after 2020. I.e. if rail is chosen, being able to run more frequent trains. I didn't see the (now) proven maglev technology. It is high speed. I support it. Consider the distance between Fort Collins to Denver. Chuck Siefke 8450 Stag Hollow Rd. Loveland, CO 80538 csiefke@starband.net While the cost of adding new modes of transportation are typically higher than adding new lanes of highways, the increased capacities, safety records and decreased pollution impacts (some of which are hard to quantify in dollars) are offsetting factors to these. William Stiewig 2106 Brenson Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 bstiewig@aol.com I strongly favor the rail system idea. Some of my reasons include accidents on 1-25, stress reduction for commuters, easier access to Denver for seniors (20 percent of Fort Collins is retired, I believe), more flexible expansion for the future. LeRoy Wichman • 5557 Weeping Way Fort Collins, CO 80528 leroywichman@yahoo.com Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-141 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 " Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • 'w„. • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. After living in Seattle and seeing the lack of results of six lanes (each way) on 1-90, I really believe that there needs to be other ways of travel on 1-25. We can't build enough lanes for cars. We need a rail-bus system that interfaces in a useable way. Ray Rowe 707 Locust Fort Collins, CO 80524 e@lamar.colostate.edu Regarding purpose and need, safety: I would suggest the alternative of increased law enforcement (annual cost, various means) to counter the increase in accidents 1991 to 2001. Regarding capacity: the eastern mobility study, I thought was to unload 1-25. George Reed 201 E. County Rd. 66E Fort Collins, CO 80524 sue_george_reed@msn.com I strongly favor bus rapid transit if the buses are not belching fumes and are away from auto traffic. I also prefer commuter rail with the most advanced technology. Trains are really more comfortable and convenient than buses. Adding lanes to 1-25 as the very last option. Anonymous Additional Comments 1. I like trains! You can't rely on your car to get to Denver in a timely manner anymore. • 2. Alternatives seem to lead to highway with buses, not rail. 3. Twenty year timeframe is too short. Should look to 50 years and beyond. 4. Alternatives seem to lead to highway with buses, not rail. 5. Schedule is hard to read because horizontal gridlines are needed. 6. Was a Maglev considered? 7. Compare all modes of transportation on a 100 year basis. 8. Please consider these infrastructure replacements in costs of adding roads. 9. Consider routes previously discussed on eastern boundary to relieve truck traffic on 1-25. 10. Compare to the population and employment numbers in 1970. 11. I don't think TransFort has Sunday service. 12. There are so many environmental benefits to rail over widening 1-25. 13. If you want to do rail, need to making it faster than the drive on 1-25. 14. Need to show cost per person for different modes to get from x to y. • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-142 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 15. Please have a chart which clearly defines the existing tracks in this study area. 16. From a safety standpoint, more lanes are necessary. • • Federal highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-143 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Margaret W. Carpenter Recreation Center Thornton information cooperation. transportation. June 29, 2004 Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 12 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Numerical ratings are more important than year built for bridge status. 2. Hwy 7 - Hwy 66 -- Is under construction now for six lanes. Map doesn't reflect current project. 3. Why not show per passenger operating costs? The per revenue hour fails to consider • car capacity! • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-144 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Loveland Museum June 24, 2004 information cooperation transportation Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 36 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. What about a "ferry train?" People could park their cars/trucks on the train while the train speeds to Denver. In Denver they could drive their vehicle off the train and around Denver. When they want to go home they drive their cars to the train and ride it home. 2. Widening North 1-25 is NOT the answer to our congestion problems. I would like to see commuter rail from Fort Collins to Denver. • 3. I like the idea of BRT because it keeps the buses in an exclusive lane and keeps cars from having to watch for buses or vice-versa. I experienced driving along side BRT in Las Vegas when I lived there and I liked it. 4. Add Weld County Minibus. Contact Patsy Drewer (Weld Co.)for details. 5. Consider special events for transit ridership (i.e. DCPA and sporting events). 6. This all looks good so far. Keep it up. 7. I believe that the project committee needs to act quickly to provide the alternative of bus transit while they undertake the lengthy study of new roads, wider lanes, etc. 1-25 is in a crisis situation and needs quick resolution. 8. I believe that the only long range answer to this problem is to have some type of commuter rail or mass transportation system. If these options are chosen, I would hope that there would be some incentive for people to use these systems until our philosophy. 9. We must find an alternative to the automobile! (mostly those with one person.) I-25 north of SH 14 "at capacity 2020", no right of way to add lanes (frontage road too close now). Wellington is adding houses close to existing frontage road. Find solutions now! 10. Widen 1-25 from Wellington to Denver. Get rid of intersections like 1-25 and US 34, Windsor and 1-25, and cloverleaves. Signs for more awareness for motorcycles. Our main safety concern is ROW violations. Make people aware of motorcyclists! • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-145 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Loveland Museum June 24, 2004 information cooperation. transportation 11. Seemed to be a clear split between the road, roads and more roads cult, and the "think rail" contingent. I support the latter. The reason everybody drives is because there is no alternative. DO NOT DROP the non-road alternatives! We have season tickets. • • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-146 Meeting Summary NORTH I--2S • Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Evans Recreation Center, Evans June 22, 2004 information cooperation. transportation Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 14 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Having commuter trains during peak hours from Fort Collins to Denver is a good idea. Even something just from 160th south would be usable for trips to the ball game. 2. Improvements are definitely needed to 1-25. 3. Should consider HOV lane with express bus service. • 4. Like to see RTD/TransFort/The Bus develop a regional plan for working together. Want to see Greeley/Fort Collins transit bus merge in with RTD to provide better service and expand service (routes/days times). 5. Don't like driving at high speeds with all this traffic. It isn't big enough to handle traffic today. 6. Mass bus transit will not relieve congestion on highways. 7. DCPA and other retail spots in downtown could offer reduced fares. 8. Freight rail would likely pay for commuter rail use. 9. Behavior modification is very difficult in the west. 10. Do not ignore travel between cities. 11. If highway fuel tax payers fund 1-25 improvements, they should be able to access all lanes they pay for. 12. Old abandoned UP railroad would be good route if you could work with UP and BN. 13. Want CDOT and State to start paying attention to the Front Range, not just Denver. 14. Want to see something happen and not just talked about. • 15. We need growth and therefore need to address infrastructure. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-147 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Evans Recreation Center, Evans June 22, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 16. Concerned with future infrastructure between Greeley/Fort Collins/Loveland handling 30 year growth. 17. Existing condition of 1-25 pavement is terrible. It is falling apart and the US 34/1-25 interchange is very dangerous. 18. Hwy 34 and 1-25 are congested today and not capable of handling growth. 19. Safety is a big problem on 1-25. 20. A lot of 1-25 needs to be built. 21. Showing the "over capacity" red line doesn't explain what the delay might be. I'd like to see the segments showing delay times. 22. Please define what an "annual passenger" is. 23. Show accidents by year and volume by same year. May show increasing accidents and less increase in volume. 24. Show with traffic growth to further indicate growing safety concern. 25. The abandoned railroad ROW would be a great route for passenger rail. • 26. A second set of improvements should be questioned and analyzed thoroughly. 27. Rail must NOT use ROW paid for by highway impact fees (fuel tax). 28. Please DO NOT package alternatives. Different modes should be weighed individually and demonstrate their contribution toward the Purpose and Need areas of safety, capacity, modal alternatives, aging infrastructure and congestion growth. 29. Where did the VanGo data come from? I have different data. I'm also concerned over the subsidiary for the VanGo program. I'd like to see an analysis of real cost of Van- Go/TM strategies. I'd like to see more privatization of the vanpools. And who exactly would use it? 30. Be sure to consider that a population with longer commutes will be LESS likely to give up additional time and flexibility to make mass transit work. Northern Colorado seems to have an earlier and more dispersed rush hour. Simply extending what RTD is doing northward. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-148 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation transportation. Purpose The purpose of the scoping meetings was to introduce the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement to the public, help define the purpose and need, and identify environmental issues that need to be studied. Attendance There were 179 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. As a cyclist and a pedestrian, I prefer separate lanes for each. They don't mix well and have safety issues. 2. Bicycles are a great alternative to cars. I lived in Fort Collins for 15 years without a car and I rode my bike everywhere. I am safe, and respectful of pedestrians. Bike and • pedestrian lanes are great when separated from cars and buses as cars stink. 3. Biking, walking, running, etc. are healthy, fun and cheap. There are no wars for oil. 4. Cycling is not near as safe or reliable as an automobile. 5. Cycling short distances is a time saver. In the time it takes to scrape windows and warm up the car, I am home on my bike. Also there is no fear of hail damage to my car. 6. Fort Collins needs a functional bike trail system. 7. Fort Collins needs to fix its many bike lanes that do not meet the AASHTO standard. 8. I am very concerned regarding safety in the pedestrian/bicycle lanes. Many people on bikes will want to travel as fast as they can to commute. That can lead to bike/pedestrian accidents. I think there should be some sort of system to keep all of them separate. 9. In Fort Collins bike lanes are not continuous. They stop at busy intersections. This leaves bicyclers and cars at a conflict. 10. This is a very important component of good transportation system. Please keep it high on the agenda as you review all options. It must be seen as a component of all systems. (Bicycle & Pedestrian Board) • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-149 Meeting Summary NORTH I--25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 11. Auto/vehicular pollution (fossil fuel) causes heart and lung disease, cancer, and contributes to obesity. 12. Less than 10 miles of bike long distance is not an efficient mode. 13. These concepts are important, but how is this relevant to 1-25? Are you considering a bike lane on the highway? 14. Rapid transit from Fort Collins to the other towns of any size at least 4 times per day is greatly needed. Let's not forget our low-income workers who don't own cars. 15. Establish bus service first, then add rail if demand is there. 16. If buses are the solution they should be express buses and have enough bike storage. Transit doesn't hold enough bikes and don't go to work areas which folks would use. 17. Regional bus service needed now. 18. Transport does not service business centers (commuter). They service shopping centers. The commuters are buses' bread and butter, not shoppers and youth riding for free. • 19. Until the mind set changes enough to accommodate the idea of means of transit (i.e. trains) the bus is the most workable. 20. What about smaller clean burning buses? With more buses running over more routes with increased frequency. More riders over a wider geographic area could be better serviced. 21. In some ways maybe bus service would be the most economical, but it will add to congestion on already stressed highways. 22. Bus takes too long and is not efficient. It won't be used. 23. Check amount of BRT per mile. 24. Why does it take this long? 25. It is important to not pollute any more. Use alternative fuel and rail service with enough storage for bikes and do it soon. I have been hearing about alternative transportation to Denver for years. 26. Using rail service reduces congestion on roadways. 27. Incentives for people to live near where they work would pay off in the long run. • Federal Highway Administration'Federal Transit Administration' Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-150 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 28. Isn't this in place in Fort Collins with PUDs building residential/commercial restaurants/grocery in each neighborhood to cut down on road use? 29. Need for unincorporated portions of counties experiencing large growth to step up to regional planning plate and participate in meaningful land use planning rather than allowing every proposal to be built. 30. Poor land use management is what is driving 1-25 congestion. We must have regional land use management. 31. 1-25 is already too congested for this alternative. (Congestion Management Board) 32. Note that Denver and the NFR are now in the ozone non-attainment boundary and there may be more interest in congestion management type controls (as well as other mobile source controls). 33. These are not conducive to current variable work schedules. The 9-5 job rarely exists in reality. • 34. This seems to cause problems since everyone slows down to read the sign. (Congestion Management Board) 35. As ultra low emission vehicles become more common place associated pollution becomes less of a problem. Encourage carpools and drive efficient vehicles with at least three lanes on 1-25 each way from Wellington to Denver. 36. VanGo works for Denver commuters. How about other closer cities? 37. We can't mitigate these exponential VMTs by building more roads. More cars equals more roads and so on. 38. The 1-25 corridor may infringe on the Peebles Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat. Will grade separation be built to support them? 39. Impact of new roads on land use (sprawl) habitat and farmland are key. 40. Aesthetic? Imagine looking down from Longs Peak! What would you see? Recreation and tourism is in top three for local economy. 41. Impacts from fuel production (supporting exponential unit growth). 42. What are the "proposed improvements?" • 43. What is environmental justice? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-151 Meeting Summary NORTH I--25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 44. Air Quality is also key. We are already in or approaching non-attainment. Chosen alternatives must demonstrate how air quality will be improved. 45. Air quality is number 1. 46. How about view sheds and agricultural land? 47. For regional rail movement through communities where does liability lay? If there is a large hazmat spill because of an accident, derailing, etc? 48. Please evaluate projected costs and availability for oil. Byproducts of incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and the health impacts. 49. River corridors are a major consideration for protection. The river valleys are also the place where air quality tends to be worst. 50. Clear evidence that commuter rail is needed now. 51. Rail service indicated now! What are 10-20 year projections like for these areas? Can • we really wait that long for rail service based on preceding board? Tom Norton please says commuter rail is possible in less than 50 years, you should be a leader. 52. 1-25 needs more lanes in both directions now. It's long past due. 53. What if any effect would parallel roads have on the two zones of 50,000+ travelers? Such as what was talked about in the 1-25 corridor plan. 54. Future short and long term volumes? 55. Consider Loveland Urban Renewal Authority funding recently pledged to 1-25 interchange improvements (Kudos to Loveland). 56. Let the appropriate developers fund improvements of the SH 60 and SH 56 interchanges in compliance with CDOT. 57. Biker/pedestrian projects are worthless without giving biker/pedestrians the Right-of-Way at the major arterials. The Mason Street Trail will not be functional. 58. There is a funded biker/pedestrian enhancement project on 3rd Ave in Longmont. 59. Should expand Poudre River Trail from ELC through to Windsor. It would make bike commuting a lot easier. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-152 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation transportation 60. I don't drive and would like other modes of transportation. 61. Consider all options equally. Why are you pushing roads and not rail? 62. Rail makes much more sense than adding lanes, more cars and more pollution. I like the definition of insanity. Explain what HOT lanes are. 63. Add lanes to 1-25. The single family vehicle is the primary mode of transportation. 64. Let's add a third lane on 1-25 ASAP. While working on the rest. 65. What is the air quality analysis comparison to existing quality? 66. All future lane additions should be tolled. 67. Lower the toll to airport on E-470. Cutting the toll by 25%-50% might increase usage and keep revenue neutral. 68. Add toll trucks on US 287 so there is an equal cost on 1-25. • 69. Why is there no cost per mile data for roads/highway? 70. Express toll lanes create a "privileged citizen" lane. Only those who can afford it. An HOV or HOT lane should be installed instead. If more lanes are added, it should be easy to make them use a HOV/HOT lane. 71. Adding lanes of any kind should be the last option. Public transportation needs to take precedence. 72. Adding lanes will only lead to more vehicles on the road and is not a real solution to decrease congestion. 73. Emphasize fact that more lanes or roads will only increase both air quality and congestion problems. 74. More lanes are not a solution for oil wars. 75. Move highway lanes. It is the least efficient in the long term. 76. No more lanes. It is time to do something that will have an impact on future generations, rail is the future. • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-153 Meeting Summary NORTH I--2S Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 77. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Studies in a variety of areas have shown that urban areas that have added the most lanes have had the most increase in congestion. Please emphasize alternatives. 78. I don't own a car and I'd like to be able to get from Fort Collins to Denver. 79. By the time the roads are built, they will not hold the increased traffic. Use commuter rail. 80. Even if the rate of growth in vehicle use slows over the next 20 years, 1-25 still needs more lanes now. Too many people are dying. Not more of the same. Commuter rail now. 81. How does the passenger mile death rate compare between Rail, highway, and BRT? 82. Any thought of a loop highway around Fort Collins/Loveland? 83. I-25/US 34 needs improvement, not evaluation. 84. Most bridges over 1-25 are deficient, and should be rebuilt to accommodate extra lanes and rail. 85. Need to address US 287 truck route bypass with all the growth through northern Fort • Collins this could well be best solution. 86. Need to assess 1-25 and SH 14. 87. Developer need to pay for impacts of growth, greater capacity needs paid for by development it shouldn't be developed on general public 88. Every time you widen the road you make walking and biking harder. 89. How long does an asphalt road last? What about concrete road? 90. Needs a fix before Centurra is built. 91. What are the capital costs? 92. What are the costs per mile for concrete and asphalt? 93. What is the dinner bell triangle? (Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley) 94. Will roundabouts finally play a role? They are more efficient, cheaper and safer. 95. No more lanes. It is time to make commuter trains a priority. Excuses like "it will cost too • much," or "it's not the right time," are lame. Do it now. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-154 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information cooperation transportation. 96. Widening to six lanes would be terrible. 97. Regarding critical transportation issues, this is VMTs and oil consumption. Stop building roads we are at war over oil. 98. Stop building roads. You are killing the quality of our life. 99. Widening 1-25 is insanity. It is a state and federal responsibility with no money insight. Lanes would be grid locked on opening day. Think TAFS. 100. How about the Crossroads Sub Area Study from 2001? 101. Big airport east? I like passenger rail to Denver with an additional big airport planned out east of Fort Collins. 102. Development should be limited to highway/interstate interchanges for rail stops. 103. If anything is done on 1-25, trucks should have their own two lanes on 1-25. • 104. State "Urban Light Law" is helping rural development (sprawl) it is putting more pressure on road system. 105. Development generated traffic and threatens mobility on 1-25 and on the interchanges. They need to pay for adding capacity. No more welfare developers. 106. In other states the developers foot the bill for the infrastructures including schools, roads, retail for that their building incurs. They should pay for all of this. 107. Super Wal-Mart and DOT should be commercial. SH 66/US287 NE. 108. Are these developments going to foot the bill for their transportation impacts? 109. Don't forget Wellington growth. It is becoming more and more desirable as it gets too crowded down south. Plan for tremendous growth up north. 110. One main concern is better transportation to/from Denver. More growth of Fort Collins as a bedroom community. What about the infrastructure in Fort Collins? Who pays for the increasing costs of roads, etc? Please look at roads having separate semi lanes. 111. Residential/Commercial DOTS for SH 119 (new)/US-287 Harvest Johnson's Corner. Commercial closed to SH 119. • 112. Where are the existing rail tracks? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-155 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 113. Go to the malls where everyday people are. Hold real public meetings where education and discussion will take place. 114. Health clubs 115. What can be done to get younger people involved? 116. Would prefer an open Q&A session. 117. So what is the "proposed action?" 118. The EIS should account for negative effects of wildly increasing VMT and burning more oil we don't have. 119. The EIS should put the environment, especially air quality, above the needs of development. After air quality the river corridors and wetlands should take precedence. 120. If there are no state and federal funding "No Action" is what we will have. 121. US 36 from Boulder to Denver is always a zoo. What is that about? Need alternative • transportation for those folks, preferably non-polluting. 122. Finish improvements to US 287. Synchronize traffic or limit signals through urban areas. 123. Why not stop doing studies and build some roads in SH 14 (bypass) North of Fort Collins? 124. Purpose and Need - Mountain Range Shadows Sub Division vs. 1-25. 125. The diagonal is an absolute zoo during rush hours. So what's new? 126. Rail system is in place and should be clear and used. 127. How would these projects be funded? State? Regional? Local? 128. Maps should show railroads more prominently so we could compare them to highways more easily. 129. Why is only Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Denver water projects listed as "other projects?" The cities of Fort Collins, Greeley and other participants are looking at a joint expansion of Halligan and Milton Sewer reservoirs. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-156 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation transportation 130. What about other agencies that aren't cooperating but participating? 131. "More lanes" is not the answer. Give us trains we'll ride them. 132. Are we going to become the next Atlanta or L.A.? We need alternative transportation, not more sprawl including roads. 133. Let's be visionary with an environment that we want to live in 20-50 years from now. Commuter rail lines will encourage higher density growth instead of more sprawls. Also less pollution, water use, stress, and less life. 1-25 is getting down right dangerous. 134. Trains (commuter) and bus service are the answer to the exploding population. Get the right-of-way while it is available. Places like L.A., Houston, etc. waited too long to start rail. 135. Why are we going to let this happen? Growth is not inevitable. 136. People will move here whether we want them to or not. Goal should be to manage process growth and infrastructure. • 137. www.dig.denz.state.co.us "Draft population forecasts by region, 2000-2030" projects in this region. 138. Need light rail for North Front Range with bus stops. 139. We need rail service down from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs and back every day, but we need 1-25 to be three lanes each way from Fort Collins to Denver first. 140. Start with BRT before an investment in rail. 141. Make connections to Metro Denver that links both Longmont and Thornton. 142. Most folks don't know the difference between light rail and commuter rail. 143. What about the 1997 CDOT study that shows possible rail corridors from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver? What about 1-25 rail alignments? It deserves its own map. 144. What does DMU stand for? (Diesel Multiple Units) 145. Where is the rail to Fort Collins? 146. Consider incorporating alternative transportation into interstate infrastructure. • Specifically light rail, HOV lanes, and bus only lanes. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-157 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 147. Stay true to the Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (TAFS) adopted just a few years ago by the MPO with a large commuter rail, regional rail, bus service, and HOV lanes. 148. Consider an investment in a toll road just east of 1-25. 149. Don't forget noise developing methods. Can see where this would be a prime problem. 150. I would like to see the TAFS recommendation implemented. Hopefully the EIS would be Step 1 in this process. 151. Light rail or bus to DIA. I fly 8-10 times a year. Why do I need to drive? 152. We need passenger rail from Fort Collins to Denver with good bus support in the metro area of Denver. 153. As Fort Collins continues to grow we need to get the railroad out of the center of town. Use it for commuter rail not freight. 154. Build it and we will ride. 155. Freight lines can be moved out of Front Range cities and commuting by rail should • begin by 2005. 156. Get freight trains out of the center of town and let light rail or commuter trains on those tracks. Bite the bullet and put bridges over RR tracks in town. It should have been done 30 years ago. 157. I am very interested in seeing commuter rail to Denver. 158. Light rail between lanes (Northbound and Southbound) until median disappears. 159. Light rail from Fort Collins to Denver. 160. Light rail would be a far superior way to move from Fort Collins to Denver. It is clean, quiet and passengers can read, work or sleep as they ride without fearing an accident. 161. Many of the early commuters recommend serious considerations be given to rail. 162. Rail line specific for commuters needed. Send it to Union Station and entrepreneurs would come to provide transportation within Denver elevated monorail. 163. Regarding commuter rail along 1-25, it is highly visible compared to what (a Geo Metro • or the long string of semis)? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-158 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information, cooperation. transportation. 164. Regarding commuter rail along 1-25, inaccurate qualitative statement which leads people to think that rail is a bad idea. 165. Regarding commuter rail along 1-25, so are all the cars on 1-25 highly visible? Why is high visibility a problem? I would consider visibility of a rail system an asset to the regional community. Something to be proud of and something we want to display. 166. This board is very negative. Are costs for rail or light rail more expensive than building more polluting roads? What about rail along 1-25, what do you mean highly visible? What is wrong with seeing light rail? 167. Use railroad corridors as alternative mode throughways off the road system. Fort Collins has an outstanding plan for the BNSF corridor on Mason Street. 168. We need rail now for every road you widen you destroy tax payers' pocket book and quality of life. 169. What is so bad about a commuter line being highly visible? Five miles doesn't seem far removed when we drive our cars to access 1-25. • 170. Fix your maps. This is the first map where I could easily see a rail grid, use a black line with crosses. 171. Might be worth showing that CDOT owns a railroad ROW in the southern part of 1-25 corridor. 172. Please publicly address the relation between current study and recommendation already made in NFR TAFS. 173. This board makes rail sound totally negative. (Rail Consideration Board) 174. This seems way too negative. What I'd like to know is why commuter transportation has never been put to a vote. (Rail Consideration Board) 175. Fifteen minute high peak as all commuter rails around the world. Start with a plan that will succeed. 176. Build it now! It is cheaper than oil wars. 177. Contrast rail costs to lane mile costs on the interstate. $5-10 million per lane per mile and interchanges cost at $25-75 million. Rail appears competitive. • 178. Cost of lives on the deadly 1-25. A train/light rail is the best suggestion. It is faster and safer than buses. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-159 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 179. Do a cost/benefit study between improving and using rail to widening 1-25. Use life cycle costs. 180. Existing rail is in place. It should be negotiated or condemned and used for commuter rail by 2005. 181. Extra lines are not necessary use the existing tracks. Use cars with gauges that can be used with existing gauges that are now available. 182. I appreciate being involved this early in the process. It is discouraging to read CDOT's director Tom Norton's comments that commuter rail won't be feasible for 50-100 years. I want rail as an option as the community sets its vision. 183. I favor rail routes that serve the most city central districts (western alignment/eastern alignment). 184. Need to consider incorporating commuter rail as an alternative. 185. Rail lines are in place; service could and should be started by 2005. 186. Regional rail from Fort Collins (possibly from Cheyenne)to Denver needs to be done • now. The longer we wait the more expensive it gets. 187. Regional rail would be efficient in the long run. Use existing tracks as much as possible. Over or underpasses would need to be built over many streets and would be expensive but necessary. Should have been done before now. 188. The longer it takes the more pollution. Why not use existing rail lines like number one suggests? 189. This is the best alternative, do it now. (Regional Rail Concepts Board) 190. Yes, the initial capital investment is great but it will payoff in the long run. Look at the C- BT project, can there be a bond initiative to help finance the rail? It seems the public wants a rail. 191. Regional rail lines will require never ending subsidies that will take dollars that can be applied now to proven measures (interstate highways) that move more people safely and efficiently. Fix the highway. 192. #2 is a great idea. (Regional Rail Concepts Board) 193. Check with Northern Colorado's Authority. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-160 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 " • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 194. Rail requires subsidies but so do roads, airports and waterways? Road are very expensive, often more so than rails. 195. Show how rail costs compare to road costs. That would be very informative. 196. The prototype rail cars are in testing (over a year now). 197. What are the costs for road building and widening, interchanges, intersections, and bridges? 198. Why not do a quicker study of the Environmental Impact of rail? 199. Use of existing rail lines between cities makes the most sense to me because of cost(in several areas). Lessening pollution and the dangers of busy 1-25 is important, but what about the rising population in Northern Colorado and easier transportation to Denver. 200. What about the cost? Existing rails would be less expensive. 201. Consider a time line for getting transportation into service. The sooner, the better. • 202. Please incorporate the existing rail tracks into your scoping. 203. Property owners concerned about the frontage road access south of SH 66 on the east side of 1-25. Will this stay or go away? 204. Buses would be a good first step to having a rail along 1-25. 205. Look at Corridor enhancements that provide for truck lanes, rail, etc. 206. Current public transportation is nonstop gap because developed by and for individual communities. This 1-25 plan/EIS needs to take a regional role perspective and look at the needs of the region. Providing a driving surface is only one need. Providing more info. 207. Need to connect Fort Collins, Loveland, to RTD in Longmont then Northern Colorado will have transit access to the whole metro area. 208. We need parallel transit service between Fort Collins and Loveland. FoxTrot only works for able bodied. 209. Did you notice we have no regional transit? 210. Need to consider strong surface commuter connections to the Fort Collins/Loveland • Regional Airport in anticipation of increasing commuter air travel at this airport. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-161 Meeting Summary • NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 211. There is a carpool lot west of Greeley at the junction of 10th and Highway 34 and it isn't on the map. Are there no carpool lots on Highway 85? 212. Transport keeps cutting service. Does CDOT trust that Transport will follow through? 213. Maybe beyond scope of this but need expanded carpool lots on 1-70 west of skiers. Parking should not discourage people who need to carpool. 214. Should include Dacono regional carpool service with 230 riders. 215. Need public transit needs to be implemented either from Fort Collins Station or Union Station. 216. We need more of all of the above (Rail, buses, lanes). Colorado is one community from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs as people commute the length of the area. 217. We need public education on advantages of public transportation. 218. Would like to see rail, and other forms of mass transportation. I feel that Europe has a • good mass transit infrastructure with trains serving city centers. I believe that more effort should be spent educating people to learn how to carpool. 219. Bullet train from Cheyenne to Denver. 220. Commuter rail to Denver and other towns is feasible. We need rail to Denver and DIA. 221. Everyone I talk to, from those on the left to those on the right, would use rail from Fort Collins to Denver. 222. In order for the rail system to succeed the long term commuter will have to have a high level of confidence in their safety and security. This is a major dollar cost that must be included in the plan from the beginning and includes lighting and terminal. 223. Rail and alternative non-polluting fuel makes sense and enough space for bike storage. 224. Rail needs to be put in place ASAP before development makes it impractical. If we even had a rail plan, development could anticipate where rail stops would be. 225. Rail to Denver soon. Lives are lost on the highway. 226. Rail to Denver. Rail will reduce traffic, pollution, commuter stress, death on 1-25. 227. Rail, Rail, Rail!, Tere are tracks go for it. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-162 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 228. Regional rail along the rail lines. 229. This public input is great but it takes so long especially since this is the only suggestion to CDOT. Funding needs to be found and developed. In the meantime 1-25 gets crazier and crazier, what will it be like in 2007 when this was just presented to CDOT. 230. We need rail to Denver, we've got tracks and cars and riders, what more do we need? 231. Would like to see light rail. Believes many people would use it. 232. Fix the mess on 1-25, widen it. More effort should be focused on interregional issues such as mobility between Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins. Problems on 1-25 don't affect as many people as travel on local roads (i.e. SH14, US 34). 233. More lanes now, rail later. 234. Need to add more than simple median barrier in the Loveland Fort Collins airport (Mountain Shadows?) area to protect frontage road traffic from the 1-25 traffic. • 235. Need to make US 287 more expressways oriented by taking out lights. Should consider an additional north-south route from FC along the foothills (Taft Hill in Fort Collins, and Wilson in Loveland) to catch US 287 in Berthoud. 236. Want six lanes to extend up to Mountain View exit in the City of Fort Collins. Need to upgrade the SH 14 and US 34 interchanges ASAP. 237. Would like to see fewer studies and put money into the roadways. Wants to get trucks out of Fort Collins by way of a truck bypass up to Owl Canyon. Feels that more money should be spent in Northern Colorado than south towards the metro area. 238. Congestion is related to stress, safety, deaths, anger, and to pollution. 239. EIS process takes too long. We need solutions now. 240. How will the TAFS study be folded into the EIS since the TAFS study supported rail? 241. In the EIS how would we address increased gasoline prices (perhaps $6.00 per gallon) to support the rail option? 242. Is Berthoud interchange on eastside of US 287 and not to west? 243. Make graphics for rail lines more visible. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-163 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information, cooperation. transportation. 244. Please indicate on the boards that COOT is working with other agencies besides the lead or cooperating agencies that are listed. 245. Rail considerations - boards are alienating and antagonistic. 246. Speed up the process. 247. What are the funding sources for water projects? 248. What do we do about HAZMAT spills along Railroad, who pays for clean-up? 249. Trains won't work. They are too costly and inconvenient once you arrive. Would think that bus service is a more viable option. More effort should be put into placing park and rides along 1-25. 250. New widening of 1-25 will not solve our transportation problems (eg., see LA, Houston, Atlanta, etc). 251. We already import 57% of the oil we consume in the U.S. and this number is growing rapidly as DOT continues to favor highway widening while neglecting mass transit without even considering national security concerns over oil supply. • 252. Widening 1-25 at all will make all our problems worse and harder to solve. We need to stop building roads and start building light rail now. We need to invest in mass transportation between communities. 253. How does decreased air quality affect outdoor recreation? That's what a majority of our community is involved in. 254. Please try to notify as many groups as possible about up coming public meetings. Turn out today was good, but could have been more people. 255. I commute 46 miles each way each day. Before layoff& reemployment it was 2.5 miles. Am interested in this process like never before. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-164 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. Purpose The purpose of the scoping meetings was to introduce the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement to the public, help define the purpose and need, and identify environmental issues that need to be studied. Attendance There were 32 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. How can we access the studies? 2. Were all these studies just put on the shelf? 3. Commuter rail to Denver please. • 4. No more roads, oil wars, build rail now. 5. Speed up rail process 6. No rail to Denver. It is expensive and not flexible. 7. This study must not bundle alternatives into packages as was done in TAFS. 8. Colorado Front Range Trail 9. Interested in van/carpool programs and senior center shuttles. 10. Air Quality— More roads will and SUVs will not help. Rail would. 11. Energy conservation —freeways consume 16 times the fuel per passenger than rail. 12. Open space—existing rail lines instead of new road capacity. 13. Agriculture uses that foster habitat conservation. 14. Bald Eagle's nest maybe located along South Platte on US 85 15. Fredrick— Blue Heron nesting area in St. Vrain Park. 16. Volumes on US 85 appear low. I would like to see Tues-Thurs. • 17. Add spur Highway from US 85 to 1-25. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-165 Meeting Summary NORTH 125 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation transportation. 18. Consider parallel freeway (North-South) to the East of US 85 and East of DIA. 19. Enhance US 85. 20. Plans to widen SH 52? 21. Firestone—Where is the bridge? 22. Heavy truck traffic along US 85. 23. Show 1-25 widening to 66. 24. What are typical highway costs? 25. Carpools are a better use of HOV lanes. 26. HOT—Should have HOV lanes as well not just ones with charges. 27. Build a thru lane for regional truck traffic. 28. I-25/SH 34 absolutely needs to be fixed. 29. Building more lanes isn't a good long term solution. • 30. What about 1996 CDOT study on rail? Any useful data there? 31. Erie —two shopping malls on the south side of SH 7, is the development at 168th a mall? 32. What about the impact of proposed shopping malls be? 33. Wyndham Hill 1,700 D.U. residential plus commercial/industrial/retail being proposed in Fredrick at NW corner of 1-25 and Hwy 52. Annexation and zoning will be considered this month. 34. Consider tourism in evaluation of alternatives. 35. Any studies regarding the Fredrick and Firestone growth and traffic flow? 36. Fredrick—St. Vrain State Park expansion development. 37. Residential development at 1-25 & SH 56. Currently undeveloped. 38. At SH 52 and US 85 there are safety issues at signals by gravel pits. 39. No east-west mass transit. 40. Note the ridership numbers on Littleton commuter line that immediately exceeded • projected line. Federal Highway Administration a Federal Transit Administration a Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-166 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation 41. North Metro line needs to continue north and branch off at Firestone, one to Greeley and one to Fort Collins. 42. SH 34 interchange is a big concern, especially for westbound traffic. 43. Status of Colorado Blvd paving project from CR 7 to CR 2, continuing north, will the project be fully paved? 44. Have tolls as a way to finance the project. 45. Consider P&R at Mead with rail to Longmont. 46. Depressed with the train going halfway. Protect views and still provide visibility of train. 47. Please keep in mind connections to south ridership from Castle Rock to Colorado Springs, Pueblo, etc. 48. The BNSF route which runs through Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Longmont and Boulder. Denver is the best route right now. 49. New interchange at WCR 40? Is it planned? • 50. The stretch by SH 56 is very dangerous because people drive too fast. 51. Can't get on southbound 1-25 at SH 56 and trucks can't climb the hill. 52. SH 7: People divert off of 1-25 and WCR 7 when accidents occur on 1-25. 53. Consider light rail and regional rail along corridor. Possibly continuing to Cheyenne. 54. Existing freight lines used for passenger rail follows existing infrastructure. 55. Need decent (functional, rapid) with wide coverage mass transit that doesn't rely on buses. Light rail, a train or something. 56. RTD should be acquiring land along 1-25 for future transit improvements while the land is still cheap. 57. Current construction provides carpool lot at Erie interchange. 58.Alternate transportation systems such as in Chicago. 59. Light rail is needed for the north metro area. Off of 119th traffic and air pollution is unbearable. 60. Transit alternatives would need to be competitive in terms of cost, travel time and • frequency of service. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-167 Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont • February 05, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 61. I am a retired director from engineering firm. Mass transit has interested me for years. We have no coordinated transportation system. 62. Begin P&R at Mead US Great Western to end of FasTracks. 63. Believes that LRT is antiquated. Monorail seems less susceptible to maintenance problems. Front Range has real opportunity for a monorail system could it do with CDOT ROW? No need to acquire new ROW. Volume of traffic is now in situation of 1-25. 64. Consider light rail/regional rail along Colorado Blvd. starting at CR 7, but only continued to CR 2. Will this be continued further north? 65. Consider passenger rail from Greeley to Cheyenne. 66. Consider peak hour use rail from Denver to Greeley along US 85 then peak rail service along Great Western to Fort Collins. 67. For rail alignment, it is a dilemma which alignment would be better for central or western. 68. In favor of passenger rail. 69. Is Great Western still the same company from Greeley to Fort Collins. 70. Need light rail at SH 119 and CR 7. • 71. Need to consider rail. Forget expanding highway infrastructure and put a lot money for rail and alternative transportation. 72. Push hard for light rail in US 287, 1-25 and US 85 corridors. 73. Put the train where it is needed not where it is easiest. 74. Rail not bus. 75. RTD should be acquiring land along 1-25 for future transit improvements. The land is cheaper right now for rail than it will be in 10-15 years. 76. Run light rail up 1-25 then to abandoned UPRR tracks or hook up. 77. Send rail data and San Diego commute to: Jeanne Bolton P.O. Box 497 Berthoud, CO 80513 78. Should build a rail from Cheyenne to Denver. Start getting people used to using rail. Would definitely be used if a transit station were at Del Camino so people could park there and take the train to Denver. 79. Should make sure we include assumptions for external trips (rail and highway) coming to and from Denver and further south. If we don't, could doom passenger rail. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-168 Meeting Summary NORTH I2S • • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont • February 05, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 80. We need to continue North Metro line north to Firestone and branch off to Greeley and Fort Collins— light rail!!! 81. What about light rail? 82. US 85 to SH 76 route instead. 83. CR 13 and CR 17 are used as alternate routes. Look at widening these. 84. Limited exits on 1-25. 85. Improve 1-25 and SH 34 interchange. 86. Need to look at secondary roads as possible solutions to 1-25 congestion. 87. North 1-25 and SH 34 interchange is a big problem. 88. Parallel arterial study recommendations/environmental impacts? 89. People are using US 85 to avoid 1-25. Now US 85 and smaller state highways are congested. • 90. SH 7 needs to be improved to accommodate new growth and development. 91. Should consider an overpass halfway between SH 7 and SH 52. 92. Should consider more service or frontage roads. These are especially useful if there is an accident on 1-25. 93. The intersection of 34/1-25 needs to be fixed as the cloverleaf is a dangerous. The new development there will make the situation much worse. 94. Use US 287 and US 85 as alternatives to 1-25. 95. You have to fix intersection on 34 and 1-25. 96. Blue Heron's — bird nesting habitat at 1/2 mile west of Babour Ponds Park along the St. Vrain River and other species 97. Construction and the number of people on the road are overwhelming. 98. Frederick, Firestone, Multi-use Colorado State Parks 99. Julie— City of Loveland GIS parks and open space from North Berthoud, South Berthoud contact Weld County. 100. Land development proposals - Resident development at 1-25 and SH 56 on his • property and it is currently farmland. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-169 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation transportation. 101. Should limit development. 102. St. Vrain State park development. 103. The three shopping centers that are being considered at SH 7 and 144th will increase traffic even more. 104. White Dovehill is under construction. 105. Colorado Front Range Trail alignment (Trail issues) 106. Great Outdoors—Colorado 107. Be sure to include Legacy Trail Project in 4F analysis. 108. Legacy Trail to Firestone, Frederick, Dacono and Weld County. Loop Northern Barbour Ponds thru Firestone, Fredrick & Dacono and Weld County Trailhead at 52 and Colorado Blvd. 109. Recreational trails program. 110. Have circular buses at intervals to move people from small communities. 111. It would be nice if the bus went more destinations that just south of SH 7. More and • better transit options: Light rail, heavy rail, more regional buses. 112. Should consider smaller circular buses to transport people from a station on 1-25 to towns like Dacono and around there. 113. Shuttle costs operate locally. Why are they less than half? 114. Transit is fabulous. I love taking the bus from Longmont to Denver. 115. Speed limit on Highway 56 is too fast at 65 mph. 116. Why did you raise the speed limit along 1-25 from 55 mph? 117. Are you keeping track of the UP proposal to move east and abandon track around Denver Union Station? 118. Ben Herman — 1-25 corridor plan Loveland, Fort Collins, inventory may not go over 285. 119. The exit north of the Berthoud curve is bad. 120. CDOT does a good job of keeping Front Range road open! 121. Consider"progressive" and "interesting" as criteria for evaluation. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-170 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information cooperation. transportation 122. Consider dropping fares for trucks on E-470 and that would reduce traffic on I-25. 123. Considering enhancing the light rail system now is an after thought. 124. Educate citizens at an open house like this one to keep people interested. 125. Every penny of fuel tax should go straight back in to infrastructure. 126. Future connection Mead to SH 602 with a connection along I-25. 127. Give presentation at senior center, fiesta days in Tri-towns, Dacono planning commission meeting, and city council meetings. 128. US 36 has same rail line feasibility study and that is a good thing! 129. Grant money from the state. 130. How can there be so much population growth and we are still having a budget problem? 131. How does CDOT determine when breaks in access can occur? • 132. It is worth it to pay the toll on E-470 to avoid the traffic. 133. Just as many people county to county from the internal of Fort Collins as Denver. 134. K&C RV wants to stay in loop. Don't bypass us. 135. Large growth area occurring in Greeley. 136. Looking for ways to go over or under I-25. 137. Map backgrounds of city boundaries outdated. CDOT's are not right. 138. Any issues to green? 139. Need light at I-25 and Highway 60. 140. Need more info about the parallel arterial study. 141. NFR MPO —generalized plan. ARCGIS 142. Note that WCR 13 is being improved as four lane arterial from county line south to SH 14. 143. People from SH 66 south have expressed interest to RTD about coming into the RTD district. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-171 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 144. Previous Studies — California, Bay area go back 30-40 years ago. Compare to transportation now days. 145. Put DSC down every highway. 146. Can the distribution of gasoline tax be used for funding? 147. Send rail issues map to kraftmatheis(5Jearthlink.net. 148. Should consider changing some laws like not letting kids drive until they are 18 or limit the number of cars per family. 149. Should look at improving system of arterials/front range roads along 1-25. Do not want a Super Slab for 1-25. 150. Stretch from US 66 to SH 60 has accidents almost every weekend. Friday afternoons are the worst. 151. The local road system for Dacono/Fredrick/Firestone is getting overloaded. 152. The No Action Alternative is not an option —we are already 10 years behind. 153. The pool should be blind ballot. • 154. Timing of lights. 155. Traffic has greatly increased on SH 66 in the last 30 years. 156. Tri-town area officials should work together. 157. What happens to the No-Action if FasTracks passes? Does it change then? For both this project and US 36 EIS. 158. What is the date of the existing daily traffic volumes? 159. What is the list on "Highway Considerations?" It needs a title. 160. Will transit pay for itself? 161. HOV Lanes 162. Increase toll roads to put more people on the bus, then maybe more people would take the bus because it would be more reliable. 163. Tolling makes sense since financial resources are so scarce. Could frequent users be given a fare break? 164. Why not research if you incorporate the carpool lots along 1-25 into the RTD • boundaries. Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-172 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 165. Look at Prairie Dog Overlaying Study. 166. Poudre Canyon Water Project 167. Which endangered species are likely to be in the area? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-173 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. Purpose The purpose of the scoping meetings was to introduce the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement to the public, help define the purpose and need, and identify environmental issues that need to be studied. Attendance There were 37 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Bicycle and pedestrian concerns shouldn't be the last item considered and the first thing out from the budget. 2. 1-25 is not a street. Bike and pedestrian is inappropriate. 3. Supporter of high speed bicycle facilities. • 4. Coordinate with local transit agencies to figure out where hubs need to be. 5. A bus study recently completed did not show feasibility in the North Front Range. All bus service should be privately operated. 6. Carpools and land use controls are good alternatives, but strong public education campaigns are needed to get people to accept them. 7. The NFRMPO has over 30 vans and has spent approximately $9 million since 1995 on vanpools. The vanpool trips (5 million/yr) amount to 0.1% of the total trips in the area. Not an efficient cost or benefit. 8. There is no statistical basis for this statement. People want to be mobile. (Congestion Management Board) 9. I expect sound science to screen out alternatives which do not relieve congestion on 1-25. 10. Improvements to US 85 must be a part of the "alternatives" that are screened. 11. There should be a good sense of balance between demand and investment for all alternatives. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-174 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information. cooperation, transportation. 12. Increased densities simply increase congestion. They do little to change the rational behavior for mobility. (Land Use Board) 13. Aesthetics are key for tourism. 14. Our planet, the soil, everything is alive and must be treated with respect. 15. Early notification of all traffic accidents so people can take alternative routes to reduce pollution. 16. Keep slow traffic in right lane to increase traffic flow with a better signage, aggressive law enforcement for traffic impeders. (Air Quality Board) 17. Give us a good alternative to 1-25 by improving Hwy 85. 18. It would be nice to have some "real time" signs warning motorists of congestion so we can use alternate route. 19. The portion of North 1-25 from SH 66 to SH 402 will be/or is closer to 50,000 as soon as construction to the south is completed. • 20. I am concerned about air pollution and getting people to move more quickly. 21. Eastern Weld County needs better access, so improve Hwy 85. 22. Let's get some grade crossing separations on US 85. 23. What is the status of Two Rivers Parkway? Any existing plans?Any dates for construction? 24. Toll the new lanes until they are fully funded. 25. Should improve US 85 as a parallel to 1-25 to relieve 1-25. 26. Feel that US 287 south is safer than 1-25 south. 27. HOV lanes are not an efficient use of capacity. HOT lanes should require all to pay. It's our fuel taxes at work. 28. HOV lanes do not seem cost effective. 29. Fix Curve in 1-25 at SH 56. • Federal h ighway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-175 Meeting Summary NORTH 125 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • S • Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information cooperation. transportation. 30. I agree that the 1-25 and SH 34 interchange needs to be changed; it is very dangerous at those speeds. 31. Improvements along Hwy 34 bypass into Greeley. Will interchange improvements keep pace with growth? 32. Need improvements to US 85. 33. This is a three year study and who knows how long to design and build. I-25's capacity should go from two lanes to four in each direction. 34. #2 on board - Rivers Parkway (83rd Ave in Greeley to SH60, to US 85 and North to Windsor/SH14) is preferred. (Highway Issues and Ideas Board) 35. Extend "0" Street from 83rd Ave to 1-25. 36. There needs to be some consideration between rural and urban interface on SH 66 between 1-25 and US 85. 37. We spend way too many fuel tax dollars on studies that go nowhere but on the bookshelf. • 38. Improve US 85 with fewer lights and more overpasses. 39. Have an Environmental assessment of W. 10th Street. Study will impact development proposals in this corridor. 40. Identify projects in Greeley and Evans. 41. Loveland is doing development on US 287 at SH 402. Check with Berthoud regarding development. 42. There is a lot more on-going development than shown here (Greeley, Berthoud, and Dacono). 43. Should have a location at the Ranch. 44. SH 7 EA Cherryvale to 75th is starting spring 2004. 45. FTA is heavily biased towards public (government)transportation. I have a concern about that bias written in this study. 46. Improve US 85. There is too much pressure on 1-25. US 85 would reduce pressure and • improve movement through the Front Range. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-176 Meeting Summary NORTH I-2S • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 47. Regarding the NFR Travel Demand boundary, you get an A++ for including US 85 in the study area. US 85 needs major improvements and upgrades as a part of the solutions. 48. What is the number of passengers per trip? (Projected Population & Employment Board) 49. What is the percentage of the population with a driver's license? What is the percentage of population with one car and two or more cars? (Projected Population & Employment Board) 50. What is the percentage of travel trips key commuters drive? (Projected Population & Employment Board) 51. What is the percentage of trips via alternative modes? (Projected Population & Employment Board) 52. These numbers are quite meaningless unless it tells us more. (Projected Population & Employment Board) 53. Put some FasTracks workings on US 85. Greeley deserves good access. (Proposed • FasTracks Improvements Board) 54. Why is commuter rail and light rail only in the Denver area? Let's expand it to Fort Collins and Greeley. (Proposed FasTracks Improvements Board) 55. Are these projects all contingent on FasTracks? (Proposed FasTracks Improvements Board) 56. CDOT has indicated that FasTracks will require over$4 billion in highway improvements that are not the current priority and could redirect money needed for 1-25 improvements. (Proposed FasTracks Improvements Board) 57. This board should explain more about the FasTracks process. (Proposed FasTracks Improvements Board) 58. Improve US 85 to take pressure off of 1-25. Have less lights and more controlled access. 59. The 2001 household survey shows transit is needed for 0.6% of all travel trips in the North Front Range. Growth doesn't typically change percentages much. 60. An in-depth pre-study should focus on demand and feasibility and screen out uneconomical, non-feasible alternatives. • 61. CDOT has shown this process can be faster with T-REX. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-177 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 62. You should consider economy of change in delay hours both for businesses and individuals. What is the cost of current delay? 63. Electric trains are the only answer. They help to build a stronger sense of community. 64. It would be nice if the trains used existing tracks making it easier for the public to use transit. 65. I would like to see trains go to Denver and commute daily. 66. Are these all single track? (Rail Considerations Board) 67. Does Union Pacific still own the abandoned UPRR? 68. It is not appropriate (perhaps illegal)to use highway ROW for rail. 69. "Demand for rail and transit must show reduction unless both are present (crossover demand)." -This comment is representative of Americans' shortsightedness. Rail must be viewed as a viable means of travel if we want to avoid being L.A. 70. Regional rail works great in Boston, NYC and D.C. Denver area and Front Range • should study their examples. 71. Need a per lane mile cost to compare with transit. (Regional Rail Concepts Board) 72. Need to consider planning horizons well beyond the 2030 timeframe. 73. Rail must not use ROW. Needed for highways now or in the future. 74. The Greeley/Boulder alignment must not be ignored! I drive it every day. 75. We need a train. 76. US 287 and/or US 85 must become expressways to compete with speed and convenience to 1-25. 77. Front Range toll road "Super Slab." (Study Area Board) 78. Improve US 85 from Denver to Cheyenne. Fewer lights and more overpasses. 79. Look for information on Road conversions with Weld County and CDOT Resolution. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-178 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information cooperation transportation. 80. Study must look at US 287 and 1-25 traffic into area from Wyoming/Nebraska. That "demand" can not be considered for using alternative modes. Does this demand warrant a bypass? 81. US 85 can be a tremendous relief to 1-25 demand, especially to DIA, Aurora, East Denver and South Bound E-470. 82. We must upgrade US 85. Quit installing stop lights and start building some grade separations. 83. End "minimum speed" signs. They are confusing at ATT Hill. 84. Add "time of accident" on VMS signs. 85. Enhanced media coverage/PSAs for accident mitigation. 86. Increase enforcement and use of VMS signs. 87. Legislative support for enforcement of slow moving vehicles. • 88. Need communication with FAA. 89. Include Northern Colorado Regional Airport. 90. People drive too slowly in the left lane. 91. Project shouldn't have the objective of people driving as fast as they want without any inconvenience. 92. The vast majority of dollars paying for transit are our Federal Fuel Taxes (highway impact fees). 93. If stations are not located with in one mile of where we work we will not use rail. 94. Start discouraging S.O.V. and own the road. Having trains would help build the community. It seems like the only answer. 95. There is concern about vehicle access on US 85. Increase the flow. 96. Existing alternative routes are easier. US 287 and US 85 alleviate 1-25 congestion. 97. If they widen SH 66 to four lanes it would be great as rural to urban traffic interface • between US 85 to 1-25. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-179 Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • • Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 98. It would be nice to have "real time" signs making travelers aware of congestion ahead. 99. Please expedite improvements to North 1-25 more quickly. 100. I'm a VanGo user. HOV to 6'h and 1-25 is an efficient use. It rewards people. 101. Check projects in Greeley/Evans area. 102. Erie wants one interchange. Developers want interchanges. Buyers of land should know early on what the standards are for spacing. 103. Front Range Commuter Bus said bus is not feasible. 104. Access control on 1-25. 105. Are all of FasTracks planned improvements contingent on passing FasTracks? 106. Concerns about FTA being involved in this project. They are too biased for public mobility. 107. Contact Greeley, Loveland, Berthoud and Dacono regarding development. • 108. Every five years Greeley is adding the equivalent of an Evans (average over the last 10 years). 109. Federal fuel tax dollars is the vast majority of funding. 110. Portion from SH 66 to SH 402 will be closer to 50,000 as soon as construction to the south is completed, at least to SH 34. 111. This project should have been started 10 years ago. They knew 1-25 would have a deteriorating level of service so why didn't they start looking at it then? 112. What do you mean by capital improvement projects? 113. What is the dinner bell? 114. What is FasTracks? 115. What is the "Dinner Bell Triangle?" 116. Evans should be listed as the "City of Evans" not the "Town of Evans." • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Page D-180 ov:Co /,%4' O�9 Representative * t if ^4 State Re P ; it Member: JIM W ELKER 8 7 6 Tr 2641 N.Taft Ave. tt &Energy en Committee Loveland,CO 80538 COLORADO Business Affairs&Labor 970-667-5227 Committee Capitol:200 E Colfax Ave,Room 271 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Denver,CO 80203 303-866-2947 STATE CAPITOL E-mail: jim.welker.house@state.co.us DENVER .. $7i@8� 80203 �ej 4:3 rive rt Mr. Tom Norton ,,,w4 fit Executive Director \r2, It Colorado Department of Transportation \Se B' cc: Colorado Department of Transportation Executive Management Team Dear Mr.Norton, For any Coloradan driving through our state,Johnson's Corner Truck Stop is renowned both as a landmark and a Colorado icon. Johnson's Corner has reliably served as a comfortable and welcoming stop for travelers and truck • drivers on the north and south journeys.It has proudly served thousands of Colorado visitors since opening its doors in 1952 and has become an integral part of the economies in the surrounding communities.The 106'" Congressional Record of the U.S. House of Representatives states that,"They exemplify the industrious spirit and the can-do attitude that has made America great."Currently,Johnson's Corner generates over$1 Million annually in highway fuel taxes for Colorado. Recent media coverage has brought significant coverage and attention to an EIS study, conducted by the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),concerning possible 1-25 improvements.This study is considering a recommendation that could result in the closure of exit 254 serving Johnson's Corner and the surrounding business. CD-3T.ika Cie possible closure for safety and congestion concerns.However, a recent study diccnvered a severe shortage of commercial truck parking spaces along I-25 in northern Colorado. If a closure of the exit at Johnson's Corner occurred, it would further exacerbate this problem,thus posing greater safety problems for all highway users. The closure of exit 254 would be catastrophic to Johnson's Corner and the fourteen other businesses within the area.We(members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly)do not believe such a closure serves the best interest of the people of the State of Colorado.Congestion and safety concerns are of vital importance,but we don't believe such concerns necessitate the ultimate closure of this exit.Alternative solutions,keeping the exit open,should be considered for the mutual benefit of the state and its impacted communities.When considering these detrimental implications, closure of the exit is not an appropriate or beneficial option. As members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly,we ask CDOT to strongly recommend keeping exit 254 open. Your time and attention to this matter is greatly appreciated • Members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly, RECEIVED Pa 16-18O06 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES • BALMER RV_ALLM` JO5 MADDEN SOLANO p 2 BENEFIELD IA MARSHALL OPER 43-ERE ARDNER MAS / •t rrtr /r it/�J �� :ORO1) AM (�HAL CLUSICEY • S R HARVEY AD ODD • R HEFL Y McGIHON 11171 VIGIL , , HODGE Mc EY I L>Ni �" HOcL- :ARR0LL, M IEL . KER • T JAP E WHITE 1 7. RBO •D PE Y • WITWER 1 4 P-14457k-- �-'� , PLANT v✓ l y�. 'LOER KIN E SALLSWORMSWouse05 mem.wp e _.____ MAN N•` R GSDAL - ' .P,_) ! Nilefrg ----_ RIESBERG U n L STROM R l dot BCKER (5 LISTO RO RA AS L DBER�' �AI ✓ SCHULTHEIS • Page D-182 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE 'rt-T-- ��HAGEDORN McE � K _ . At t A (G Ic MIT ELL TO OP aL S It� • SA E9 _ JO• , ANDOVAL ITJIVA INS JONES SHAFFER VE 1 ?.-GERALD KELLE SPENCE WIENS 4...... i WON STDEpR TAKIS WILL S LAMBORN TAPIA WINDELS C )3' AN MAY, R. TAYLOR S:V.LSWORMS1Senateos mem.wpd • Page D-183 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Executive Director Tom Norton 4400817787940 , .O 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Room 262 Denver, CO 80222 4,'o 4 e3 (303) 757-9201 (303)757-9656 Fax April 12,2006 r �' 4 The Honorable Jim Welker Colorado House of Representatives State Capitol Building 200 E. Colfax Avenue Room 271 Denver,CO 80203 Dear Representative Welker: Thank you for your letter signed by members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly regarding Exit 254 and the Johnson' Corner truck stop along I-25 north of Denver. The Environmental Impact Study(EIS)has been on-going since early 2004 and is in the process • of progressing into the Draft EIS stage as of March 2006. The study includes a process that will be evaluating various alternatives and will most likely include recommendations for the widening of I-25 in various configurations for transportation improvements. I understand your concerns surrounding the economic and safety impacts to Exit 254 and the possible ramifications to the truck stop and truck parking. These are some of the same concerns we have heard at many of our public meetings that we have hosted along the corridor over the past few months. Our project team will continue to work with stakeholders, local agencies and business owners along the project to ensure that needs are being addressed, especially at each interchange, and that the most reasonable recommendations are made as they relate to mobility, access and safety. We appreciate your interest in this matter and your comments will be incorporated in the official public record for the EIS. Sincerely, r err-let fr)esi Tom Norton Executive Director Cc: Karla Harding,Region 4 Director-/ • Page D-184 q SPor�Catjo 7 YetolonATTN: Mr , (.o re`s�Q tfe2J �e tan FROM: Federal Highway Administr-tion • Colorado Division US. Department Federal rtmw"vn.,0asaorr --=-- of Transportation 21R Region VIII SL suite 650 Colorado Division Room 50 Denver.Colorado 802029 Lakewood,C.Room 2 Lak .Colorado 80228 (303)aaa-3212 (903)96&8730 December 17,2003 Mr.Cal Marsella General Manager Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver,CO 80202 Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Cooperating Agency Agreement Dear Mr.Marsella: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(PTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)Region 4,are initiating an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the North I-25 Front Range area,which includes area from Denver Union Station to Fort • Collins,to improve transportation and transportation linkages. The transportation improvements may require RID action and we are requesting that you be a cooperating agency. Your agency's involvement should entail those areas under its jurisdiction and no direct writing or analysis will be necessary for the documents preparation. The following are activities we will take to maximize interagency cooperation: 1. Invite you to coordination meetings. 2. Consult with you on any relevant technical studies that will be required for the project and share information that may be useful to your other studies in the area(US 36,Boulder/Longmont Feasibility Study and North Metro study). 3. Organize joint field reviews with you. 4. Provide you with project information,including study results. 5. Encourage your agency to use the above documents to express your review on subjects within your jurisdiction or expertise. 6. Include information in the project environmental documents that cooperating agencies need to carry out their NEPA responsibilities and any other requirements regarding jurisdictional approvals. We request that you likewise share information gathered for the US 36 Corridor EIS,the Boulder/Longmont Diagonal Feasibility Study and the North Metro Corridor study. This will result in a more consistent application of regional data(environmental and transportation),utilization of a common set of assumptions and methodologies,and greater coordination regarding those efforts that will need to be fed into the regional planning process. • Page D-185 You have the right to expect that the EIS will enable you to carry out your jurisdictional expect thatLilcewise the end of the you have the process to bell us if,at any point in the process,your needs are not being met We • alternatives,at tenvironmental the EIS will satisfy any NEPA requirements including those related to project consequences and mitigation. We look forward to your response to this request and your role as a cooperating agency on this project If you have any questions or the would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies'respective roles and responsibilities during preparation of this EIS,please contact Jean Wallace extension 382 or John Dow(FTA)at(303)844-3243. (FIIWA)at(303)969 6730 Sincerely yours, •qq //. C.J O.Waddleton Division for G Regional Administrator cc: Mr.Dave Martinez,CDOT Region 4 Mr.Bob Garcia,CDOT Region 4 Mr.Stanley Elmquist,CDOT Region 4 Ms.Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Mr.Brad Beckham,CDOT EPB • • Page D-186 State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION O Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E Highway 402ei.w--- - -- Loveland,CO 80537-8885 OBAJMONfOF I,,,ZPORTA1,0; January 21,2004 Scott Weeks Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver,CO 80202 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Weeks: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • 1. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, ;Oct 144,-114/141-4 David M. Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. 1-25 Front Range EIS • cc: Project File Page D-187 rye•a... -tcs Regional Transportation etstrict 1600 Blake Street General Manager Denver,Colorado 80202-1399 303/628-9000 • • February 2, 2004 Mr. William C. Jones Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Division 555 Zang St., Room 250 Lakewood, CO 80228 Mr. Lee O. Waddleton Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region VIII 216 Sixteenth St., Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Sirs: Thank you for the invitation to participate as a Cooperating Agency on the North 1-25 Front Range EIS. RTD looks forward to participating in this study. Via this correspondence, I am confirming RTD's willingness to participate fully in each of the six activities that your invitation lists. As you note, of particular importance will be • assuring continued close coordination between this EIS and the various other study efforts currently underway in the region. CDOT, RTD, FTA, and FHWA are closely coordinating study efforts through various venues, including the monthly Corridors Coordination meeting, and RTD is committed to continuing the open approach that the agencies have established through this forum. Please include me and Elizabeth A. Rao, RTD's Assistant General Manager of Planning and Development, as your contacts in the capacity as Cooperating Agency. Again, I appreciate your offer to involve RTD in this capacity and look forward to continued close cooperation between our agencies on ail planning and environmental studies in the metro area. Sincerely, p n ot„k6LZLV Clarence W. Marsella General Manager c: Elizabeth A. Rao, Assistant General Manager of Planning and Development John Shonsey, Senior Manager of Engineering Bill Van Meter, Senior Manager of Systems Planning • An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer Page D-188 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES RTD Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: April 20, 2004 LOCATION: RTD Offices CDOT: Bob Garcia, Dave Martinez, Stan Elmquist ATTENDEES: RTD: Liz Rao, John Shonsey, Dave Hollis, Dave Krutsinger C&B: Gina McAfee, ZafarAlikan FHU: Tom Anzia, Holly Miller PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Carol Pam Craig Gaskill, Paul Brown, Danielle Smith, Bob COPIES: Felsburg, John Dow, Chris Primus, Jean Wallace, Ken Carlson; Becky Noe, File#071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Dave introduced the CDOT project team. Carol Parr(who is not here) is the environmental manager for COOT. 2. Gina gave a brief project update. 3. Stan described the reasoning for the study area boundaries. 4. Liz indicated that RTD is partnering on 1-70 and US 36. If FasTracks passes, RTD would start an EIS on North Metro, because they would want to pursue innovative federal funding (TIFIA loan). If that happens, what are the pros and cons of combining these efforts? Would a new NOI be needed? Another issue is the HOV recommendation north to SH 7. That will be addressed in the North Metro Corridor Study. It is not a FasTracks recommendation, but could be a HOT lane. 5. If FasTracks passes, our purpose and need could change so that a transit alternative would end at SH 7 or Longmont(or both). 6. In the North Metro Corridor Study scope, there will be travel demand forecasts developed (to 2025 or 2030); right-of-way investigations—is there enough right-of-way; conceptual P/P sheets; re-validation of the cost estimate; environmental data—floodplain, NWI maps. We will share data back and forth between these efforts. Chris should contact David Kurth to coordinate the travel demand projections. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-189 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES a,, Id' L'` RTD Coordination Meeting April 20, 2004 2 of 3 7. Liz recommends development of a corridor level IGA to address how this corridor would be treated if FasTracks passes (do one EIS). Liz thinks that John Muscatel) is intending to fund a highway piece south of SH 7. We need to discuss this with Jennifer Finch and John Muscatell. One option, if FasTracks passes, is that there could be separate RODs for highway and transit or for separate funding packages. For operating, we could investigate a private operator for the design/build/operate option. RTD will be assuming this operating scenario and we could piggy-back on this. 8. For the Diagonal Feasibility Study, RTD will be looking at station locations and TOD potential. This will go all the way to Main Street in Longmont. Stations are being looked at 52, Hover Road and end of line (EOL). There will be park-n-Rides at 52 and EOL. It will be double tracked, 15-minute frequency ultimately. Ridership forecasts and costs will be developed. The study is starting today. Rick Pilgrim and Tim Baldwin will be working on • this. El Gallagher and Mike Paris are the railroad contacts. 9. RTD is working on the Commuter Rail design standards. They will be out in a couple of months. This includes park-n-Ride standards. 10. Maintenance facilities are being looked at adjacent to DUS. It will combine all three corridors. RTD will pick a consistent vehicle for the FasTracks corridors. • 23"'Street yard is one possibility for the maintenance facility(an expansion). This could handle about 100 vehicles. • 38`^Street yard is another possibility. It is a huge facility. This would work for DMUs. RTD is looking into cosVbenefit of these. 11. If North Metro comes up with LRT, would we need a transfer facility?Another option is to have different types of service—local and express. Different operating scenarios could be developed for BRT also. 12. The relocation of the Union Pacific line is a possibility only if FasTracks passes. 13. With FasTracks, the maintenance facility that RTD develops will have the potential for expansion—it will be designed for 100 vehicles and they will only need half of that. 14. RTD has some running times on the Burlington Northern line developed for the US 36 EIS. They have detailed cost estimates for the Diagonal and North Metro segments. For North Metro, they are assuming double tracking to 124'" and single tracking to 160`" • Page D-190 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES RTD Coordination Meeting April 20, 2004 3 of 3 15. For mapping, we should coordinate with CDOT(Region 6 or DTD). They are no longer using State Plane on US 36 and 1-70 EIS. We need to make sure we are consistent. 16. We should develop some possible alternative implementation strategies. What needs to be done with FTA, how an EIS might need to be augmented. 17. RTD will be having public meetings in Weld County and other counties in July and August 2004. J:\.Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\RTD Coord mtg 042004m.doc • • Page D-191 D • r, '` t .9 V Si NW 1 y �• -° t 3 v , 4• � �' o -0 124 'ir' °I33 Za 0x ti �1C L ` s W r j I- W CO 9�h_ (se4�� • y a � U(1"2 As aL. IL ,c vv 2 4k 'C ,N q 'l x w w a Qi7 t Qa Z * P -� � F - Z mN C7 g 'Wr H1m„ 8 ¢ • Page D-192 NORTH I--25 EIS MEETING MINUTES mfo maiio, cooperation trenspor,ation Briefing on Transit Issues MEETING DATE: May 4, 2005 LOCATION: Carter& Burgess ATTENDEES: RTD: Lee Kemp (new RTD board member) C&B: Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, and Craig Gaskill PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Kim Podobnik, Leslie Chadwick, Bob Felsburg, Tom Anzia, COPIES: ZafarAlikhan, Bob Garcia, Dave Martinez, Holly Miller, Karla Harding, C&B File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina, Julie and Craig gave a general description of the TAFS, NEPA process and the transit development process. 2. Lee asked a variety of questions and had some observations including: • What is the projected growth in population and employment? • What is fueling the growth? • The SE Weld County area will likely be looking for some transportation relief. • As the area grows, emissions will increase and could become more of a problem. • The rail alternatives that are in a freight rail corridor are more problematic from the standpoint of needing to deal with the RR but more advantages from a cost standpoint. • Is there interest in commuter rail because of the TOD potential? Yes, as well as the rail bias issue - and the support built up during the TAFs process—and the anti- highway feeling. • BRT could be a good Phase I, with rail a possible future use. BRT would be good at generating ridership. • The FasTracks lines that go to Longmont and SH 160 will make rail easier. • An advantage of BRT along 1-25 is the cost savings with the highway improvements. • A challenge of BRT is convincing the developers to do TOD. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-193 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Information cooperation uansportatien Briefing on Transit Issues May 4, 2005 2 of 2 • What opinions do we expect to see expressed at the May 19 meeting? The Tri-towns area (Dacono and Fredock) is pushing for a vote to annex into the RTD District. • There is a commuter rail consortium that is pushing for CR along the BN. • Lee can help us with technologies—he worked on the Eugene BRT. He is the Chairman of TRB for bus technologies. We will coordinate with Lee when we get to that point in the process. • Lee can't be at the May 19 meeting, so we should set up a separate briefing with him after this May 19 meeting. • JA_Transportatlon\071609,400\manage\mtgs\minutes\TAPS NEPA Process mtg 05.04.05tdg.doc • Page D-194 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES RTD Briefing MEETING DATE: June 6, 2005 LOCATION: Carter& Burgess ATTENDEES: C&B: Julie Morrison, Jennifer Heisler, Gina McAfee RTD Board Member. Lee Kemp PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee Dave Martinez, Stan Elmquist, David Krutsinger,Tom Anzia, COPIES: Bill Van Meter, Gina McAfee, Craig Gaskill, Bob Garcia, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Julie provided Lee with the material we provided to our TAC and RCC meeting a couple of weeks ago (see attached). Comments were: • Is there a relationship between transit ridership and a high retirement population? • Is one of the reasons for the dispersed trips because of CSU and UNC? • Does Fort Collins have a regional airport now? • Are we working with Bob Briggs (Front Range Rail Symposium)? • Agree with dropping out high-speed rail. 2. Lee is working with the mayors (Dacono, Firestone, Frederick, Superior, Erie, Boulder, etc.)to determine if they want to put a vote on the ballot to come into the District. People outside of the District will need to pay $5 to park and use FasTracks. 3. There is a lot of support along the western side of 1-25 for some sort of regional train service. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-195 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES it9' of I,u„ RTD Briefing June 6, 2005 2 of 2 4. Jennifer asked what questions Lee had about FasTracks. • If the Northwest Corridor is not completed, would there be more riders on the Gold Line? Or maybe there would be more riders on the express bus routes. Response: The 2025 FasTracks forecasts assumed no Northwest Corridor. • Do we know of any possible political red flags? Response: The NEPA process will likely generate more issues such as technology or station locations. The challenge is to accommodate new issues and maintain the budget. Councilwoman Montaro's concerns are that Denver receives very few benefits from commuter rail but more noise and air pollution. Mother potential issue is that of betterments. Jennifer described the plan of having the cities negotiate the local share. • Lee would like to know about meetings we will be having about FasTracks in his • district. • Maybe the North I-25 EIS should put an item in the briefing newsletters that go out from RTD. Jennifer will get with Scott Reed about this. • One of the issues from other Board Members is a desire for receiving timely information. ],LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtg s\minutes\RTD bnefng_0606051g).dac • Page D-196 tOnii I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. RTD Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: March 31, 2006 LOCATION: Carter& Burgess, Inc. RTD: Dave Shelley, David Krutsinger, Chris Quinn CDOT: Bob Garcia, Dave Martinez, Stan Elmquist ATTENDEES: FHU: Holly Buck Connetics: Smith Myung C&B: Paul Brown, Julie Morrison, Danielle Smith, Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter:Burgess Julie Morrison COPIES: Attendees, Carol Pam Steve Olson, Gayl Harrison, C&B File#071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Paul Brown described the North 1-25 process to date and the two build packages, including physical layout, operating plan assumptions (30 minutes peak/60 minutes off peak for Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus). Package B may require some sort of A/B service. At SH 7, there may not be a median BRT station. 2. What is the status of Longmont and North Metro FasTracks lines? a. Longmont from Chris Quinn: The biggest issue is whether or how we can get to the Sugar Mill. This may cost as much as $90 million from 1"and Terry to Sugar Mill. It is unlikely that RTD will go past 1"and Terry. (It costs $14 million to get from Twin Peaks to 1st and Terry.) The current indication is that RTD is committed to making the extension to 1st and Terry happen. No amendments to the Regional transportation Plan (RTP) are expected for at least a year. When US 36 and Longmont extension are rewritten into a single document later in the NEPA process, RTD will identify how to fund the piece between Twin Peaks and 1st and Terry. This is not really needed until the FEIS/ROD. Paul and Danielle will be sitting down with Henry and Nadine to discuss engineering issues. Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-197 NORTH 1-25 EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RTD Coordination Meeting March 31, 2006 2 of 4 The North I-25 operating plan for commuter rail favors the Fort Collins to North Metro trip. The trip from Fort Collins to Boulder will transfer. The Weld County to Boulder travel was lower than expected. Chris Quinn stated that the Longmont line may be single tracked. This will be known by the end of June. From Dave Shelley: Independent utility for the rail is being finalized. This will proceed as an EA/EIS with the Army Corps of Engineers as the lead agency. Severing highway and transit could occur in the next couple months. b. North Metro EIS from Dave Shelley: Contract negotiations are beginning. This is a rail only project. The EIS may evaluate less frequent service north of 124`h Avenue and possibly single tracked. The North Metro Corridor early action ROW preservation will begin soon after Notice to Proceed. $7.5 million has been set aside for preservation of right-of- way. • All of the agreements with UP are being discussed, including ROW preservation. This money could be used for other project elements if this Union Pacific (UP) agreement is finalized. 3. Use of RTD park-n-Rides a. North 1-25 Project is planning to use the Wagon Road park-n-Ride for 4 buses an hour. This may cause a need for more bus bays and parking. The park-n-Ride is currently at capacity, but may gain some back when North Metro opens. b. Brighton park-n-Ride is similar. c. Commerce City park-n-Ride may be moved as a part of the North Metro project. The existing facility at 74th Avenue and US 85 will likely remain. It is at capacity. It makes more sense for the North 1-25 service to tie into the new facility. • Page D-198 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RTD Coordination Meeting March 31, 2006 3 of 4 4. Denver Union Station a. North 1-25 Commuter Buses will have very little impact, but BRT may have more impact. What is the opportunity for more regional service? i. In the short term there are no plans for major improvements—buses will go to Market Street Station. it In the longer term there will be an underground facility plus a facility for private buses like greyhound. The private facility is the one that makes the most sense for North 1-25 to use, but there is no funding for this. The facility is also dependent on funding for underground Commuter Rail tracks. b. The DUS Master Plan anticipated a NFR Commuter Rail in Phase I, so there will be capacity for it. 5. New park-n-Ride a. RTD has the acquisition but not development of a new park-n-Ride in their TDP • just north of 144th Avenue on the west side of 1-25. 6. FasTracks Bus Service a. FasTracks Bus Service includes enhanced bus service from Wagon Road along 120th to the North Metro commuter rail. 7. External Service and RTD park-n-Rides a. RTD does not want extemal bus service starting/stopping at their end of line rail stations. The discussion for pay for parking is also ongoing, but it may be prohibited by a bill currently in the Legislature. 8. Data requests a. The North 1-25 Project team wants to make sure it has the correct RTD unit costs and assumptions. Is there an RTD standard for the EISs? (Answer NO.) b. There should be a cost guidance document for FasTracks. US 36 used different cost methodologies than John Shonsey used for FasTracks. It makes sense to compare assumptions used for FasTracks, West Corridor, US 36 and 1-70 East. The North 1-25 team used the same cost methodology as the 1-70 East project for Level 3 Screening. For operational costs, RTD has developed standard operating costs and the North 1-25 Project used this. The O&M model that's being used for the North 1-25 EIS is the same one that RTD is using system-wide. 9. Vehicle Technologies • Page D-199 NORTH 1-25 EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RTD Coordination Meeting March 31, 2006 4 of 4 a. Commuter rail vehicle technology analysis is being done by LTK under contact to RTD. By June, they should have Phase I analysis complete. There will be a recommendation later. All the vehicles being analyzed are FRA compliant. North I-25 design assumes conservative design standard with Locomotive Hauled Coach. 10. Future Coordination a. The next TAC meeting is April 13. Lee Cryer is the RTD representative. b. The group that met for this meeting should meet approximately every other month to continue coordination efforts. c. Vicky McLane has requested to meet with RTD on April 5`h. d. Gina will send Dave Shelley the vibration study on DMU. • J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\RTD Coordination Mtng 3-31 v2.doc • Page D-200 p"bd w NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Information cooperation transportation. North 1-25 NFRMPO/RTD Meeting MEETING DATE: April 9, 2007 LOCATION: FasTracks RTD: Lee Cryer, Henry Stopplecamp, Bob Boot, Bill VanMeter, Chris Quinn, Dave Shelley, Jim Starling C&B: Gina McAfee, Paul Brown CDOT: Brad Beckham, Sharleen Bakeman, Carol Parr, ATTENDEES: Jim Paulmeno, Dave Martinez, Long Nguyen FHU: Tom Anzia FTA: Dave Beckhouse NFRMPO: Suzette Mallett (by conference call) PREPARER: CArter'Burgess Gina McAfee • COPIES: Attendees, John Daggett, Vicky McLane, Cliff Davidson, Monica Pavlik, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Since Cliff, John, and Vicky are not able to participate, Dave Martinez will bring a package of the material to them later in the week. 2. Paul Brown introduced and described the North 1-25 packages and their transportation impacts and benefits. Paul also described the assumptions the project has made for grade crossings and ridership projections. 3. Dave Martinez asked Suzette about Ray Moe's desire to get some ridership forecasts for the RTA discussions. We have provided this to Ray today. 4. Henry pointed out the difference in the travel time between commuter rail and BRT. Paul reminded the team that BRT assumes a speed of 75 mph plus median stations plus limited number of stations. 5. Chris asked if the component from Ft. Collins to Boulder could still be done. The response was yes. 6. NW Rail update: • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-201 NORTH I--25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation North 1-25 NFRMPO/RTD April 9, 2007 2 of 3 • The Corps has signed off on the scope of work. • The approval from the Board is planned in early May. • The information from the APE will be available by the time the project starts. • 1st and Terry will be the end of line. • This will include 50% engineering. • Vehicle type will likely be DMU. 7. North Metro update: • DMU or EMU on UP alignment. • Options are also being evaluated to avoid the Sand Creek Junction. • Another set of public meetings will be in June. • • DEIS early 2008. • It will be single tracked north of 104th, with a station north of SH 7 8. The design (bridges)for North Metro would be problematic with Locomotive Hauled Coach, since the bridges for North Metro are all being designed to carry a DMU or EMU vehicle, which is lighter. 9. Where is our maintenance facility? Could be at Berthoud or Ft. Collins. If our commuter rail alternative moves forward, there could be some economies of scale—sharing some equipment with RTD. 10. DUS update: • RTD is working with the master developer • LRT is planned to be at grade, closer to the river. • Bus facility would be underneath 17th • FEIS will be done on the Preferred Alternative (will be done in March 2008). • Page D-202 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation North 1-25 NFRMPO/RTD April 9, 2007 3 of 3 11. Paul discussed cost estimating, grade crossings, and North 1-25 operations in the RTD District. Costs for components would likely be available in May. Unit costs were consistent between North 1-25 and RTD FasTracks. - Henry asked about the relatively low cost for our grade crossing structures. - The $52 million total does not include street running on Mason and Atwood. - The maximum number of additional buses per hour in downtown would be 5. 12. There is a current RTA-related effort for formation of a Regional Transit Management structure. There is a subcommittee of the Steering Committee that is discussing this. Is there a way to rely on a framework or a mechanism that is specified in the 2035 Plan? This could be useful if a RTA did not pass. Suzette thinks there is a way to include some language in the 2035 Plan that acknowledges • this intent. The general public is supportive of paying for a RTA. The challenge is inter governmental cooperation. ]: _Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\NFRMPO-RTD Mtg_040907yn.doc • Page D-203 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETINGMINUTES information cooperation transportation. RTD/NFRMPO Meeting MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 LOCATION: Carter& Burgess RTD: Chris Quinn C&B: Paul Brown, Gina McAfee ATTENDEES: FHU: Tom Anzia COOT: Dave Martinez, Long Nguyen NFRMPO: Cliff Davidson, Vicki McLane PREPARER: CC1rteruBU�ESs Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Chris Primus, Holly Buck, Carol Parr, C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Paul Brown walked through the handouts for the update for North 1-25. 2. Cliff Davidson asked if Ft. Collins is aware of the tolled lane option? The response is yes. 3. Chris Quinn asked if we would manage the TEL with different rates for different segments? 4. Does our background network include parallel roads? Is there a prohibition against building parallel roads adjacent to a TEL? 5. Cliff thinks the tolled lanes will be hard to sell. 6. Cliff asked if the 2030 forecasts will alleviate the traffic demand and reduce it to existing levels? The response is no. 7. It appears as if we are proposing to spend a billion here with no obvious benefits on a regional basis. Why are we doing this? Should we be testing what the affect will be of a more robust regional network? Response: That really is the responsibility of the Front Range transportation plan or the NFRMPO 2035 plan. There are noticeable benefits in travel times, speeds, and arterial volumes, as discussed with the TAC and RCC in March. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-204 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation RTD/NFRMPO Meeting May 14, 2007 2 of 2 8. Should some of this information be presented to the NFRMPO TAC? Should we come to the June 7 Planning Council meeting? 9. Should Chris meet again with the TDF group? Would that help to better disseminate information? 10. At DUS, is the developer kicking out Greyhound? Chris indicated that North Metro will likely go to DMU vehicles. The RTD Board has so far indicated that the cost reduction of shortening the corridor(for North Metro or NW Rail) is off the table. 11. What about single tracking? Or phasing? This will be analyzed after the DEIS. 12. Does the DUS allow for our buses or trains? Response: Our rail service will be on one of RTD's trains. For buses, we will go into DUS or we will operate in downtown Denver. 13. Are we serving major employment centers? Yes—downtown Denver, employers at Interlocken, Loveland, Fort Collins, and Longmont. • J:LTransporta0on\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\NFRMPO-RTD Mtg_051407tg.doc • Page D-205 Carter Burgess • Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 EIS Purpose: Discuss Travel Forecasting Approach Date Held: August 28, 2003 Location: North Front Range MPO Offices, Fort Collins Attendees: NFR MPO: Vicky McLane, Arvilla Kirchhoff, Andy Gomez FHU: Bob Felsburg C&B: Jennifer Heisler, Chris Primus Clarion: Ben Herman, Darcie White Copies: Attendees, Tom Anzia, Gina McAfee, File Summary of Discussion: 1. Bob Felsburg indicated the purpose of the meeting was to obtain information on the status • of NFR MPO activities (transportation plans, land use, model development), to discuss how to best integrate the NFR forecasting process with the North 1-25 process, and to provide an overview of the modeling approach for North 1-25 EIS. 2. Major challenge for travel forecast model in this project is how to combine both the NFR and DRCOG models to account for transit trips between the NFR area and Denver (Denver Union Station, DIA, etc.) FTA has indicated that transit forecasts should account for trips into Denver. 3. We presented an overview of a draft modeling approach (hand-out provided to attendees). Fundamental element of travel model development is to work closely with CDOT, the two MPOs and RTD to develop a process that all agencies can buy into and are comfortable with. Proposed formation of a Technical Forecasting Committee to guide model development and sign off on calibration/validation. Also proposed national travel forecasting experts to provide input at key points in model development. 4. NFR provided the following information: • The DRCOG Travel Behavior Inventory(TBI) had one external station (I-25/Meade) that inter-regional trip information could be derived. • NFR conducted a household (HH) survey in 4th Quarter 2001 of 1,960 HH representing 13,000 trips. This survey would provide good sources of origin/destination information. The survey data (90%)were geocoded in the modeling area. • Year 2000 model should be calibrated, validated and documented by 9/30/03. The • socio-economic data for the 2000 model included 2000 Census information and the ES202 (State of Colorado) employment data. Peer review conducted of model led to Page D-206 Meeting Minutes—North I-25_Initial Travel Forecasting Meeting August 28, 2003 • page 2 NFR using same employment breakdown as DRCOG. NFR uses total HH, while DRCOG uses HH by income group. NFR indicated that they had HH size and income group information available. • Target year for long-range plan is 2030. • Year 2030 Land Use will be developed using Community Viz, a land use allocation model. Model is currently being calibrated to 2000, and will be reviewed with local planners. Model uses land use control totals (county and region)as input. Anticipate land use model calibration by end of September. • Anticipate draft 2030 Regional Transportation Plan by April 20, 2004. • NFR will produce interim year forecasts for 2010 and 2020. 5. Land Use Scenarios—discussion of whether Community Viz will be used to develop land use scenarios for different transportation alternatives for North 1-25 project, and whether it had capabilities to accommodate transportation infrastructure improvements (roadway and transit). Options to consider include manual adjustments in areas where land use would be intensified due to transit stations/stops. Approach to developing and analyzing land use will need to be resolved as 2030 land use forecasts are developed. • 6. Air Quality Conformity is very important consideration to NFR. Needs to be considered in study. 7. We will be meeting with DRCOG the week of September 1 to discuss the modeling approach. Plan to incorporate both MPOs input into the work scope for the project. J:\_Transportation\071453.090\manage\mtgs5mi n utes5N F RM POmtg0828_03.doc • Page D-207 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Agency Coordination Meeting — NFR MPO MEETING DATE: August 4, 2005 LOCATION: City of Fort Collins offices FHU: Tom Anzia CDOT: Steve Olson, David Martinez, Stan Elmquist ATTENDEES: NFRMPO:Arvilla Kirchhoff,Andres Gomez, Suzette Thieman, Cliff Davidson, John Daggett C&B: Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, Chris Primus PREPARER: Cass Gina McAfee and Chris Primus COPIES: Attendees, Jean Wallace, Dave Beckhouse, Craig Gaskill, Bob Garcia, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Tom Anzia provided a general project overview. Level 2 screening has been compiled. Valve Engineering has been done. We have about 8 packages identified that are combinations of highway, managed lanes, BRT, and CRT. We are planning to begin the impact assessment in mid September. 2. Suzette asked what the feedback was from the public meetings. The primary message was that some sort of transit should definitely be included along with highway improvements. Other input was to look at travel to DIA, a rail spur to Greeley, relationships to Front Range toll road, and others. We will be doing some supplemental analysis of some of these issues. 3. Cliff asked if we are still looking just to 2030. He thinks that because it takes so long to build projects, we should be looking out to 50 years. 4. Is there a limit on the alternatives you study in a DEIS? Response: only a lower limit. 5. At the Fort Collins meeting, the business community was not represented. We have been meeting with them separately, in small group meetings. Are they interested in delivery of goods? Access to their business? (No obvious differences in input have been received yet.) • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-208 NORTH 1-25 ` • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Agency Coordination Meeting—NFR MPO August 4, 2005 2 of 4 6. Was the VE session a traditional VE? No—we were using a different group of professionals to see if they had any different ideas. FHWA was pleased with the results of this session. 7. What about coordination with the Front Range Rail group? We have met with them several times, attended their events, and incorporated their ideas into to our packages. 8. Gina described the cumulative impact assessment methodology. NFR MPO can provide future land use, floodplain data,VMT analysis. The CU data is open source data. We need to make sure we get input from the TAC and the RCC on the land use part of this —and the resource agencies. The NFR MPO can also provide us with their list of regionally significant projects to use. 9. An issue is that the locals are making land use decisions without looking at the environmental resources that might be affected. • Should we be looking at our existing transportation system as a sensitive resource? To protect the viability of I-25? We need to make sure we are going to model the housing/employment mixture around transit. We also need to make sure that we acknowledge the effect of the end of line. We are planning to do an induced growth analysis and a land use sensitivity analysis. 10. What is the definition of No Action? Because we are in a low funding phase, will the analysis be skewed? At some point, it is very likely there will be a RTA. Also, WC Road 13 will likely be built. 11. Clarion has allocated the 2030 forecasts to a geographic area matching these to each community's plans. Clarion is examining land use data from other cities, and will be reallocating growth based on the transportation alternatives. The smaller communities may have an issue with the difference between their build out plans and the 2030 growth estimates. Another issue is how this all appears to the "green" community. The NFR MPO looked at the difference between 2030 estimates and the community's plans. It showed a doubling of households and a ten fold increase in employment. • Page D-209 NORTH 1-25 ., EIS : =` MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Agency Coordination Meeting—NFR MPO August 4, 2005 3 of 4 Will we be getting to the point where we are looking at diversity of employment, housing density, etc. around stations? Response: Yes, some initial sensitivity tests will be conducted in Level 3, and subsequently in the DEIS and FEIS. The current process always leads to land use patterns that do not change, leading to more congestion and sprawl. The design of the transportation system should not respond to the unrealistic local plans, but guide the local's development plans. The purpose and need does not address the need to lead land use patterns, because for NEPA it must only address transportation needs. If the land use data reflects the designed transportation system, would the federal review process allow this? The MPO doesn't want to take on regional land use planning. But it wants to provide information to the communities that the current plans are unsuitable. The NFR MPO is bringing in a speaker, Robert Grow,from Envision Utah, on how • communities should plan their future. Utah has made great progress in terms of transportation projects and reduced agricultural land conversion. 12. Julie described the screening process conceming the UP line. The commuter rail corridors that are most practical are the central and west corridors. The UP rail line was eliminated due to it serving the least amount of people, and also because of the quantity of freight trains on the line. We are continuing to evaluate bus and rail options in the Level 3 packages. The packages are being defined in terms of a capacity analysis with a range of highway and transit options to address the demand. 13. Chris described the combined travel model that has been developed for this EIS. He then elaborated on some of the rail ridership results of Level 20: • The alternatives each resulted in about 4,000 rail riders, but the alternatives clearly served different patrons in different travel markets. • The rail share of work trips from the north Front Range area to downtown Denver exceeded 40%. • The feeder bus system had a high ridership. The majority of these riders were intra-or inter-city travelers, not transfers to rail. • The Level 20 alternatives had an station spacing of 9-12 miles, while peer systems average 4-8 miles. The rail alternatives in Level 3 will add stations. • Page D-210 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Agency Coordination Meeting—NFR MPO August 4, 2005 4 of 4 • The rail ridership projections are below those of TAFs,which had rail ridership of about 10,000 per day. The primary reason is that the sketch planning methods did not adequately account for origins and destinations of long trips. Recent census and survey information has been available for the EIS to better estimate long trip origins and destinations. 14. Chris distributed a comparison between the Utah and Colorado Front Range 2000 census joumey-to-work trips. A commuter rail line between Salt Lake City and Ogden Utah is scheduled to open in 2008. These are approximately double the work trips traveling between counties in the corridor compared to the Colorado Front Range. John asked if the rail projections from other EIS's around the country have been compared. The EIS team will look into this. John asked if a model had been performed that tested the bus feeder system without a rail line? Response: Yes, and Chris will send John the results. John asked if highway improvements had any influence on the rail projections. Response: • This will first be tested in Level 3. John asked if the average trip length of rail users is different between the alignment alternatives. Chris will send him the data. 15. The next meeting will be arranged in October, after initial Level 3 results are available. J:LTransportanon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\&iefing with NFRMPO 080405.doc • Page D-211 NORTH 1-25 f t`"� " ` EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation Briefing with NFRMPO MEETING DATE: November 17, 2005 LOCATION: Fort Collins Library C&B: Gina McAfee, Chris Primus, Julie Morrison NFRMPO: Cliff Davidson, Suzette Thieman,Andy Gomez, John ATTENDEES: Daggett CDOT: Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist FHU: Tom Anzia PREPARER: Carter:Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Bob Felsburg, Dennis Markham, Debra Baskett, Ben Herman, Craig Gaskill MEETING SUMMARY 1. Tom indicated that we are screening the Level 3 Alternatives. We are starting now to look at station screening and interchange planning/screening. We will have public meetings on these results in January and February. For the DEIS Alternatives development, further work will be done to identify and define interchanges. 2. There is a NFRMPO Planning Council meeting on January 5, 2006. Cliff would like CDOT to come to this. We are also planning to meet with the Mayor of Berthoud. There is a RTA sub-committee of the NFRMPO. There is a vote planned for November 2007. The NFRMPO is also kicking off a visioning process that will be undertaken by (probably)a non- profit organization. The RTP will be done in 2007. All of these NFRMPO activities need to be coordinated with EIS activities. Perhaps the main focus of the RTA sub-committee (and the vote)could be focused on the EIS recommendations. Should the RTA sub-committee come to the RCC meetings? It would make sense to combine a briefing on the NFRMPO activities with Debra Baskett's presentation on January 12, 2006, to introduce a discussion on implementation. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-212 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation Briefing with NFRMPO November 17, 2005 2 of 3 3. Chris Primus gave a quick update on how we are handling toll forecasting. We met yesterday with DRCOG to discuss this. We looked at the different corridor methodologies, plus CTE, plus other projects nationwide. We will be documenting the proposed off- line/CTE type methodology. Would there be a policy requirement that accompanied toll lanes—that the locals would not be able to construct new roads or improve existing roads? A parallel road system will be coming along with development. At this point, our alternatives do not assume any of these constraints. A parallel road system would take short-trips off of 1-25. 4. Toll roads do not have a different physical impact than a general purpose lane—but could have different operational impacts (general purpose lanes might be more congested, there might be more traffic on other arterial roads and as a result there might be more noise or air quality impacts). • 5. The NFRMPO has had discussions about their VanGo program. This could be considered a precursor to transit—but the experience in Colorado Springs is that these two (Vanpools and buses) serve different markets. FTA allows for a rail bias in Denver. 6. The 2030 constraint for NEPA documents seems like it constrains the vision. There is an opportunity in the cumulative impacts section of the EIS to discuss post 2030 land use, On December 5th, 2005 there will be a discussion of the example sensitivity TOD land use scenarios. 7. Can we have a discussion in the cumulative impacts section of the document about what may happen in this region assuming reasonably foreseeable future development? We could reference some of the statistics in the "Envision Utah" project, related to VMT, travel pattems. If the local jurisdictions will work with us as we place stations, then we can hopefully have compatible zoning. The local planners have trouble envisioning what commuter rail is—what TOD could look like associated with commuter rail. (Action: Could Clarion help with this "visioning" process?) 8. It sounds like we have already decided where the stations are. On other corridors (like US 36)the land use planners have been more actively involved in the station location and planning process. • Page D-213 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation Briefing with NFRMPO November 17, 2005 3of3 9. We should graphically show the feeder bus network. Cliff would like this by November 28, 2005, if possible. (Action: Julie Morrison/Chris Primus) 10. The NFRMPO is going to `facilitate"the interchanges, starting at 392—to look at private/public partnerships to work with CDOT to come up with funding mechanisms. • 3:LT2nspottation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\9riefing with NFRMPO 111705tdg.doc • Page D-214 NORTH 1-25 • EIS Meeting Minutes i ,fionnation coopPinton 'rans ,r:tat:on To: North 1-25 EIS Project Team From: Lindsey Larson Date: February 27, 2006 Subject: Meeting Minutes, North Front Range MPO R4 Coordination North Front Range MPO Coordination Meeting, February 22, 2006 CDOT R4 Loveland Project team attendance: Tom Anzia, Gina McAfee, Holly Buck, Chris Primus, Paul Brown, Darcie White, Stan Elmquist, Bob Garcia, Steve Olson, Dave Martinez, Lindsey Larson. NFR MPO attendance: Vicky McLane, Cliff Davidson Introduction and Discussion • This meeting is a follow-up to the NFR MPO's concerns about the two DEIS packages. • We want the MPO to feel confident and comfortable in what the EIS project team is doing to • move forward in the DEIS. • What level of detail do TAC and RCC committees want/need to see? o They are very accountable; therefore want to see a lot of detail. • Milan Karspeck, chief elect of MPO, is very interested in EIS - he sees it more than just a 30-year transportation plan and wants the MPO to remain closely involved. • Vision document- rather than forcing the EIS to become something its not, why not make the EIS reflect the MPO's needs? o The MPO is most concerned about the regional plan, the big picture. How does this EIS fit into a long-term plan? • North 1-25 EIS team and the MPO need a consistent message and reflective plans and projections. • Public comments from Town halls: o Look outside the year 2030. o Western vs. central CR: most of the public seems to agree with the rationale behind western alignment. o Concerns about Greeley area transit. o Tolling on 1-25 is still a concern and an issue. o What happens with the north and south arterials? What about the east-west connections? o Travel behaviors of all of the new residents in the tri-city area and Weld County may be different in the future from what the census showed. o Bottom line: there is a want and need to provide transportation from Fort Collins to Denver. • Can/will the North 1-25 EIS fit into both local level and more regional level future plans? o It is out of our purpose and need, but still needs to be looked at. • • MPO: is the high-speed corridor designation going to fit in? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-215 NORTH 1-25 EIS information cogeration transpo;tailon • MPO: is John Peacock's plan really the way to go? • MPO: it seems like not all the dots are connected. • MPO: how did you go from 8 alternatives in level 3 to 2 in DEIS? This is so different from the open, transparent TAFS process. You need to involve your major partners. Level 3 Quantified Results • MPO: Do you have documentation of how you got from 8 packages to 2 DEIS alternatives? o It is important that the MPO and North 1-25 EIS project visions align. • Level 3 Results: • Packages evaluated on: o Expandability, aging, infrastructure, safety, constructability, practicability. • Operating and maintenance costs (O&M) in relation to ridership and cost effectiveness: o There is a break-even point where O&M costs for BRT/CB and CR are about equal. In this corridor, that occurs at about 7000 riders. • If there are over 7000 transit riders, CR will have a lower O&M cost per user in this corridor • If there are less than 7000 transit riders, BRT/CB will have a lower O&M cost per user in this corridor • Given current ridership levels in this study area, the per-user O&M costs for CR are about three times the per-user O&M costs for BRT/CB. o For buses to provide service for 7,000 riders, 5-minute headways would probably be needed. Current plans call for 30 minute peak headways for CR and BRT/ CB. • • Numbers projected for riders is all dependent on the corridor • MPO: there are too may stops on the CR line. How exactly did you come to the 8 stops? o We looked at average spacing of stations on peer CR systems o National average is 3-5 miles; ours is 4-5 miles; it garners the highest amount of riders • Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) is more flexible than CR. • MPO: how far does average person drive to a CR station? • MPO: BNSF really isn't that close to the "heart" of many western cities. Loveland and many other cities are now expanding to the east, more toward 1-25. • CR western vs. central in 2030: o CR on western alignment: ridership, accessibility to employment and residences is much better- even with all of the projected growth on 1-25. o Because the western corridor already has a solid base established, the 1-25 corridor can't catch up to the amount of western alignment development in the 2030 timeframe. • MPO: However, all expansion/growth is happening to east of Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, so why not build CR east? • Many concerns/anomalies exist between the western and central alignments, but it's when you look at those collectively perceptions begin to change. • How do public wants, desires and needs measure up with the facts from modeling and the EIS process? DEIS Alternatives Development • Key Criteria o Purpose and Need, practicability, environmental impacts, range of alternatives, • compatibility, advisory committee, and public input. • Key Findings: o Widening 1-25 in general purpose lanes would be necessary to accommodate 2030 demand, regardless of transit improvements. Page D-216 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information Liuupa, „on trarspurtetinn o Limited access lanes perform similarly to 8 general purpose lanes with higher costs • MPO: do you have facts to back up the feeling that toll lanes discriminate against low income drivers? Tolls barely cover operating and maintenance costs of roads. o Of managed lanes, HOT lanes would provide the most congestion relief in the general purpose lanes. o A single buffer separated managed lane would accommodate travel demand in most of the corridor. o Of transit improvements north of FasTracks, CR would attract the most ridership but bus service would be more cost effective. o Ridership lowest on CB; highest on CR. Cost per user: CB lowest; CR highest. • MPO: so does the cost per user mean the public has to pay$13.40 on CB to Denver and $56-80 on CR? • MPO: service times make a big difference: 30 minutes between stops at CR stations vs. 5 minutes for CB o CR on West would be most cost effective and would serve greater population and employment centers. • Accessibility evaluated within 1/2 mile of stations. • MPO: how do you compare time savings on central CR to cost per user savings on the western alignment? • Everyone has different values. Some people will value cost savings • more, others will value time savings more. o CR on central alignment has less potential impacts for some environmental impacts to residents and people impacted within a certain distance. • MPO: There is a huge difference in noise and vibration between freight rail cars and CR cars. • What type of vehicle will be used for CR? o Many environmental impacts can be avoided when design begins. Comments from the NFR MPO: • Adverse effects and benefits to low income and minority's census blocks need to be converted to population • RCC meetings not a dialogue but just descriptive sessions. Too much information is presented too fast. o We are planning a different format for the next RCC/TAC meetings to try to address this. • Parks include open space and nature preserves, etc. There are more along 1-25 than the western alignment. • If North 1-25 gets tolled why doesn't T-REX get tolled? • Does the toll option imply that a contractual relationship will be required to preclude expansion for parallel roads? o We will investigate E-470's treatment of this issue. • Will this become a CDOT policy? • The effectiveness of HOT lanes vs. HOV lanes -in terms of attracting users - should be reiterated. • The effect of central 1-25 CR and its visibility would be large on auto users in congested • traffic. Need a quick and effective response. • Since trains would only pass every 30 minutes, its visibility would not be as prominent as perceived. Page D-217 NORTH 1-25 EIS • nkri lr3 i!nn. Cooperation transportation. • Note highway improvements are needed regardless of transit improvements. This conflicts with the project's need of providing multimodal options. There is a public perception that transit relives congestion, but the provision of and option of transit is key. • The 2030 timeframe is the most reasonable period as stated by the FHWA. Note forecasting beyond this period becomes more difficult, but there is a need to be visionary to change the automobile oriented cities. • The promotion of an RTA needs to be stated in terms of the need to raise funds, since the gas tax isn't adequate anymore. • Does a central alignment really compete with US 287? Have some combinations been eliminated? For example, CR from Fort Collins to Boulder or Fort Collins to Greeley? • Why can't there be a CR train on US 85? o UP rail corridor was eliminated in Level 2 because of the amount of freight traffic; there is also noticeably smaller population on that corridor. • How do people get to their destination from CR? • Bus service is assumed but transfers decrease ridership. • Suggest modifying alternative B to add commuter bus on US287 on managed lanes. o Adding lanes have an impact on transit: the US287 corridor would compete with 1-25 transit facilities for some of the travel market. o Commuter bus on US287 competes with 1-25 transit services. • Can you add a recommendation that community-to-community bus services are needed? o This would need to be part of the No Action, or could be included in the EIS congestion management measures. • o This would be a responsibility of the MPO. • John Peacock at NI-25 EIS public hearings is not helpful, because he discusses expanding RTD (besides his rail plans)-this is contrary to the RTA. • Note: Wasatch Front is using the CR system to follow the land use growth near stations here the transportation system follows the land use development • Can BRT on 1-25 eventually become rail? o No. The physical design is different, the ROW requirements and median stations are different, and the construction impacts for the conversion would be large. • Is CDOT acquiring ROW on 1-25 to include rail? o No, the current ROW persuasion is for the median, state use at the rural character. • Passenger rail should stop at south Fort Collins not north Fort Collins; commuters to Denver live in south Fort Collins, not north. • NFR MPO will comment on the proposed modifications to the No Action network. • Why is#5 included? • What about Southwest Weld area? • Not as necessary because this focuses on the 8 lane. • Van Go projections had been 20% per year. End Notes: • Dave Martinez will contact the NFRMPO prior to the RCC/TAC meeting in March to share with them the planned agenda and format. • The team will follow up with brief answers to may of the questions raised today. • The NFRMPO meeting next week will have an agenda item to discuss the North 1-25 EIS - the 30 minute presentation should be focused on reducing the 8 Level 3 packages to the 2 DEIS alternatives. Could the presenters be Dave Martinez and Gina McAfee? • Page D-218 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation North Front Range MPO MEETING DATE: March 3, 2006 LOCATION: Timnath Presbyterian Church at 6:00 p.m. CDOT: Dave Martinez, Karla Harding ATTENDEES: C&B: Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison NFRMPO: Vicky McLane, John Daggett, Cliff Davidson, Suzette Thieman, NFRMPO Board and audience PREPARER: Carter Burgess Julie Morrison Dave Martinez, Karla Harding, Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, COPIES: Vicky McLane, John Daggett, Cliff Davidson, Suzette Thieman, Bob Garcia, Stan Elmquist, Dave Martinez, Carol Parr, Gayl Harrison, C&B File #071609.400 • Summary of Discussion Dave Martinez and Gina McAfee presented the results of Level 3 screening and the proposed DEIS alternatives. The following are questions and comments received during the meeting: Comments: 1. Cliff: Ridership are 2030 riders? Answer Yes 2. Vicky: And just NFR riders (doesn't include FasTracks line ridership)? Answer Correct. The TAFS included FasTracks ridership, but these ridership projections are for riders north of the FasTracks corridors. 3. Tom: What is the cost per user measure? Answer Includes capital and operating and maintenance costs. The important thing is to recognize that Commuter Rail has the highest cost per user, but it attracted the most ridership. 4. John Daggett: What is value of the station mode of access measure if by travel time you just said that most people will drive? Answer Behavior is different on each line—on the Central line most people will drive, but • on the Western line there are many more stations where over 50% of the station access is by walking or bus. Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-219 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation North Front Range MPO March 3, 2006 2 of 3 5. Keith (audience): How do we reconcile the growth along 1-25 to your premise that growth is higher along the western side? Is DRCOG driving the numbers on the western side? Answer There's a difference between the total population and the change in population: the change will certainly be much greater along 1-25, but the Western side of the corridor will still have higher totals, even in 2030. There is also a difference between what is predicted for 2030 and what is predicted for the final build out year, which is not constrained by a time. We've constrained by 2030 year and FHWA feels that 2030 is the best year to use because it can be modeled with some level of confidence. Finally, the DRCOG model is not"driving the growth"on the Western side because the population totals reflect a combined NFRMPO and DRCOG model, which rely on local municipalities to predict their population and employment totals. 6. Kurt Kastein: So the US 34 interchange is not happening as part of the No Action? Answer Interchange improvements are part of packages but not part of No Action. The interim improvements are in the plan as local funds but not the final build out because it is not in the fiscally contained plan. The final build out will be a part of the DEIS alternatives (and part of the No-Action Alternative). • 7. Karen Wagner: Appreciate how you did the public meeting—got a lot of good comments. What about toll roads and how they relate to environmental justice? I see the analysis for rail, but not for freeway. Answer Analysis over next phase will be done in depth. In the meantime, a study done in California showed that all income levels used HOT lanes. 8. Karen: What other comments from public besides developing a rail extension from Highway 119 to North Metro got included? Answer Erie station location, Evans and La Salle locations, highway widening south of E-470. 9. Karen: Is it a waste of people's time to be going to station working groups? Interchange groups? Answer No. The working groups will help us convert what is now a general dot on the map into a specific location. 10. Kay Wood: I sent out an email to all Council and TAG members about the upcoming meetings. 11. Karen: I thought the transit workshop was extremely valuable, especially the data that compared to other peer systems. I think people need to know how they compare; maybe it's time to bring that information back to public. 12. Tom: I thought the ridership numbers were low based on vanpool numbers. • Page D-220 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES inforrnauon cooperaion transpoitatlon North Front Range MPO March 3, 2006 3 of 3 13. Cliff Davidson: What was the number/share of passengers that the system picks up? I thought it was very favorable. Answer: Almost no matter where you put the line, commuter rail will attract forty percent of the work trips from the area north of SH 66 to downtown Denver. And yes, that's a very favorable number. 14. Donna Benson: What were the population projections used in modeling? There seems to be a discrepancy between the North Front Range information presented here and what Mr. Peacock presented earlier—at places like Timnath. Answer There's lots of data we used for modeling, and we can get you further information about specific projections in different areas. 15. Milan Karspeck: What information was used to do the cost estimates? How definite are they? Answer The ones we have now are based on more general costs per mile but will be refined in the next step during the DEIS process. • 3:LTransportaoon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\NFRMPO_030306.doc • Page D-221 Y _ NORTH 1-25 NtMP EIS . • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Commuter Rail Alignments Meeting with NFRMPO and Paul Smith MEETING DATE: May 9, 2006 LOCATION: SW Weld County Services Building North Front Range MPO: Vickie McLane, Chris Shiel ATTENDEES: Smith Railway Consulting: Paul Smith C&B: Craig Gaskill, Paul Brown PREPARER: CarterrBurgess Craig Gaskill COPIES: Attendees, Dave Martinez, Steve Olson, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Gina McAfee, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • The purpose of this meeting was to share information on commuter rail alignments. Paul Brown and Craig Gaskill presented information on the current commuter rail alignments, particularly along SH 119 then south to the Boulder Industrial Lead. Paul Brown and Craig also presented information on commuter rail altematives development, screening to-date, and the status of one track verses two track analyses. It was also discussed that some additional rail alignment development and screening will be occurring for alignments in the SH 119 and 1-25 area. Paul Smith presented information he has collected for the NFRMPO on rail corridors in the project area, specifically abandoned lines west of 1-25 and south of SH 119 and the Dent Line, north of the Boulder Industrial Lead. Paul Smith also provided some railroad history/ information and general commuter rail information. The following summarizes the specific topics of discussion: Commuter rail alignments west of 1-25: There is an old UPRR line (now abandoned)that used to run north from the Boulder Industrial Lead along CR 7. At SH 52 this line then ran northeast toward 1-25 but ended before reaching l- 25. There is also the old CB&Q (Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy) line (now abandoned)that used to run from the Sugar Mill in Longmont southeast, then south and southwest to Lafayette, • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-222 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Commuter Rail Alignments Meeting with NFRMPO and Paul Smith May 9, 2006 2 of 3 crossing the Boulder Industrial Lead in Erie. This line has also been referred to as the old BNRR SE line and the Lyons branch line. This line is mostly in-tact but has been developed with gravel pits. One or more pits are operated by Boulder Asphalt. Some of the area around the old alignment has been developed just south of SH 119. A commuter rail alignment option would be to use the two lines listed above with a connection between the 2 on new alignment. This option will be considered in the alternatives development and screening work discussed above. Dent Line This line has undergone rails to trails conversion from the south end of Firestone north. It would be physically possible to fit both a rail line and the trail within the old right-of-way. Rails still exist north of 34 Road. It is likely the PESCO/Xcel owns the property south of 24 Road. There is an old spur line that goes west from the Dent Line from just north of Dacono. There is no residential development north of Firestone along the Dent Line. The existing trail starts just north of Dacono. • A commuter rail option would be to connect the alignment(s) listed above west of 1-25 with the Dent line by crossing 1-25. This could occur at the old spur line just north of Dacono or some other location. The junction of the Dent Line and the connection west across 1-25 could be a location for a station. Another option for a station is at SH 52 and CR 13. This station would replace and serve the same market area as the current SH 52 station. These options will be considered in the alternatives development and screening work discussed above. A previous CR 13 Commuter Rail study done by the NFRMPO did not recommend commuter rail because of conflicts with widening CR 13 to a 4-lane arterial by Weld County. General Commuter Rail Information FRA now allows quiet zones. This can help reduce train noise. Other reductions in train noise can be achieved by welded rail and quieter locomotives and diesel engines. Cost for commuter rail can also be cheaper than freight rail due to lighter weight track and bridges designed for lighter loadings. Freight railroads are in the experimental stage of testing a new train control called PTC (positive train control), that controls trains using satellite communication. Earlier forms of PTC (positive train separation and/or automatic train control) are currently in use on various commuter systems in the US. Railroad History and Information • Page D-223 NORTH 1-25 EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Commuter Rail Alignments Meeting with NFRMPO and Paul Smith May 9, 2006 3 of 3 Both the UPRR and the BNRR are close to moving all through trains off the Front Range Sub (BNRR on western alignment). This would move 4-6 daily trains off this track, but local service would remain Part of this effort is based on improvements in Wyoming and Nebraska, and another factor is the potential Eastem Plains Mobility Study implementation. Paul Smith and Paul Brown described regional operations of both the UPRR and the BNRR as they relate to traffic on both the western alignment (Front Range Sub) and the eastem alignment (Greeley Sub). Other Discussion: The SE Mayors Group meets once a month and may be an appropriate forum for review of N. I- 25 alternatives. The NFRMPO could help coordinate this group. The NFRMPO (Vicky) offered to conduct an electronic user preference survey of their vanpool riders. This could be a user preference survey for commuter rail/transit, or other. The RTA could generate about $40 million a year with a 1% sales tax. Only a portion of this would go to transit, yet to be determined. One option for the transit dollars would be to fund • operations. Vicky suggested a rail presentation /discussion group (similar to the travel demand model group) to discuss, review, and understand rail issues. This could be made up of TAC/RCC members or other specially invited members and may be limited to one meeting. TAC/RCC names to consider include John Esty(ColoRail), Ron Welsh (UPRR Greeley Sub Manager), and an operator from the GWRR. ]:LTransportatbn\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Paul Smith and NFRMPO mins_050906.da Page D-224 .. F x' GIN "/ NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. NFRMPO Briefing MEETING DATE: May 15, 2006 LOCATION: CDOT Loveland Residency NFRMPO: Vicky McLane, Cliff Davidson ATTENDEES: CDOT: Dave Martinez, Stan Elmquist C&B: Gina McAfee, Craig Gaskill PREPARER: Carter'Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Bob Garcia, Carol Parr, Steve Olson, Jean Wallace, COPIES: Mike Vanderhoof, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Chris Primus, Wendy Wallach, Brian Werle, Julie Morrison, Darcie White, Ben Herman, C&B File#071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Dave Martinez opened the meeting—we just want to stay in touch. 2. The handout for the project update that Dave provided last week was very helpful. 3. Today we would like to cover land use and rail options. 4. Gina described the land use considerations in the EIS (see attached). Questions: • How can we reflect the very high growth in SW Weld County that is going on right now? • Should we plan to redo our 2030 forecasts to 2035 at some point in the process? • Did DRCOG use this information as a part of their new model? • The commuter rail piece from Longmont to SH 7 will serve this SW Weld area. 5. There was a question about the capture area from stations at the RCC meeting. Why was the diameter of the TOD capture area determined? If this was larger, would the increase in ridership be more noticeable? The peer systems had higher population within a larger area. 6. In the North Front Range area, there are good opportunities to preserve railroad corridors. 7. Cliff believes that we should have some information in the EIS about how much land consumption would occur with the No-Action alternative and the two different DEIS packages. • Federal Highway Administration /Federal Transit Administration 1 Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-225 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation NFRMPO Briefing March 15, 2006 2 of 2 8. Gina described how we are planning to address land use. It will be tied to what will be the different land use scenarios with the different transportation alternatives. 9. Cliff believes that the EIS will set expectations for future land use. Cliff would like us to provide information about land consumption, VMT, cost of providing services, and emissions—to quantify everything we can. We could pose these questions to our land use expert panel. We need to make sure we contact the advanced planners (in Fort Collins and Greeley). Action: Vicky will provide us with these names. 10. We need to not only provide information about how land use will affect ridership but also how land use will affect quality of life and environmental factors. 11. Craig described the meeting with Paul Smith and Paul Brown. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy (CB&Q)abandoned railroad line is mostly still in place. The rails to trails corridor is mostly north of Frederick. We are currently looking at some options to use the CB&Q line to connect to the old Valmont line. Or use the CB&Q then go east to a portion of the Dent line, south of the rails to trails conversion, and across 1-25 north of SH 52. The gravel pits along the CB&Q right-of-way have intruded on long sections of the right-of- • way. There is a Section 4(f)property along this right-of-way also. There are also Section 4(f) impacts along Highway 119. 12. We could make contact with Tim Baldwin and Ron Rapinski about a connection from the Sugar Mill south. Action: Craig Gaskill. 13. Why are cities growing more east/west? Why isn't more growth occurring to the east? Why is Greeley growing west? There are constraints to the east—feed lots,the railroad, the river. There are also more attractions to the west. The US 85 access management plan is still valid. CDOT is using this for the things we have control over. The locals will need to take action to consolidate access. 14. We will send Vicky an initial agenda for the July TAC/RCC meetings. This should include institutional arrangements. Maybe it should be called an institutional/funding workshop. Action: Julie Morrison. 15. On June 13 the NFRMPO is having a Transportation Summit. The RTA will be discussed. An RTA(or some similar institution)will need to be put into place to fund right-of-way preservation, arterial improvements, etc. 16. The July workshop should include information about how the Colorado Springs RTA worked. 17. The BRT demo will be July 19. ]._Transportation\071603.400\manage\mrys\minutes\ggencANFRMPObnenng_0515061gj.doc • Page D-226 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation NFRMPO Planning Council MEETING DATE: March 1, 2007 LOCATION: City of Timnath C&B:Gina McAfee CDOT:Russell George, Dave Martinez, Karla Harding, Stan Elmquist, ATTENDEES: Bob Garcia, Rick Gabel, Myron Hora NFRMPO: Cliff Davidson, John Daggett, Karen Wagoner Suzette Mallett, Milar Karspeck, and others on the planning council PREPARER: Carter'Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Tom Anzia, Bob Garcia, Dave Martinez, Carol Parr, Gayl Harrison, C&B File#071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Russell George stated that he is learning a lot and is very impressed by the CDOT staff. One of his goals is to integrate transportation with environment. He spoke generally about the need to do the best that we can do as stewards for future generations. CDOT right now has the reputation of not being able to listen. He wants to change this so the institution has a reputation of collaboration of listening. We will be the best partners we can be. And we will expect that our partners are willing to compromise and work with us. 2. Karen Wagoner said that she appreciates his work to make sure local governments are involved in CDOT business, including the EIS. 3. Cliff Davidson said that the NFRMPO has a much better experience with their EIS than other areas of the state have had. 4. John Daggett gave a presentation on the RTA formation. There is a Steering Committee that is aimed at a ballot measure in November 2007. They will be developing a list of projects (drafted by April 14) that will be put on the ballot. Subcommittees are being formed as well. 5. Dave Martinez gave a brief presentation on where we are in the process. Questions were:1111 Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-227 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information, coo-oration. trans.,ortaticn NFRMPO Planning Council March 1, 2007 2 of 2 • Can you provide information to us about components? • Will tolling be in the first phase since it can be funded? • We are frustrated by how long this is taking. • What is the cost for this EIS? • itTransportation\071609.900\manage\mtgs\minutes\NPRMPO Planning Council_030107yn.0oc Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-228 • Carter::Burgess Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 EIS Purpose: Discuss Travel Forecasting Approach Date Held: September 2, 2003 Location: DRCOG Offices, Denver Attendees: DRCOG: Jeff May, Eric Sabina FHU: Tom Anzia C&B: Jennifer Heisler, Chris Primus Clarion: Ben Herman, Darcie White Copies: Attendees, Gina McAfee, File Summary of Discussion: • 1. Tom Anzia indicated the purpose of the meeting was start the process to coordinate efforts with the two MPOs to develop a forecasting tool for the North 1-25 EIS, and to provide an overview of the modeling approach for North 1-25 EIS. As part of the work scope preparation, the consultant team is conducting special scoping meetings to better define the public involvement and travel forecasting efforts. He indicated that the study area would extend from DUS to Fort Collins (for transit alternatives)and would also include Boulder, US 287 and US 85 for transit and roadway alternatives. 2. Chris Primus and Jennifer Heisler distributed a draft of the proposed travel forecasting process, which focuses on working closely with CDOT, the two MPOs and RTD to develop a process that all agencies can buy into and are comfortable with. The approach proposes the formation of a Technical Forecasting Committee (TFC)to guide model development and sign off on calibration/validation. Also proposes national travel forecasting experts to provide input at key points in model development. 3. Jeff May indicated that DRCOG has convened an expert panel to review the new DRCOG 2030 model, which they are anticipating getting together in October or November 2003. The panel has six experts, including MPO staff, consultants, transit agency staff, academicians and the Environmental Defense Fund. Jeff suggested that this study may want to consider using some of the same experts and try to time the TFC meetings with the DRCOG expert panel review process to save money. Jeff suggested that we attend the first model review team meeting and see if any of the experts appeal to the study team. 4. The group discussed options for developing an inter-regional forecasting model. There • was some concern expressed that a new model would produce forecasts that were different than those being used in different studies, or for the Regional Transportation Plan. The idea of maintaining the two MPO models and developing a separate process for inter- regional trips was discussed. Page D-229 I-25 North Meeting Minutes DRC0G Modeling Coordination September 3, 2003 • page 2 5. One suggestion that the group liked was to focus a major effort on developing future year trips tables for inter-regional trips. DRCOG suggested that separate inter-regional trip purposes should be considered —work commuter trips, work-related trips and other. 6. To avoid problems encountered in other studies, DRCOG staff suggested we look at other efforts, and develop a "lessons learned" summary. 7. Land Use—To develop the 2030 land use forecasts, a committee of demographers and economists came up with a population estimate for the Economic Area (which is larger than the DRCOG modeling are). The estimate for the DRCOG boundary is 3.9M people in the year 2030. DRCOG has taken a first cut at producing a year 2000 Land Use Map for the Denver area and is meeting with communities to get feedback and to incorporate the comprehensive plans. Similar to NFR MPO, DRCOG will run a land use allocation model for 2030. In developing the land use allocations, DRCOG will also consider the urban growth boundaries (750 square miles). 8. DRCOG anticipates it will have a 2030 model by the end of the year, and a 2030 RTP adopted by fall 2004. • J:1_Tra n sportation\071453.093\manage\mtg s\minutes\D RCOG mtg0902_03.doc • Page D-230 • State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. OT Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207E Highway 402 Loveland CO 8C537-8885 DRAT,(1..'T fT�,5gITa T>d. December 3,2003 Jeffrey May, Director IM 0253-179 Denver Regional Council of Governments North 1-25 Front Range EIS 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South. Suite 800 Subaccount: 14276 Denver.CO 80246-1531 Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Travel Forecasting Work Group Dear Mr. May: The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)project has been initiated. One of the initial tasks is to develop a travel forecasting model that will be applied to evaluate alternatives during subsequent phases of the EIS. Currently,there is no model that covers the entire study area(from US 287 and SH 119 in the west to 1IS 85 in the east;from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south,but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options). A technical travel forecasting work eroup will oversee the development of a multi-modal inter-regional travel model. This letter serves to request the designation of a representative(s)to participate on the North 1-25 EIS • travel forecasting work group. The travel forecasting work group will include representatives from CDOT,NFRMPO,DRCOG.and RTD. In addition,two independent modeling experts will be recruited nationally to provide guidance and expertise. The travel forecasting work group is expected to meet about once a month over a ten-month timeframc;three of the meetings will be milestone meetings with the outside experts in attendance.The travel forecasts are a critical element of the EIS process. The development of a suitable travel model will help ensure the success of the North 1-25 EIS project. CDOT Region 4 has retained the consultant team of Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig(FHU),Carter&Burgess, Inc.,and PR.ACO for the North 1-25 EIS project. Please have your designated participant(s)E-mail Chris Primus of Carter& Burgess at ptimuscj(2e-b.com. An initial meeting of the travel forecasting work group will be scheduled via E-mail.Thank you in advance for the participation of your staff in this important task. Sincerely, paid O David M. Martinez,Proje t..Manarer North 1-25 Front Range EIS cc: Stan Clmquist,RPEMJCarol Parr,Environmental Unit Manager Bob Garcia,Program Manager rem Anzia, Project Manager—Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Gina McAfee, Deputy Project Manager—Carter-Burgess Central Files • Page D-231 NORTH I-25 EIS Distribution list for Travel Forcasting Work Group letters sent on December, 3 2003 Jeffrey May, Director Bob Garcia, Program Manager Denver Regional Council of Colorado Department of T ransportation Governments Region 4 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 800 1420 Second Street Denver, CO 80246-1531 Greeley, CO 80631 Tim Baker, Mobility Analyst Tom Anzia, Project Manager Colorado Department of Transportation Felsburg, Holt& Ullevig South Colorado Blvd. 9 Denver, CO 80222 6300 S.Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 Policy& Programs Manager Vicky McLane Gina McAfee, Deputy Project Manager North Front Range MPO Carter Burgess 235 Matthews Street 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Denver, CO 80202 William Van Meter, Sr. Manager Chris Primus • Regional Transportation District Carter Burgess 1600 Blake Street 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Denver, CO 80202 Jennifer Heister Stan Elmquist, RPEM Carter Burgess Broomfield Historic Landmark Board 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 1 Descombes Drive Denver, CO 80202 Broomfield, CO 80521 Carol Parr, Environmental Unit Manager Colorado Department of T ransportation CDOT Region 4 1420 Second Street Greeley, CO 80631 • Page 1 of 1 Page D-232 • State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 4-Loveland Residency ,• OT 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537-8885 no ond January 21,2004 George Scheuemstuhl Denver Regional Council of Governments 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South,Suite 800 Denver CO 80246-1531 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Scheuemstuhl: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • I. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly I-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, PRO/rd OA. r—; David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N.1-25 Front Range EIS • cc: Project File Page D-233 NORTH 1-25 Mg EIS MEETINGMINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. DRCOG TAC Meeting: Presentation of Purpose and Need MEETING DATE: May 17, 2004 LOCATION: DRCOG ATTENDEES: TAC members; Stan Elmquist; Dave Martinez; Tom Anzia; Gina McAfee PREPARER: CarteraBurgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Stan Elmquist; Tom Anzia; Carol Parr; Dave Martinez; Bob Garcia; Gina McAfee; Becky Noe; Kim Podobnik; C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. George Scheuemstuhl: The issue COG has is growth in this area and how it will affect the • Denver Metro area. How are land use forecasts being prepared? 2. Will we be looking at tolling facilities? 3. Is RTD being active in this study? 4. Are jurisdictions starting to do appropriate land use planning for future TODs? 5. TDM needs to be included; as does analysis of how this fits with Metro Vision. i:LTransportauon\071609.900\manage\mtgs\minutes\DRCOG TACmtg_051709metdoc • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-234 � -wznN0RTH I-25 FRONT RANGE EIS alK v Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Purpose: Northern Colorado Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan Policy Committee Meeting Date Held: January 16, 2004 Location: Loveland Visitor Center Attendees: Elected officials and planners from cities and counties Copies: Dave Martinez, Tom Anzia, Bob Garcia, Stan Elmquist, Carol Parr, Jean Wallace, Monica Pavlik, John Dow, Gina McAfee, Kim Podobnik, File#071609.400 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: • 1. Dave Martinez kicked off the discussion about the EIS. This is the first public meeting we have had since the project started in December. We have started scoping and data gathering. Some of you may be on our RCC. Dave introduced Tom and Gina. 2. Tom explained why we were doing an EIS. Any transportation project that is using federal funds needs NEPA clearance. Major actions require an EIS. Tasks we are starting are scoping, development of purpose and need, and public involvement. We have formed a Technical Advisory Committee (first meeting is February 12)and a Regional Coordination Committee(first meeting is January 28). Tom handed out the postcard and the text for the first ad. 3. Gina described the process, federal agency roles and factors considered. 4. Dave described the CDOT PMT. 5. Questions: • How did the size of this come about? We started from the TAFS. The southern boundary was determined to allow for all modes of transportation. Karla described the importance of looking at the area comprehensively. Tom described the relationship of purpose and need to the development of alternatives. • What is the cost of this study? Around 15 million. • • Could we see a copy of the RFP? Yes. Page D-235 Meeting Minutes—North I-25 EIS_name of meeting • date page 2 • Why is Wellington not included? Also why not include the truck bypass north of Fort Collins? There is growth around Wellington. This could be adjusted during the scoping process. • Who is on the RCC from Fort Collins? • Should the US 287 bypass be shown on the study area map? • What is the relationship of this to future federal funding? There is no commitment yet. • Will there be a financial component to this? • Who is PRACO? • Does TAFS have some official standing? Will its recommendations just be accepted? • What about FRA and FM? Are they involved? • What is the shelf life? Will this have to be redone in about three to five years? • What is the composition, role and authority of the TAC and RCC? Will legislators be included? • • What are the typical obstacles? • How is land use considered? Will impacts of the different alternatives on land use be evaluated? • How would this group continue to be involved? We could meet with you quarterly. • How will 1-25 corridor plan be included? • Will we be looking at improvements needed to the local street network? 7:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Northern Colorado 011604f.doc • Page D-236 Northern Colorado Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Policy Committee Agenda January 16, 2004 8:00 a.m.- 10:00 a.m. Loveland Visitor Center 5400 Stonecreek Circle (Loveland Outlet Mall) 8:00 a.m. Agenda Review • 8:05 a.m. North I-25 Front Range Corridor EIS—David Martinez, Project Manager, CDOT 9:05 a.m. Progress Reports • Town of Berthoud- I-25/Hwy 56 master planning • City of Fort Collins—1-25 Subarea Plan • City of Loveland—HW34/125 activities 9:50 a.m. Observers input 10:00 a.m. Adjourn • Page D-237 • ,,..1 I . ! ..; i I O; of I I � `v 1 i • 1 i I �i V� i1 I 7 i2 i , I 1 I v �<_ C7 p7 I `'�� .f 6 J,J ` chi! II.�'I `) � � � V s _ : L v \ "i tom,i Fi i !�� L a i?,...4 •-4, q ...-.1 .. ,Z7: ,-- , • -- v •-..i -# li. 441 Ca2'31,)V * ♦' W/ Q 1a vt 1;! ! 4 ..4 `�" 71 - d Q1 Q • N Y_ I a 'I I, t V Li -Ii . { � ` I N r�� `i 1! ?� •.S Pal s) 0 ini • (r, N1 en S+ Icy , i 'IE N, 91 •, � � .) .1 � 11�J \"44 ts+ CN 0-} i 1 �I `-1 s"' : { r '-1- t` cue 1 Ali a J31 cll. I4' - J 1 I I L.I d ,./.1,./.1' i I la h 4�: !+ �V�f -! I t q P � f ,,slI Y �h{ II of • -r. or .T .i =! ,?� fi f� �i. I Y! a �!--,Z4-2L-4y :a � - 3 di ' p! d I �' 0 E LailWI !0!, ! I 1 ; I-J ' I •• i ,:), I " I it, :I Al• i I Page D-238 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �+ Region 4 Pre �Ol 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 remancenognmaleam September 23, 2004 «Prefix» «Fname» << name» «Title» «Agency» «Department» «Addressl» «Address2» «Address3» «City_State_Zip» Re: North I-25 MS Dear«Prefix» «Irame»: • The Colorado Department of Transportation and the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)consultant team would like to invite you or a designated representative to a meeting regarding land use in the northern Colorado study area. As a part of the North I-25 EIS process, we are looking at the feasibility of an alternative that will consider changes in land use as well as other low-cost improvements to the transportation system, called the Congestion Management Alternative. We are also required to assess the impacts of any alternatives we develop on a number of different factors,including land use. At the meeting, we will be discussing policies your city or county may have related to land use. We are also planning to have a representative of the EPA there to discuss"Smart Growth" principles of land use. We would like your input on how these issues might apply in your particular jurisdiction. We look forward to your participation in this meeting,to be held: Wednesday,November 10,2004 9:00 a.m.to 11:30 a.m. SW Weld County Service Center,South Wing 4209 Weld County Road,421/,Greeley (see http://vvww.co.weld.co.ushouthcountyfindex.html for more information regarding the meeting location) • Page D-239 «Prefix»«Fnamew«tamer> September 23,2004 •• • «Agency. Page 2 Please RSVP to Lorena Jones at(303)820-4894 or jonesLG@c-b.com no later than October 10,2004. Sincerely, 1440-3 -Wit( / • 1�W"�w" David M. Martinez �J Project Manager DMM/lgj cc: Gina McAfee Brian Wale Deb Lebow Ben Herman Carol Parr Stan Elmquist Jean Wallace Mike Vanderhoof File#071609.401 • ]k.rranwodaaon\071609.400\manage\cor�imlte-smart growth mt9.doc • Page D-240 • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Planning Jurisdiction Contacts Distribution list for invitation letters to November 10,2004,Smart Growth Meeting,sent on September 23,2004(E-mail version of the invitation also sent to contacts with E-mail addresses). Diana Tangsrud Planning Director City and County of Broomfield Adams County Community Development and Planning Department of Planning & Development Policy Western Service Center 1 DesCombes Drive 12200 N. Pecos St. Broomfield, CO 80020 Westminster, CO 80234 dtangsrud@ci.broomfield.co.us Graham Billingsley Larry Timm Director Larimer County Boulder County Planning and Building Services Land Use Department 200 W. Oak Street PO Box 471 Third Floor Boulder, CO 80306 Fort Collins, CO 80521 lcplanningbldg@larimer.org Richard Turner Director • Monica Daniels-Mika Jefferson County, Colorado Weld County Planning and Zoning Department Planning and Zoning Department 100 Jefferson County Parkway 918 10th Street Jefferson County Administration& Courts Greeley, CO 80631 Building mmika@co.weld.co.us 3rd Floor, Administration Side-Suite 3550 Golden, CO 80419-3550 Gary Wilson City of Loveland Planning Director Long Range Planning City and County of Denver 500 E. Third Street Community Planning and Development Loveland, CO 80537 201 W. Colfax Dept 205 wilsong@ci.loveland.co.us Denver CO 80202 Joe Frank Dave Shinneman Director Planning Manager City of Fort Collins City of Westminster Advance Planning Department Department of Community Development 281 N. College 4800 West 92nd Avenue PO Box 580 Westminster, CO 80031 Fort Collins, CO 80521 jfrank@fcgov.com Planning Director City of Northglenn Planning Division 11701 Community Center Drive P.O. Box 330061 Northglenn, CO 80020 • Page 1 of 3 Page D-241 • • NORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Planning Jurisdiction Contacts Distribution list for invitation letters to November 10,2004,Smart Growth Meeting,sent on September 23,2004(E-mail version of the invitation also sent to contacts with E-mail addresses). Planning Director Debra Pearson Commerce City Town of Erie Community Development and Planning Community Development Department Services 645 Holbrook, 5291 East 60th Avenue PO Box 750 Commerce City, CO 80022 Erie, CO 80516B Marvin Falconburg Brian Grubb City of Brighton City of Fort Lupton Community Development Planning Department 22 South 4th Avenue 130 South McKinley Avenue Brighton, CO 80601 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Devin Granbery Planning Director Town of Superior City of Firestone Economic Development Planning Department • 124 E. Coal Creek Drive 151 Grant Ave. Superior, CO 80027 P.O. Box 100 Firestone, CO 80520 Planning Director City of Louisville Ken Dell Department of Planning City of Dacono 749 Main Street Planning Department Louisville, CO 80027 512 Cherry Avenue Dacono, CO 80514 Planning Director City of Thornton Planning Director City Development Department Town of Frederick 9500 Civic Center Drive Planning Department Thornton, CO 80229-4326 401 Locust Street P.O. Box 435 Bonnie Star Frederick, CO 80530 City of Lafayette Planning and Building Department Planning Director 1290 South Public Road City of Longmont Lafayette, Colorado 80026 Planning and Development Services 350 Kimbark Street Planning Director Longmont, CO 80501 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 • Page 2 of 3 Page D-242 • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Planning Jurisdiction Contacts • Distribution list for invitation letters to November 10,2004,Smart Growth Meeting,sent on September 23,2004(E-mail version of the invitation also sent to contacts with E-mail addresses). Planning Director Planning Director Town of Mead Town of Windsor Economic Development Planning Department 441 3rd Street 301 Walnut Street Mead, CO 80542 Windsor, CO 80550 Planning Director Planning Director Town of Platteville Town of Timnath Planning Department Planning Department 400 Grand Avenue 4100 Main Street Platteville, CO 80651 Timnath, CO 80547 Planning Director Planning Director Town of Gilcrest Town of Eaton Planning Department Planning Department 304 8th Street 223 First Street • Gilcrest, CO 80623 Eaton, CO 80615 Planning Director Planning Director City of Johnstown Town of Estes Park Planning Department Community Development Department 101 W Charlotte St Estes Park Municipal Building Johnstown, CO 80534 P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Ave Wayne Reed Estes Park, CO 80517 Town of Berthoud Planning Department 328 Massachusetts Ave PO Box 1229 Berthoud CO 80513 Jim Flesher City of Evans Planning and Zoning Department 1100 37th Street Evans CO 80620-2036 Planning Director City of Greeley Planning Division ]:LTransportaUon\071609.400\manage\corNurtsdiction 1100 10th Street, Suite 202 Contacts.doc Greeley, CO 80631 • Page 3 of 3 Page D-243 NORTH I-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES ,ntoimatloo cooperation rrarspolte oon Region 4 - Park and Ride Scoping Meeting MEETING DATE: March 27, 2006 LOCATION: Loveland Residency NFRMPO COOT: Dave Martinez, (various departments: traffic, maintenance, ATTENDEES: ROW, planning, utilities, materials, etc.) Larimer County Sheriff Weld County Sheriff PREPARER: Carter Burgess Julie Morrison COPIES: Attendees, C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY Introduction 400K in budget for entrancing pnr's (design and construction) • Resurfacing • Striping • Add lighting to SH 60 • Expand 402 (highest occupancy) All projects within CDOT PNR. Question/Answers: Q: Dave Martinez: What's the primary purpose? A: Resurfacing with expansion only at 402. Q: Well purpose is in question. We have house bill (HB 1310) money that could be applied to pnr's— but we haven't defined exactly what improvements should be—we need to figure out what best use of money is. Q: Is there any money coming from STP metro? • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-244 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information rnoperation transportation Region 4—Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 2of7 A: $96K of STP with part of$400K going to match —also asking for additional money. Through TAC—we want to try to make this a bigger, better project. Q: $20K to match $96K $60K for 119 cameras $96K from NFRMPO (surveillance camera) $320K for physical improvements $400K in House Bill 1310 (construction) Q: Who's doing surveillance? • A: That's why ITS and Sheriff's departments are here. Q: So someone's going to step up to do surveillance? A: CDOT Region 4 says will do the purchase of cameras and minor maintenance. Larimer and Weld will do data storage for reference. Put in network— capable DVR's recording back to a remote location — Its Center n Gooden isn't interested in monitoring. O: When you say CDOT ITS, doesn't want to, does that mean not ever? A: They don't want it— not interested in video, so monitoring would be by sheriff's and/or transit agencies. O: What is EIS looking at? A: Something much longer term. Q: But what about something in the near term? Commuter bus etc.? We could help find interim. A: Basically we just don't want to preclude a solution. • Page D-245 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES intommation_ cooperation transportation Region 4—Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 3 of 7 Q: Purpose of security is to catch people, not to deter them? A: Right, for the short term, but as we catch people there will be a deterrent. Q: How does it work functionally? A: With microwaves to different network hubs—the Ranch (Bud Center) and/or Larimer Co. Center. Q: What Does It Cost? A: $180K for 3 locations (camera, software, training hookups) But also with DDR—that cost will change as we implement a different network using an antenna. Q: So cameras will cost over$200k since the network sewing the site is a wild card? • A: Not necessarily because there were line items for light standards and other environmental protection—we wouldn't. Q: So the NFRMPO will pay what? A: 80% of costs at two sites. Q: What about wireless network? Would it handle the cameras? A: No— it can handle signs and ramp metering but can't handle video streaming— cameras would need separate system —fiber may be able to handle it all later. Q: So we'll do SH 119, 34 and 402? A: yes Q: Is crime happening at night? Is lighting an issue for effectiveness? A: It should be able to record at night,but most crime is happening during the day. O: Lights Costs? A: $13K per standard. • Q: So we should have extra lighting to enhance surveillance? Page D-246 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES Informniion cooperation iranspotation Region 4—Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 4of7 A: Yes— but lot layout affects what you can see. You'd want camera views to be parallel and not perpendicular. Q: So at 402 we have 2 light poles—we'd want to light access and express points. Q: For the capitol costs are costs in transmission equipment or the cameras? A: It's the transmission costs - ,,- is expensive. Q: Can cameras be used for broader area? Or microwave stations handle multiple cameras? A: The more equipment of any kind the higher the cost. • Q: So where are cameras? A: Three (3) at each location: 1) access 2) Lot itself 3) Q: Cost of$180 based on 3 cameras at 3 locations—total of 9 cameras—pole mounted — but camera type would change depending on input form county sheriffs. Q: What about light intensity? Do I need to check on that? A: Yes—will check with Shawn (CDOT) because lighting will determine camera effectiveness. Q: As far as safety at Harmony Transfer Center—how has it been? A: We're not sure—it may be that they already have issues on that. They're afraid of them —but transient bad guys don't know that it exists because it's off the freeway. Q: Would lighting help? • A: 90% of our crimes happen during the day time. Page D-247 NORTH I--2S EIS MEETING MINUTES Information_ cooperation. transportation Region 4—Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 5 of 7 Q: Looks like first priority should be security and not expansion. A: Well, NFRMPO's original proposal was to put in $340K to complement your efforts and we just lack information on where the money will go. Q: Do you have cots for each location? It might really help to know what an extra $250K could buy us. Q: There are 6 locations 1) 1 Upper front range (with cameras) 2) 5 NFRMPO (2 have cameras) We need these itemized to see needs and costs Q: So if you had $250K extra, what would you do with it? • A: 1) Resurfacing 2) Restriping 3) Expansion 4) Lighting Where this evolved from is that we were going to sweep and restripe but the pavement was so bad that we saw we needed to resurface....Then we thought if we're going to do this we should look at security and make the improvements that really nee to be made.... Q: What's the recommendation for 56? A: % inch overlay 2 inch overlay Curb repair(help with drainage and access control) Striping Look lighting, but probably no additional needed, Johnstown patrols it Crime is opportunity driven— if not high utilization, then not much crime. • Page D-248 NORTH I--25 EIS MEETING MINUTES in(o:maiuon croperauion. transportaf;or Region 4—Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 6 of 7 Q: What about SH 60? A: Access control —new curbs, lighting, resurface and restripe. Q: Do we have a pnr standard? Doe we need one? A: We may want to include ADA stalls at each one — it'd be good to note the standard and try to reach it over time. Q: Improvements to SH 402? A: Resurface Restripe Camera Expansion by 100' (about 20 stalls) Lighting • Look at circulation? Survey? Drainage? Protection (gate to stockpile to the south) Environmental? (this is an MS-4 area....stormwater? look at BMPs?) How could bus circulate through? I think future commuter bus improvements are outside the scope of this project, but should be considered as a future interim expansion? Q: What are improvements to 34? A: Interchange improvements will make it: • R-in, R-out, and L-in, no L-out • Expanded (lengthwise) but narrower—maintain existing capacity We'll add: surface Striping Lighting Cameras (will need 4) cover both access points signing • Q: What improvements to SH 392? Page D-249 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES mahon. coopeation transportation Region 4-Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 7 of 7 A: resurface Striping Q: Isn't Region 4 making improvements to what intersection? A: Yes, we're looking at it—have to use the dollars for safety because part of"hazard elimination program" Q: can we get an incident history of pnr's? A: Yes, can get that but not all of these get reported —and case numbers get duplicated when multiple break-ins happen on same car. Design will be to van vehicle standard and lighter—will no design to bus or -axle vehicles. Along interstate utilities only allowed between frontage road and fence line—only thing might run into is connecting lines — If you're adding lights, might need an extra or expanded service • center. Might be a good time to add conduit locations —fiber and utilities can't be in same conduit. Every light has a photo cell with 240 electrical services— may need additional service depending on camera and microwave network type. J:1_Transportation1071609.400Manage\mtgs\minutes\Region 4 parknride scoping meeting 32706.doc • Page D-250 NORTH 1-25 • EIS Meeting Minutes information. cooperation. transportation. To: North 1-25 EIS Project Management Team From: Jessica Woolery Date: October 17, 2006 Subject: Meeting Minutes, Tri-town meeting on S vs. V alignment Project Representatives: Paul Brown— Carter & Burgess Julie Walker— Carter & Burgess David Martinez— CDOT Steve Olson —CDOT Mindy Crane— CDOT Jessica Woolery— PRACO Holly Buck— FHU Long Nguyen —CDOT Wendy Wallach — Carter& Burgess Kim Podobnik— PRACO • Introductions: Dick Lefflen — City of Fredrick Karen Cumbo— City of Dacono Renee Witty— Carbon Valley Chamber of Commerce Glen Massarotti —City of Erie Cheryl Hauger—City of Erie Andrew Moore— City of Erie Mike Acimovic— City of Erie Derek Todd — City of Frederick Dennis Crock—City of Erie 1. Meeting Overview —David Martinez CDOT agrees with the consultant recommendation to go ahead with Alignment V. II. Information Review— Paul Brown A. Background - The first part of the packet is a review of the information that was shared TAC and this group in July. There was concurrence regarding portions of the alignments and further evaluations was requested or Alignments S & V. B. Goals— Connect Longmont to the FasTrack North Metro Corridor. RTD is currently has a consultant working on the EIS process for the North Metro Corridor and they are not as far along in the process as we are. i. Reduce out-of-direction travel C. Objectives — Minimize Travel, use existing corridors, and minimize • environmental impacts Page D-251 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Meeting Minutes information cooperation. transportation. D. Alignments Overview— No new issues have been identified and the Commuter Rail would go over I-25. i. Alignment S—along two subdivisions, Dacono Trail, alignment along WCR11 also identified. ii. Alignment V—along one subdivision, abandoned rail corridor, affect water pumping station. E. Base Analysis -Alignment S reaches more of the estimated 2030 population and employment. i. Environmental elements are balanced between S & V. ii. Alignment V has the shorter distance and travel time. iii. S was selected to move forward. III. Information from Small Group meeting A. Base analysis plus station area population within a 4 mile radius and employment radius within half a mile radius. i. With a full radius, Alignment V reaches more of the population and employment. ii. Within the North half-radius, Alignment S reaches more of the population and Alignment V reaches more of the employment. B. No final conclusion was reached. IV. Information after further review A. Alignment review of S, Smod (S along WCR 11) and V. Numbers are • rounded and not exact. i. Alignment V is in more of the transportation corridor with 95%. —S (55%), Smod (70%) ii. Smod and V are preferable because they do not run along the Dacono Trail as Alignment S would. Smod has four at-grade crossings. — S (3), V (5/3 reused). The actual grade of the crossings have not been done yet, but will be completed and documented in the DEIS. iv. Alignment V is preferable with affects to only one major utility station, the water pump station. — S (3), Smod (3). These utilities are would be major to relocate. They are not just lines that go across connecting to someone's house. B. Community Reviews of S, Smod & V. i. There is more interest from Municipal input for V. ii. Alignment V will affect only one existing subdivision vs. S & Smod affecting 2 existing subdivisions. iii. V will affect no permitted subdivisions and three pending. — S (6/10), Smod (4/6). • Q: When do CDOT policies consider land a subdivision? What if it is still Ag. Land, but person is planning to sell in the near future? o A: Land is not considered until it is plotted and in a certain part in the building permitting process. • Q: Are the number of dwellings in the subdivision evaluated? • Page D-252 q fifp g "t� L_.'•;C�_,, \) , - - �r��, ^T CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD °March 8, 2006 nir • One DesCombes Drive • Broomfield, CO 80020 • Phone. (303)469-3301 °otonisP Mr. Dave Martinez CDOT Engineering Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 RE: Broomfield Comments on Level Three Screening for the North I-25 EIS Dear Dave: Thank you for meeting with Broomfield staff representatives on February 23, 2006 to discuss the Level 3 DEIS Packages for the North 1-25 EIS. The purpose of this letter is to communicate the opportunities and issues these packages raise. 1. We appreciate that DEIS Package B: MT+ BRT includes a Bus Rapid Transit Station south of Highway 7. This is consistent with Broomfield's North I-25 Sub- Area Plan. 2. DEIS Package A: 6 GP+ WCR does not include BRT or Commuter Bus along North I-25. Since rail alternatives do not serve our community, we would like to see BRT included in any packages that move forward. 3. The December 14, 2005 Memorandum on Access Planning raises two issues. a) An interchange with Sheridan and I-25 is not included in the Preliminary Access ow,.-,s,r;E Planning Results. This interchange is included in Broomfield's plans and in the DRCOG 2030 Metro Vision Regional Roadway System (See attachment A). We tfr 1 request that the DEIS document acknowledge this interchange, acknowledging 4-3 klc'_ t..)pG that it is subject to the 1601 process. b) The Preliminary Access Plans recommend that the interchange of North I-25 and Highway 7 is reconstructed to an enhanced diamond configuration. We anticipate growth will demand more extensive improvements. As such, the DEIS should not preclude a revised 1601 for Highway 7 and 1-25 that would include the addition of cloverleaf ramps in the northwest and southeast quadrants and other improvements to facilitate traffic. We will continue to be active participants in the DEIS and appreciate the opportunity to provide input throughout the process. Sin l�3_t P k St DE — L.o o. O Souk( '; 'el— Stert10 .) Debra A. Baskett94 �7 Transportation Manager I - �ouLD M coast Ase Enc. A 5t.oD la L7' Cc: Kevin Standbridge, Assistant City Manager • Burt Knight, City Engineer Page D-253 CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD One DesCombes Drive • Broomfield,CO 80020 • Phone: (303)469-3301• March 30, 2006 Mr. Steve Olson CDOT Region 4 - Loveland Residency 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 RE: Access plans for State Highway 7 in Broomfield Dear Steve: Per you request, I'm sending some information that I hope will assist in your understanding of Broomfield's local assess planning along Highway 7. Some of it you may have seen before, but the three attachments relate to each other in level of detail. 1. 2030 Recommended Roadway Plan—this is a part of Broomfield's Comprehensive Plan, updated at the end of 2005. FHU was the contractor for this project. 2. SH7/I-25 Interchange Design Concept—I have provided this previously, and it provides a clear articulation of Broomfield's view of the ultimate reconstruction of the interchange. • 3. Exhibit M: Roadway Master Plan from the I-25 Sub-Area Plan. It is my understanding that a roadway connecting"S" and"PP" is not included in this plan, but planned by Broomfield as a road that would go under I-25. Please let me know if I can provide any clarification or further information. Sincerely, y, Debra A. Baskett Transportation Manager Enc. (3) • Page D-254 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,�. . Region Four • 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRAR rAna4 December 11, 2006 Mr. Burt Knight City and County of Broomfield One DesCombes Drive Broomfield, CO 80020 Re: CDOT's North Corridor Environmental Study and Basic Engineering -Design Assumptions used on Cross Streets Dear Mr. Knight; Attached please find the North Corridor Environmental Study's Technical Memorandum documenting design assumptions related to improvements/impacts of local roads crossing 1-25 from approximately US 36 toSH7. • One of the North Corridor alternatives that are being considered includes widening 1-25 to include managed lanes. This wider section of I-25 will require the reconstruction of some local roads crossing I-25. As part of the local agency coordination during this study,we are asking for your review of this document to verify that the assumptions made in developing the alternatives and identifying impacts associated with the alternative is consistent with the City and County of Broomfield's policy and criteria. Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you agree with our approach and criteria used for the City and County of Broomfield's roadways, please sign the attached letter and return to me. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lonq.Nquven(aldot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT),J. Schwab(COOT), S.Olson (COOT), M. Pavlik(FHWA), T.Anzia (FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-255 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Discuss Stations MEETING DATE: October 28, 2005 LOCATION: City of Fort Collins ATTENDEES: Fort Collins: Mark Jackson, Kathleen Bracke C&B: Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, Jennifer Merer Ccrt PREPARER: ertu ss Gina McAfee Attendees, Craig Gaskill, Chris Primus, Don Leidy, Tom Anzia, COPIES: Bob Felsburg Holly Buck, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist, Dave Martinez, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Julie Morrison went over the station area selection process and criteria (attached). 2. Mark Jackson pointed out that BRT will allow more stations in the more urbanized areas. 3. Kathleen suggested that for the Station Area Selection Process memo, the section regarding "Activity Centers" 3)b, should show CSU and Downtown Fort Collins combined as one line item. The Fort Collins South Transit Center should have been modeled with parking—the Harmony and Timberline station should also have included parking. We should have looked at Fort Collins'transit plans—the site that Fort Collins is looking at is as close as Fort Collins could come to being at Harmony and College. We need to work with Chris to determine what type of ridership impact this lack of parking might have. 4. What about BRT along 287? The BRT should be in a dedicated guideway along Mason/BN—from Prospect to Harmony. The Mason Transportation Corridor(MTC) project is in an approved plan for Fort Collins. It was adopted by the City Council in October 2000. Funding for the MTC project has been received via the NFR MPO from FHWA/CDOT, as well as local funding. Fort Collins has spent a lot of money showing the bus service along 287 does not work. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-256 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Discuss Stations October 28, 2005 2 of 2 5. We need to get back with Fort Collins regarding: • Revising our South Transit station to be the same as the Mason BRT South Transit station. • The dot for Harmony needs to be moved. • How we will treat BRT along Mason. (Action: Bob F.) 6. For a CRMF, their recommendation is to expand the CDOT/city maintenance site,which is located near the intersection of Vine Drive/Lemay Avenue—it is publicly owned, on the rail spur. 7. For the BMF, we need to assume the Transfort site. • 8. We may want to assume that commuter bus also operates on the Mason Transportation Corridor. 9. Harmony is also identified by the City as an "enhanced travel corridor." 10. We should check our No-Action network again. Some of the Fort Collins projects are not funded and others are. (Action: Holly) 11. TAC meetings are good for receiving information from the project team, but not so good at giving detailed information to the team. As we are developing the DEIS alternatives, we should set up meetings with city staff to get their detailed input on the drawings. This can include public works and planning people. (Action: Tom and Holly) ]:_Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\statlons mtg_102H05Igj.aa • Page D-257 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. BNRR Screening for BRT MEETING DATE: December 15, 2005 LOCATION: SW Weld County Services Building Fort Collins: Kathleen Bracke and Mark Jackson ATTENDEES: FHU: Tom Anzia C&B: Craig Gaskill and Paul Brown PREPARER: Carter:Burgess Craig Gaskill COPIES: Attendees, Gina McAfee, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist, Dave Martinez, Carol Pan-, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Background: • The North 1-25 project team had previously screened out BRT on the BNRR freight rail corridor. This was conducted during development of alternatives leading into Level 2 evaluation. The primary reason for the screening was comparative safety concerns in mixing freight rail traffic with an adjacent bus system. • Fort Collins is proposing a BRT system on the existing Mason Transportation Corridor. The Mason Transportation Corridor includes the BNRR freight rail tracks. Fort Collins has reached an agreement with the BNRR that safety is adequate with the adjacent BRT. • The North 1-25 project team includes the same firms that worked for Fort Collins in developing the Mason Transportation Corridor. The North 1-25 project team felt that the slower speed and urban rail in Fort Collins was sufficiently different that the higher speed, more rural BNRR corridor south of Fort Collins to justify a different conclusion on safety. This is consistent with other freight rail corridors, including the Union Pacific rail line between Denver and DIA currently being studied as part of the East Corridor EIS. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-258 NORTH I-25 MI EIS MEETING MINUTES information- cooperation. transportation. BNRR Screening for BRT December 15, 2005 2of2 2. Discussion: • The City of Fort Collins believes the recommendation to screen out BRT on the BNRR corridor is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Mason Transportation Corridor and will undermine the ability to move the Mason Transportation Corridor forward. This resulted in the following discussion points. - Suggestion to conduct further evaluation of the BRT on BNRR alternative, given the new information, and determine if this alternative would still be screened out, and if so, why. — Suggestion to compare the BRT on BNRR alternative with the Commuter Rail on BNRR alternative. If BRT compares poorly with Commuter Rail and Commuter Rail is screened out in level 3, BRT would likely be screened out for similar reasons (and not the safety issue). • - Provide language in the EIS that allows BRT on the BNRR to be considered in the future (for different needs). The EIS analysis had identified unmet local transit needs along the US 287/BNRR corridor, outside of the North 1-25 project needs. Due to limited time for this meeting, it was agreed that a follow-up meeting would be set up by Tom Anzia. A resolution will be developed using input from the December 15 TAC and CAC meetings and subsequent Level 3 screening. JA_Transportatlon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\BNRR screening_121505lgt.doc • Page D-259 NORTH 1-25 EIS February 19. 2008 Craig Foreman Park Planning and Development City of Fort Collins 413 South Bryan Street Fort Collins. CO 80521 RE' North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Spring Creek Trail Dear Mr. Foreman. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people. goods. and services in the I-25 corridor The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility. accessibility, safety. and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25. as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth • Two multi-modal build packages. Package A and Package B, are being evaluated. as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening, tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail. commuter bus. and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments The proposed improvements in Package A (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the Spring Creek Trail. These improvements include an additional railroad track, adjacent to the existing railway. necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Spring Creek Trail. and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions, and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below Condition (i) Duration must be temporary. i.e.. less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land • Page D-260 V,:ICI Ili=� Letter of Concurrence, Spring Creek Trail Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor. I e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A calls for the construction of an additional railroad track To accommodate this construction the underpass will require lengthening_ which will have no impact on the trail alignment Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts. nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource. on either a temporary or permanent basis CDOT will provide detours with signage for the duration of the trail closures The map and narrative description (Attachment B) Illustrate the proposed detour outes Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored. i.e . the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthened underpass the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State. or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions Should you. or others in your department. have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach, Senior Project Manager. at 303-820-4807. or wendy,wallach @jacobscor Sincerely. Cc. Project file • Page D-261 I h- • Lh Letter of Concurrence, Spring Creek Trail Attachment A: Package A, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND C•rrect •e•metric eeuiv 1 New General Purpose(GP)Lane in Each 1 .etl Clel1 CIeS Direction I I an• re•lacea•in• W'"°° . 1 New General Purpose(GP)Lane + ft. .".., infrastructure Auxiliary Lane in Each Direction (/••'� -�'- Commuter Rail (CR) inn Commuter Bus (CB)Service in General O I Purpose Lanes and Oue Jumps :- :; - Feeder Bus Service ° Fort yl coffin �5 C, Interchange Upgrades •• IDNumber of Lanes • (_7 Commuter Bus Station Stop w...... Commuter Rail Station FasTracks Rail Line Gfeetey, �� (� FasTracks Transit Station LOVE hd � '+.,Y..„.....- il El Potential Commuter Rail Operational 8 ,. +^ ° Maintenance Facility xn..u... l Potential Commuter Bus Operational & g Maintenance Facility u.. r: • Congestion Management .,." ro r - Measures could include: -New local transit routes - New express transit routes kr- - r - Enhanced carpool lot parking capacity and amenities jam' t., - Courtesy patrol (incident man- ti 65 agement) from SH 14 to SH 7 - -Variable messaging signs at '8' il'scil all transit stations `` ,0` - - -Automated Vehicle Locators on ` .,., all transit vehicles - next bus" ° technology a,,,- as ; Ramp meter.ng and var.ab'e , e.:._nnerm * .u4. messag ng signs at selected 36 t,.i• • * - „ „— - interchanges „ ii • - Access management along Northwest-- \ Right-of-Way US 85 Corridor Rail° Preservation EA 70 - Continuous 'Inks to local bl ke Im•lement ' .•• and pedestrian system; N. •Cti•n ;North Metro - Support for de:elopment of a pit m.tive • ». � Corridor Transportation Management •ejects ice. '' isasa Organization (TMO) , ' NOTE: i S - Y , . -Select sections of I-25 would require auxd a v lanes and or an -^'---V, additional through lane in addition to this 5 are cross section • x}° Where vadenrnq is needec between SH 66 and St l 7 the nierlan - would be used • i Page D-262 0 I I, Letter of Concurrence, Spring Creek Trail Attachment B: Detour Map and Description 4. ' -, L GE'4D : :.77----,*. ` 441.9 t"+G "f 'a$ 5'4 k 4 g i Y -`a ' at I N 4.• ++ : . , r* +k.xr r , r ¢ p • c"`"4"1*'''.'-..; dr�rs� � ta'i+ yT? , , _ 0 k h It-`;;`' 0 I, r' : `l,7,', ,y rent ci4,7„ 4.4 mr �. ' M C. i' AuL Ott*Ili w?¢f . ,Zf g . ' .114.10*. }• ( s§ -4;00=7• f 'I Y �, t r 4? --; W .,f 4 E "� p▪ Y r . 1 � rpf., , -1:, a • �' 4 , .t •n_.I s4 F' 4. ^s• S. w 19;1: k ,. ..,•,,t. t "_ t rlr -ai � x t 2 4 y. 7 �+ iu+ j V 4 1+6.�f '744,1 • ..t.' t 1-..4. .; ‘...,:,..4 v.₹ _� l'...,‘ • may* wF.�Cr +. -RBIc,"4 �. '.. - a • ..%Ct ',TAIL .7..{ � XiYr "# q' • r Il t y g ,`1, ry 5 . % t- ' t?"*.t Sir 1°5e `, j t ¢ I } r t•I ,:*(7 41`17!' ie: ', fa ' b i ..`P aar{ T,.. r, e .4;4.. 1al < 'Spring Creek Trail 't ,` Yom`„.,_ 4 !r e n d : t„„iL ., _ !L /`:11.4.-,,'=:"' ay. P ° a., • I', I ,r,==;t iyp.:7,74: , +r ',.:544.;;,'/ Yj� x rLyA i"s +'Y td 6 vi ! 1 7,E ¢r1 r;. '� k y �` , ti it a 9 p P L 4 - I%! 43. e 3 ar e + t. . 74..44 A'- _. .., .a-,i.i tT'�r The detour will require trail users to take Centre Avenue north to Lake Street. then east until Remington Street and back south to reconnect with Spring Creek Trail This detour takes advantage of on-street cycling facilities with the exception of a single block between College Avenue and Remington Street Please advise if alternative detours routes exist that you would prefer. • a Page D-263 NORTE 1125 US February 19. 2008 Craig Foreman Park Planning and Development City of Fort Collins 413 South Bryan Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17'Street. Suite 2300 Denver. CO 80202 RE. Letter of Concurrence North I-25 EIS and the Spring Creek Trail Dear Ms. Wallach. Based on the provided information the City of Fort Collins finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Fort Collins concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Spring Creek Trail in regard to the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement. • Printed Name. - ; L / - Date. '/✓,/; Signature. `• -1, . . . • Page D-264 Noa-c Fi 1-25 EIS February 19. 2008, Craig Foreman Park Planning and Development City of Fort Collins 413 South Bryan Street Fort Collins. CO 80521 RE: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Fossil Creek Drive Trail Dear Mr Foreman, The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile I-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people. goods, and services in the I-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility. accessibility, safety. and aging infrastructure problems along I-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support • economic growth. Two multi-modal build packages. Package A and Package B. are being evaluated. as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening, tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail commuter bus. and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package A (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the proposed Fossil Creek Drive Trail. These improvements include an additional railroad track. adjacent to the existing railway, necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Fossil Creek Drive Trail, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy' as defined by Section 4(f) of the U S Department of Transportation Act of 1965 To be classified as such five specific conditions must be satisfied These conditions. and CDOT's efforts to meet them. are outlined below- Condition (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e.. less than the time needed for construction of the project. and there should be no change in ownership of the land The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will he no change in ownership of the land • Page D-265 V'r.Rllll-25 Llti Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor i e.. both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A calls for the construction of an additional railroad track To accommodate this construction the underpass will require lengthening. which will have no impact on the trail alignment Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource. on either a temporary or permanent basis. COOT will provide detours. with signage. for the duration of the trail closures. The map and narrative description (Attachment B) illustrate the proposed detour routes Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i e.. the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthened underpass. the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal. State. or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. Should you, or others in your department. have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach, Senior Project Manager, at 303-820-4807. or wendy.wallach(@jacobs.com. Sincerely. Cc- Project file • Page D-266 • N, P.Ill ii) h Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail Attachment A: Package A, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND (:•rreCt •e•metric ....444 1 New General Purpose(GP)Lane in Each •etl Llencies Direction le an• re•laee a•in• `• 1 New General Purpose(GP)Lane+ • • infrastructure Auxiliary Lane in Each Direction Ili O ..- Commuter Rail (CR) I corn Commuter Bus(CB)Service in General ( ' C ...it Purpose Lanes and Due Jumps ' Feeder Bus Service Fort Grillo'" Interchange Upgrades I, cal • ••0 1 © Number of Lanes 411 • _-_ Commuter Bus Station Stop "set r1.n>o, Commuter Rail Station °¢` '-. ._ Greeley FasTracks Rail Line - G FasTracks Transit Station Loved `/:S�, o 13 j Potential Commuter Rail Operational A Maintenance Facility o, .. 1(Ix.0 �,• O Potential Commuter Bus Operational & Maintenance Facility ..m••• • i.�...0 Congestion Management Measures could include: :f New local transit routes Y New express transit routes ,.'` Vt- Enhanced carpool lot parking rlk q� capacity and amenities .I A li Courtesy patro. !incident man- 1, agement) from SH 14 to SH 7 -Vanaole messaging signs at ti all trans,t stations <> -Automated Vehicle Locaters on -` all trans vehicles - next bus • technology ac -Ramp metering arid variable tBane me Rd ` message g signs at selected ,• 4 • - - �.— interchanges '.-.` d ,f - --- -- -Access management along Northwest r • e .Right-ol-Way US 85 .Corridor Rad' """:, •e• \ „ Preservation sou - Continuous links to local Dke /, y Im•lement ..•,�.� r ._-L and pedestrian systems N. Ael'1•n r—al _North Metro - Support for development of a Alt rnativp .- y I • ¶ , ' Corridor Transportation Management -e Organization (TMO) CI '. NOTE: A ., elect sections of 1-25 wo ld quire auxiliary i la es and ran hilil add tonal through lane in addition to this r inite cross scssection -Allier c sdening is needed between SH 66 and SI i 7 the median vcn_dd he used • Page D-267 1rklli I_'s I Is Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail Attachment B: Detour Map and Description! raar'F4t '41-.4‘.4,-,. � !ii i err I #q a f v 4r fi � , r s i # F n4 �a<+1 , rs3+ .};} in.' 4�t aA, . Mitt M, r5 y1 �Ae r '4 f r t r s el :,y. Y J (_ , r 4 e1'xFx :- J d R'L 'T� 1 l v tr pt , r ,. ` cr7 s w a�.lC r $ civrl'e. ' -47'10:;,0:14,i,:,0 r•;;;;7:4.44it- *r3°➢�L.�s,� $ Jf v')-I l '4 i1 ,$1 T'"�i Iir}'4 .. ' -,e^r-3r I 1 t TM [ ' "+ .•"•`=Y"yr�::x rh,o'sr �}^^.sYir '..\•:,;*'kk..'.e' aw ,yam yf, r 141,1 ' ,p. 4. rt :) y{+� E ''e 's •i<s... tiL• +t r i �^�yV yy SA ACMgk ,,,:-.• .#. t1_.1 £ 4"`1` Y } e y (�y, - v, $,;524,4 r ,, Nx:: a fi .. P. 3 y `r 'x� it.,/- ,* ,:tit,\'', Fossil Creek Drive Trad ]iT" "r"`#' ,4a,„,,,,e!!1:44s,:!car It F " d i},t x. uMK*, irsa%as 4inz vv `", , -�r'��`le a T""'5Y -•! s '''',1'.1:441'14 r This detour will require trail users tor take Shields Street north to Harmony Road. then head east until Mason Street. Al which point trail users will travel south on Mason Street until they reach Fossil Creek Trail. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • 4 Page D-268 NoRn i 1-25 EIS February 19 2008 Craig Foreman Park Planning and Development City of Fort Collins 413 South Bryan Street Fort Collins. CO 80521 Wendy Walled) Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17`"Street. Suite 2300 Denver. CO 80202 RE Letter of Concurrence North 1-25 EIS and the Spring Creek Trail Dear Ms Wallach. Based on the provided information the City of Fort Collins finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus. the City of Fort Collins concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Spring Creek Trail in regard to the North I-25 Environmental • Impact Statement. Printed Name i Signature .� -" • .. • Page D-269 F TOWN OF FREDERICK O 401 LOCUST STREET• P.O. BOX 435 • FREDERICK, CO 80530-0435 • PHONE: (303)833-2388• FAX: (303)833-3817 August 10,2006 Mr. David M. Martinez, P.E. CDOT Engineering Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Mr.Martinez maw`if or 0111°4 The Town of Frederick has been involved in the North 1-25 EIS from the beginning and appreciates the opportunity to participate in this project that is vital to the Town and Northern Colorado in shaping the future of transportation for the region. The Town continues to be supportive of the transit options being considered in the EIS and has included provisions for transit oriented design opportunities in recent discussions with developers of property located near the intersection of State Highway 52 and CR 13 (Colorado Blvd extended north from the Denver metro area). Options for shared parking with commercial centers and regional trail connections are examples of these discussions. The developers of these properties have been cooperative and receptive to these concepts. The Town is very excited about the options for commuter rat that are proposed to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). This letter is being provided to voice the Town of Frederick's strong support for the r ewmmended Alignment S for the connection between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. Town staff has discussed this • issue with the Board and provided information related to the recent meetings that have been held. It is the Town's opinion that this Alignment S is the best option for the region considering existing development,current development proposals, and future land uses as depicted in adopted comprehensive land use plans. We understand that concerns about potential impacts to future trails and subdivisions have been expressed and note that these were already identified in the study that led to the recommended alternative. The reality is that any of the alignments studied will pass through areas that are planned for subdivisions. It is our opinion that the impacts to adjacent development will be relatively similar in type and magnitude, whether it is 2 or 3 large developments or 7 or 8 smaller ones. Like any option for a major transportation improvement,there are going to be conflicts associated with the best of alignments. Actually one of the environmental impacts noted for Alignment S was a Census Identified Minority Population in Section 35,T2N, R68W,for property that is owned by the Kent Nelson family, a well respected local family. This entire section is owned by the Nelsons, is annexed and zoned,and includes one uninhabited house on the property. It is the Town Board's position that the selection of Alignment S as the rewrnmend connection was made using appropriate criteria and a process that was developed after months of involvement by all interested parties, and that this remains the best option. We would be available and certainly want to be included in any further discussions regarding this issue. While refinements to the EIS can and should be made where clearly warranted, it is not appropriate to redo the study because it yields an answer that is not what some parties may prefer for their individual purposes. The Town of Frederick strongly recommends that Alignment S move forward as the recommended alignment for further consideration in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. II E E. Doering, ayor elt—a--.---------1?)/7 Page D-270 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A•" OT Region 4 '� • 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 Si= OUARTMFM OF TRANSPORTATION November 7, 2006 Mr. Eric E. Doering, Mayor Town of Frederick 401 Locust Street PO Box 435 Frederick, CO 80530-0435 Re: North I-25 EIS Commuter Rail Alignment Evaluation Dear Mr. Doering: The North I-25 EIS team has reviewed your letter of August 10, 2006 and input received from the Town of Frederick at our meetings on July 26, 2006 and October 13, 2006 regarding the potential commuter rail alignment between Longmont and Thornton. At the most recent meeting, the Town requested further information regarding the more detailed evaluation of • Alignments S and V resulting in the recommendation of Alignment V. The attached table summarizes the information that changed as a result of the more detailed evaluation. As this table shows, we have confirmed the accuracy of our data and our conclusion to move ahead with Alignment V. We have also included the full technical analysis of the alignments for your information. Although the team is aware of the Town's support for Alignment S, we are moving forward with Alignment V for the DEIS analysis based on the more detailed evaluation. The Town will have further opportunities for input during the review of the DEIS and during the FEIS process. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerell�y,,ig nA I/ David M. Martinez CDOT R-4,Project Manager Cc: Town of Firestone Town of Erie Town of Dacono J:\_Transportation\071609.400\manage\mmwgency\martinet Itr 110206.doc • Page D-271 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Meeting Minutes information. cooperation. transportation. To: North I-25 EIS Project Team From: Lindsey Larson Date: March 13, 2006 Subject: Draft Meeting Minutes: US 34 Interchange Planning with the City of Loveland February 22, 2006 at CDOT R4, Loveland Introductions and Discussion Project Team: City of Loveland: Tom Anzia, FHU Dave Klockeman, Loveland City Engineer Jeanne Sharps, FHU Keith Reester, Loveland Public Works Todd Frisbie, FHU Phil Weisbaud, Loveland Program Manager Bob Garcia, CDOT Steve Olson, CDOT Others: Lindsey Larson, PRACO Steve Pouliat, Wilson and Company Scott Waterman,Wilson and Company US 34 and 1-25 Interchange and North 1-25 EIS Concerns Keith Reester, Loveland Public Works: • • In context of EIS, US 34 is a critical interchange. o Loveland is in the 1601 process for Interim upgrades. o Fully directional interchange seen at US 34 and I-25 is documented in plans. o Loveland has annexed three-quarters of interchange corners. • The US 34 and 1-25 interchange must be supported by business community. o Fully directional makes no provision for businesses abutting US 34 and 1-25. • By the time money is approved, this interchange will be an urban interchange like 120th Ave. • If ROD or DEIS indicates business closings, Loveland will not give support. • Many regional studies are ongoing. • o What can we do to get buy in from communities on your project? • Loveland has more extensive parallel and arterial road networks in its plan —driven by developers. • Community very concerned about impacts on homes and businesses. o Mitigation taken very seriously. • When will we leave the Interim state and have CDOT"come to the table"? o After the Interim ends, there will be pressure to mainline 1-25 and fix SH 392 and other interchanges; US 34 won't be fixed for a long time. • All major Loveland arterials are state and federally owned. o Biggest issue is fixing US 34 between US 287 and 1-25. • Loveland and CDOT should find long term solution at interchange. o Perhaps a partial clover would be functional in 2030. • Federal Highway Administration -Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-272 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Taxpayer money must be invested wisely. o If 100 percent of Interim is gone in 2030, that is unacceptable. • To leverage safety issues, there may also be an opportunity to fix capacity issues, but not through regulation. • CDOT approach is that of a safety issue. As a Separate Action, capacity enhancements are just a benefit. • Don't know what the ultimate interchange looks like today. o Interim must continue and hopefully be integrated within the ultimate. • As a local agency taking on the improvements for a state and federal highway, it is frustrating to see the money pot continue to grow, but Loveland doesn't see any of the funds. o Allard was going to earmark $2 million, but we may not be able to use it. • Request for"contact-sensitive" design in EIS. • CR 5 was inexplicably linked to US 34 and 1-25, and the same for Rocky Mountain. If you build an interchange at US 34, you need them at CR 5 and Rocky Mountain. Dave Klockeman, Loveland City Engineer. • Interim improvements at US 34 and 1-25 are undeniably necessary—and soon —so pulling the plug on the Interim isn't an option. • The North 1-25 EIS process from Level 3 to DEIS alternatives was great. • Memo from Todd lists US 34/1-25 as fully directional: how did you get there? • • Loveland is not tied to the lifestyle center at US 34 and 1-25: it's more regional because of growth in other cities. • Especially on the west side of 1-25, we don't see how a fully directional interchange will work. o Looked at partial clover at Centerra. o US 34 access plan shows it as an ultimate interchange. • Maybe a partial clover/fully directional hybrid will work? • Interim solutions should meet the current need to improve safety. • Communication is key: continue to tell us what's going on. Phil Weisbaud, Loveland Program Manager: • 1-25 is being used as a regional arterial, rather than what it was originally intended for. • Had thought CDOT didn't want to put any money into Interim improvements because after 2030 the interchange will be blown away to resemble the"ultimate interchange." • We want to know that we can move forward with the Interim and a Separate Action and see what the EIS team can do with it. • The key to separate action justification: is that it rests on its own merit and fixes the current problem. • Where are the problem spots? How can we modify the interchange so that we can live with the modifications in the long term? CDOT: • CDOT is very aware of local access issues at US 34 and 1-25. • We may need to step back from highway interchanges and look at local road networks. • Concerning long term access at US 34, wish to remain consistent with design plans. • o Wants exchange to learn about other's US 34 goals. • We may evaluate several interchange alternatives for US 34 and 1-25 in the DEIS. • We are beginning to-discuss phased ROD With FHWA. Page D-273 NORTH 1-25 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. o US 34 and 1-25 will probably be fixed sooner than later. • CDOT wants a travel demand sensitive interchange. • Can't see widening 1-25 to 6 lanes without full interchange improvements. o We would like the interchange to be at LOS C or D, but under the NEPA process the environmental impacts would be too great. • A compromise/happy medium is needed between No Action alternative and fully directional. o People will become "polarized." • Alternatives need to remain realistic in terms of needs as seen through traffic modeling. • To make the long term plan work, what can be salvaged in the Interim? o Nothing, if Interim involves substandard loops. • A planning consensus and realistic alternatives are essential. Bob Garcia, CDOT: • What can be salvaged from the Interim improvements? If the Interim involves loops, nothing can be salvaged: loops are sub-standard designs. • We recommend Loveland cancel the Interim and wait until the EIS ends, then go to the MPO for support. • In the Interim, CDOT does not plan on partnering or participating in funding. • Urban vs. Rural: o CDOT wants to retain a rural feel along north 1-25, but certain areas are exceptions, such as US 34 and 1-25. Tom Anzia, FHU: • • Focus needs to shift to access issues. o Multiple interchange meetings will try to address these issues. • Necessity for a reasonable range of interchange alternatives, not just ones that rely solely on local roads and access. • Are we going to coordinate or isolate? • Interim improvements have a purpose and a life. o Despite the fact that it is separate from EIS purpose and need is important. o Meeting before March 15 to sit and look at movement numbers and issues of access is critical. Todd Frisbie, FHU traffic engineer: • Parallel road network can reduce traffic on 1-25 by 15-20 percent. • Traffic numbers: o Model run with parallel arterials and six lanes on 1-25. o Doubling of traffic over next 25 years. • Partial clover doesn't work; ramps fail. • Would be well over 1,000 vehicles per hour. • LOS E but if we take it to a higher-level design criteria, LOS could increase. • Additional lanes on US 34 would make Interim partial clover work better and longer. • Six lanes, with aux lanes, on 1-25: o Loveland asked what the LOS would be at the US 34 interchange, as well as with six lanes on US 34. • • Six lanes on US 34: o Interim becomes part of our No Action in the EIS and ROD. Page D-274 NORTH I--2S • EIS MEETINGMINUTES information. cooperation. transportation CONCEPTUAL DESIGN MEETING DATE: May 31, 2006 LOCATION: FHU ATTENDEES: See Sign in Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig—Jeanne Sharps MEETING PURPOSE: I-25/US 34 Interchange Meeting MEETING SUMMARY A meeting was held on May 31, 2006 with CDOT, the City of Loveland, FHU and Wilson &Co. to discuss the I-25/US 34 Interchange layout concepts previously developed, and to decide on a reasonable interchange concept to advance in the DEIS. Following is a brief summary of decisions/agreements made on further development of the I- • 25/US 34 interchange layout for the NI-25 DEIS: 1. Design Parameters - Minimum LOS • For NI-25 EIS the minimum LOS should be = or> D (approved by EOC) • City of Loveland minimum LOS = or> C. • If the achieving a LOS = C or greater for mainline 1-25 and/or US 34 involves minimal construction costs, make the design changes necessary to achieve the higher LOS. - Directional ramp grades should be <or=4%. - Directional ramp design speed should be > or= 45 mph. - Ramp terminal spacing and weave distances should be in accordance with AASHTO specifications. 2. Access Requirements - Full/direct access—signalized: • 1-25 to/from Rocky Mountain Avenue and LCR 5 via US 34 • US 34 to/from Rocky Mountain Avenue, LCR 5 and LCR 3 - Full/direct access—directional ramps: o 1-25 to/from US 34 - Restricted access— right-in/right-out • US 34 to/from LCR 3E (only if possible) • Federal Htglnvay Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J 03125 02.MINUTES(NON-COMM ITEE)i1NGINEERMGICDM Conceptual Design Mmingsi053106-US 33 CAN-053106 doc Page D-275 NORTH I--25 MEETING MINUTES EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. I-25/US 34 Interchange Meeting May 31,2006 Page 2 of 2 3. DEIS I-25/US 34 Proposed Interchange System Concept - Separate 1-25 to/from US 34 traffic movements between "business access" and "bypass". - US 34 traffic between RMA and LCR 5 will be separated into business (inside) and bypass (outside) lanes. - US 34 bypass lanes will not be continuous between 1-25 off/on ramps; this will eliminate the need for a 5th level at I-25 and US 34. - US 34 through traffic will go on the business lanes (through signals). - 1-25 to/from US 34 business lanes will be via ramps with signalized ramp terminal intersections at US 34. - 1-25 to/from US 34 bypass lanes will be via directional ramps. - US 34 & RMA and US 34 &LCR 5 will be grade separated using SPUI interchanges (US 34 over RMA and LCR 5). - US 34 and LCR 3 will be grade separated with a modified off-set diamond interchange (off set ramps required because of UPRR crossing of LCR 3). - US 34 will be grade separated at the UPRR west of LCR 3. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-276 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I . O Region Four • 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 D@ARTNe(T OF TRANSPORTATION December 11, 2006 Mr. Heath W. Klein City of Northglenn P.O. Box 330061 Northglenn, CO 80233-8061 Re: CDOT's North Corridor Environmental Study and Basic Engineering—Design Assumptions used on Cross Streets Dear Mr. Klein; Attached please find the North Corridor Environmental Study's Technical Memorandum documenting design assumptions related to improvements/impacts of local roads crossing 1-25 from approximately US 36 to SH 7. • One of the North Corridor alternatives that are being considered includes widening 1-25 to include managed lanes. This wider section of 1-25 will require the reconstruction of some local roads crossing 1-25. As part of the local agency coordination during this study,we are asking for your review of this document to verify that the assumptions made in developing the alternatives and identifying impacts associated with the alternative is consistent with the City of Northglenn's policy and criteria. Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you agree with our approach and criteria used for the City of Northglenn's roadways, please sign the attached letter and return to me. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lonp.Npuven(d)dot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT), J. Schwab(CDOT), S.Olson (CDOT), M. Pavlik(FHWA),T. Anzia(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-277 •1 °a � = Yls �„..Y NORTH 25 FRONT RANGE EIS Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 Front Range E IS Purpose: Meeting with Northglenn to Discuss G rant Park Date Held: March 30, 2007 Location: City of Northglenn Attendees: see attached Copies: Attendees, Carol Parr, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison,Thor Gjelsteen, Gina M cAfee, Jim Clarke, Jeff Kloska(Region 6), Justin Werdel, File 071609.400 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Introductions were made.Wendy gave an overview of the project including project limits and • improvements proposed under the No-Action Altemative, Package A and Package B. The Preferred Alternative may be a combination of certain components of each of the packages. Nothing has been decided at this tim e. 2. The City asked when the document would be available for public review. This is anticipated to be June or July of 2008. The City asked if we had any idea about cost. Long Nguyen answered that it could be greater than $1 bill ion but it is difficult to tell since a preferred alternative will not be selected as a part of DEIS. 3. Wendy briefly covered NEPA requirements and Section 4(f) requirements. 4. Wendy explained that Grant Park was I isted as a park which could be potentially affected in the project area. According to discussions with Jim Urland, the Park Supervisor, the park is used for drainage and it has an adjacent bike trail. The City added that that there is a lot of bike traffic on the trail through the park. There are also benches in the park, as well as a picnic area. The City indicated they do consider it to be a "significant park." 5. Wendy said one purpose for the meeting was to discuss anticipated impacts in the vicinity of Grant Park. There are some improvements proposed for the roadway close to Grant Park which will temporarily impact a portion of the trail. This portion of the trail to be impacted is within CDOT right-of-way and wil I be replaced in kind when constructio n is completed. The original design impacted homes in the subdivisions near Grant Park in order to accommodate the water quality ponds. The project team found these impacts to be unacceptable and investigated other water quality pond locations in the vi cinity. Grant Park has been proposed as a place for these. The City agreed that placing the water quality • ponds in Grant Park is more desirable than impacting homes in the nearby subdivision. Page D-278 • Meeting Minutes—North I-25 City of Northglenn Meeting 03/30/07 page 2 6. The meeting was turned over to Ed Lind, the drainage engineer to talk m ore about the need for ponds. He said that Northglenn is i n a Phase 2 MS4 area and CDOT has Phase I requirements. This requires 80% treatment of total suspended solids and 100%WQ capture. 7. The team explored several options for containing water in this area. Option 1 had im pacts to homes and impacts to the mall. They are instead proposing to put water quality ponds in nearby infields and Grant Park. Northglenn asked how the sub-basins were broken down? These areas are indicated on the map(attached). 8. Northglenn asked "who would be responsible for maintenance"? Long answered CDOT. 9. Northglenn said they do not want standing water clos e to a trail and prefer a dry alternative. There were two pond locations proposed in Grant Park. One of the ponds is on top of a 42" sewer line and would need to be m oved. Northglenn wil I provide FHU with utility information in Cadd and GIS. 10. Urban Drainage just improved the channel throug h the park from 1-25 to Grant Street in January of 2006, there are mitigation wetlands for this project in Gra nt Park that we need to avoid. 11. David Allen asked if the ponds could be placed south of 104"'. This area is near a • topographic high and would be inef fective as a pond location. 12. The City would like to be sure to maintain recreation in the park. The pond could be designed as a water quality feature and as an amenity. Additional coordination with the city would be necessary for the potential realignment of the trail resulting from the proposed water quality ponds. 13. As far as mitigation, the city would like to suggest the pond at Washington Street as a possibility, since it is already over detained. They also have concerns at 120th and 1-25 near the Ramada Inn. They would like to discuss this with CDOT. 14. Scout Park is another park in the vicinity that we should be aware of. The City is currently replatting this, and the boundaries are going to be changed by the end of the month. Currently it is open to the public, used by the Boy scouts frequently, and has an archery range. 15. FHU is going to propose new pond locations on site,which won't interfere with utilities. They will present the revised plan to Northglenn for review. Northglenn has also requested to see other water quality ponds as a result o f the North 1-25 project. 16.Wendy Wallach is to follow up with the City(Travis Reynolds)to review the boundaries of Scout park and the amenities associated with the park. • ]:\Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\northglenn ww5_07(revised)mtg minutes.doc Page D-279 L a _ , ,4 ,.). N _ i ti cp ...._ si. N V") J J so r c to Ns %z G ..° z 1 is Q �s n Ta -Z 1 Y W` z-' Q) '? V ms's kt a A �7 i 2 = a oc 6)c ,,„ r Ec L. n `° c C CI $ d a N e- r TiM O • t ccif, E z C + �r + Z o ,r. .2 co lj[ cQ 3 � �j v 1 r I 4. -Fb m m 2 LL p ill E 2 g ? ? 5- i 9 Z `' A X. ii__) Ai 'J i �P ,Ei k 3,,, j q N 6 • Page D-280 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Into,matron cooperator' transportation EMIT Results Meeting MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 LOCATION: Carter& Burgess, Inc. COOT: Long Nguyen, Justin Werdez C&B: Wendy Wallach ATTENDEES: FHU: Kendra Gabbed, Ed Lind Northglenn: Joliette Woodson, Travis Reynolds, Kurt Kowar, Pam Acre PREPARER: Carter Burgess Wendy Wallach Attendees, Carol Parr, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Bob Garcia, COPIES: Dave Martinez, C&B File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Introductions were made: 2. Grant Park did a detailed grading plan. There is a line from the middle of 1-25 down extending east through the park. On the north side of the creek we are showing waterline but not sewerline north of the trail. FHU tried to avoid the waterlines but did not have sewerlines in place when they designed it. 3. Travis said what will proposed design and maintenance look like in future. At design time CDOT would work with agency with design, construction and maintenance. 4. If it is okay with you we would like to move ahead. For utilities but not south pond needs to outfall under the trail, not okay to have water trickling over trail. There would be box culvert under. 5. Pam said there is a neighborhood south of 107th where there is a storm line that runs east of the trail parallel and daylights into the creek. • 6. Justin said there is a project for 104`". However, there is a significant grade light there. Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-281 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES aitom�niahon cooperation. transportation Meeting with Northglenn re:Grant Park May 14, 2007 2 of 3 7. Pam said it is hard to give blessing until final design. In theory its okay but their hands are tied, water doesn't have jurisdictions boundaries. 8. We are sizing ponds for capture only. Pam said we are not getting much water quality improvement because there is nothing there now. Ed Lind will send PDF. • Olson needs to send a cadd file to FHU. • FHU needs to contact Thornton regarding design file. • Final PDF attending this meeting. • Including utilities that we did get. • 9. 12091—Kurt said there are some detention ponds, and they are wondering about removing berm to use for water quality and detention. CDOT does not allow for detention in their right-of-way. Kurt said if they connect these ponds and enlarge the ponds wouldn't it create efficiencies. 10. Justin said the way this was handled is there was some wetland mitigation in SE quadrant at 1209. They would like to bring current detention pond around the hotel. Kurt is curious. Northglenn does not want to put anything on CDOT's property, Justin would need to see proposal. Kurt will send conceptual design to Justin for follow-up. 11. Midstream status of Scout Park: Scout Park—what plan is there? Travis needs to check master plan—is it occur in a master plan. 12. Pam said this is currently unused open space with some natural habitat qualities. 13. Ed can tweak the water quality ponds—and avoid impacts to the park. 14. Timing of land swap, maybe with a year. • Page D-282 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES conperatwn tran;pnitauon Meeting with Northglenn re: Grant Park May 14, 2007 3 of 3 15. Travis needs to send Wendy any plans documenting existing use and future use. And Wendy needs to work with FHU to let Northglenn know why we are acquiring right-of-way at number: • Number 171903300003 • Number 171903000015 • Number 171903000018 1:LTransportatfon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Meeting with Northglenn re_Grant Park_051407yn.doc • • Page D-283 NORTH 1-25 • EJS January 28. 2008 Travis Reynolds Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Division City of Northglenn 11701 Community Center Drive Northglenn. CO 80233-8061 RE: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the 120'" Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Dear Mr. Reynolds. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people. goods. and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility. safety, and aging infrastructure problems • along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B, are being evaluated. as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening. tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail. commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package B (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the 120'" Avenue Transit Station Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail. These improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpasses to accommodate additional traffic lanes on Interstate 25. necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the 120'" Avenue Underpass or the Farmer Highline Canal Trail, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such. five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions, and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below. Condition (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e.. less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land • Page D-284 A. 111I'i Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail The trail closures will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change to ownership of the land Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor i e.. both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal Package B calls for the construction of additional lanes on Interstate 25 To accommodate this construction the existing underpasses at 120'°Avenue and along the Farmers Highline Canal Trail require lengthening This will not affect the existing trail alignment at either location. Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts. nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource. on either a temporary or permanent basis CDOT will provide detours. with signage for the duration of the trail closures The map and narrative description (Attachment B) Illustrate the proposed detour routes Condition (iv) • The land being used must be fully restored. i.e.. the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthening of the underpasses the trails will see no permanent adverse impacts Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal. State. or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions Should you, or others in your department. have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach. Senior Project Manager. at 303-820-4807, or wendy,wallach jacobs.com. Sincerely, Cc: Steve Zoet, Director of Parks and Recreation Project file • Page D-285 I Is Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment A: Package 8, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND Correct geometric 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Express deficiencies Lane (TEL) in Each Direction and replace aging 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Express infrastructure Lanes (TEL)in Each Direction -7 \ Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)Route(Uses L TELs on 1-25) I r Feeder Bus Service Fort Rollin - CD c t % Interchange Upgrades t r'; "°n i © Number of Lanes:General y i Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes j ,J: - - - :e: .,"n.°, Bus Rapid Transit Station '" ;r - FasTracks Rail Line v �)"�4 '? `- " Loveland i� ''—'N'_ FasTracks Transit Station K.� °"•> e., I Potential Commuter Bus Operational c"'"°i �'"' '""" ""� & Maintenance Facility j 'Sj Mf"•~° w.. m ' • Y Congestion Management xi G. . Measures could include: - New local transit routes - New excress transit routes +••• ` m,,,q - Enhanced carpool !ot parking -- - - I capacity and amenities L°" " - Courtesy patrol (incident man- O ,n. agementj from SH 14 to SH 7 7 IC -Variable messaging signs at .,:..N.e all transit stations Qd... S """"" -Automated Vehicle locaters on >s { `to /all transit vehicles - next" bus" ` " .� �n" `"" technology t�-' I Eris Right-of-Way Preservation. - Ramp metering and variable ao - Signal nation ale eoted t'°"' 'el' as / messaging signs at se ''' { interchanges gnlco ,36 Louis.C1 _.a"' r �.a- - rig US 34 '� -.-" ,,� .171/"/ and Harmony Road „® , - Continuous links to local bike ! / r•7o and pedestrian systems Northwest � :. j x t.°. North - Support for development of a Quadrant Raillw,s, t - -+ Q Metro Transportation Management ` .`'l2 s 2 ff corridor Organization (TMO) �, °T' ' ._ NOTE: East -A wider banner and express lanes ci c.;ss se.lion is.nclnded r Cpcidor between SH gn and Harmon y Read - SRI-stations located within an expanded Ill ,;Ian area r.r t ov.m rd O,.r SI¢v,. - VArere widening is needed between SH of and SH 7 the median'would be used • i Page D-286 • -.'. I I� Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment B: Detour Map and Description s ,cc..-ND Li, � }} rs a �s { i -1' r .a+� 4 . n r Y •..alt .+�� d:il' „'R� 3t �.1. �. -t�=xap^a r' w ' a 4'�+i 7 I 120th Station Underpass Trail 4 4 'i µIµII{{ff ��yyr"";; n � It '1"4-11 4— r1 1 uYwtt Y" i '_cSS d'NK • 'y y-iv .'044 .1.1:14) 1 y a 4 ----3.--..t. E Tel a. I 1 �77,{{'' `i 1 °y J tip l�# ( , t -S''t`. `« .r4.0 -? *nt..S*-fj-�Zalilltje : i rr. _ +.r, ' o I i '�ir�'.�3 k5J c^'`-�"-.. it t1i'{ itre • pj.i l 334 e E / 4 , t e v 4* 5.fr-1 C ` _' if/ ., 4 Y ,»tea a ,, t ;.,a+,rv_ ta t Farmers Highlme Canal 1,+ h t sets �kD � r : y ` II �3� '4' . {�,a ra u - -. _--- ' ' 11 3It4 el, r -k y a i .ter/-Q`: 120 Avenue Underpass The map illustrates not only the detour. but the connection to the Farmers Highline Canal as well The detour will require trail users to take Huron Street north to 1201h Avenue, then east across I-25 By taking Community Center Drive south users would reach the Farmers Highline Canal, to which the 1201h Avenue Transit Station Underpass connects. • a Page D-287 Lh Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Farmers Highline Canal The detour will require trail users to take Community Center Drive south at EB Rains Jr. Memorial Park. Community Center Drive crosses I-25 as an overpass with wide sidewalks suitable for bicycles. Once on the west side of I-25, users would take West 112th Avenue to Huron Street. go south and reconnect with the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • • Page D-288 • Notrnt I-25 EIS Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail January 28, 2008 Travis Reynolds Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Division City of Northglenn 11701 Community Center Drive Northglenn, CO 80233-8061 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Letter of Concurrence North 1-25 EIS and the 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Dear Ms. Wallach, • Based on the provided information the City of Northglenn finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Northglenn concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for both the Farmers Highline Canal Trail and the 120th Avenue Underpass in regard to the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: V IS Rg`(1J0Lx Date: -2-12-11 02 Signature: • Page D-289 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Region Four y• ,t p 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DrrearNerr of TRANSPORTATION December 11, 2006 Mr. Gene Putnam City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Re: CDOT's North Corridor Environmental Study and Basic Engineering—Design Assumptions used on Cross Streets Dear Mr. Putnam; Attached please find the North Corridor Environmental Study's Technical Memorandum documenting design assumptions related to improvements/impacts of local roads crossing 1-25 from approximately US 36 to SH 7. One of the North Corridor alternatives that are being considered includes widening 1-25 to include managed lanes. This wider section of 1-25 will require the reconstruction of some local roads • crossing 1-25. As part of the local agency coordination during this study,we are asking for your review of this document to verify that the assumptions made in developing the alternatives and identifying impacts associated with the alternative is consistent with the City of Thornton's policy and criteria. Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you agree with our approach and criteria used for the City of Thomton's roadways, please sign the attached letter and return to me. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nquyen@dot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely,Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT), J. Schwab(COOT),S. Olson (CDOT), M. Pavlik(FHWA),T. Anzia(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-290 Gene Putman air Holly.Buck IIIMbject: RE: North 1-25 July RCC Meeting Holly Buck,PE JUL 1 8 2006 D Felsburg Holt&Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 FELSBURG. ROLI&ULLEVIG Centennial,CO 80111 303-721-1440 tel 303-721-0832 fax www.fhueng.com Re: Comments on the Northwest Rail and North Metro Rail Connection Dear Holly; Attached is a drawing I put together to day on the discussion of yesterday and my review. The following is my comments that go along with the drawing: 1) Maximize the use of existing track and existing railroad right-of-way, The small green line is the existing railroad tracks, and the green dashed line is existing right-of-way but no tracks. 2) Coming off of the existing tracks out of Longmont and getting over to WCR 7, I looked at the elevation contours and • found a location where SH 119 goes down a large grade just west of the river crossing. I have an enlargement that shows a tunnel or it could be a set of bridge strucutures of SH 119 where the railroad would go under SH 119 during that grade change and go from the north side to the south side and miss all of the ponds. 3) My suggested alignment would use WCR 7 from SH 119 south to the Union Pacific Boulder Branch and then follow that track and right-of-way south east to the North Metro Line Station at 162nd 8 Colorado. 4) I placed a station in the Southwest corner of the intersection of SH 52 and WCR 7. This seems to be a good location that is basically midway between the communities of Frederick, Firestone, Dacono, and Erie. With it being on SH 52 it is on the primary east-west roadway that the Tri-Citys use.. I hope you find this helpful. It is just my ideas. Gene Putman, P.E., P.T.O.E. Transportation Planning Manager City of Thornton • 7/14/2006 Page D-291 irms l r NORTH I"2.�- w > MEETING MINUTES infdrria rn, gaderi Trnsportation: GWRR Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: April 14, 2006 OmnTrax offices LOCATION: 252 Clayton Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO ATTENDEES: GWRR: Alex Yeros (Broe Properties) C&B: Paul Brown, Craig Gaskill PREPARER: Carter!!j Paul Brov Attendees, Dave Martinez (CDOT),Tom Anzia (FHU), Steve Silkworth COPIES: (MDG), Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, Chris Primus, Jennifer Merer (C&B), C&B File#071809.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Alex Yeros opened the meeting with a brief description of the Great Western RR and its current ownership. He actually works for Broe Properties,and part of his role is management of development opportunities for the GWRR. a. Broe Properties purchased the Great Western Railroad (GWRR)from the Great Western Sugar Company in 1986 as their first venture into the railroad industry. Since that time, Broe has formed OmniTrax, a railroad management division, that owns and/or operates about eighteen short line railroads or rail terminal facilities in the US and Canada (including the GWRR). b. When purchased in 1986, the GWRR moved about 400 carloads of goods. In — 2005, the railroad moved over 13,000 carloads (almost 20%annual growth). Current major GWRR customers include Anheuser Busch in Fort Collins and Eastman Kodak in Windsor. Connections are available to both the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. 2. Paul Brown and Craig Gaskill presented the overall North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) process and shared the current Draft EIS alternatives (copies attached). a. The EIS process consists of defining purpose and need, developing a broad universe of alternatives, screening those alternatives to a small group that can be evaluated in detail, and determining a Preferred Alternative that best meets the project Purpose and Needs statement and project goals. b. The North 1-25 EIS has defined a Purpose and Need statement that includes addressing congestion on 1-25 between the Denver area and the North Front Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation • Page D-292 NORTH 1-25 • Is . . MEETING MINUTES in tiB``-, r tipp ttansportatign. GWRR Coordination Meeting April 14, 2006 2 of 2 Range, repair or replacement of aging infrastructure,safety, and providing multimodal solutions. c. The EIS team has evaluated many alternatives, and has screened them down to two alternatives that will be evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS. Package A includes commuter rail along the BNSF, highway improvements, and commuter bus along US 85. Package B includes managed lanes along I-25 and bus rapid transit on those lanes. 3. Alex noted that the feeder bus network provided in Package A mimics the GWRR system to a great extent(map attached). Therefore, a commuter rail feeder system may be feasible. a. He described a desire to use the GWRR alignments to connect communities in the North Front Range via rail instead of a bus network. Key services would be along the GWRR line between Greeley and Fort Collins via Windsor and along the line between Windsor and Loveland. b. Alex has met with the North Front Range MPO regarding the use of GWRR lines for future commuter rail. • c. Alex noted that Windsor has downtown redevelopment plans that are adjacent to the existing GWRR line (near Windsor Lake), and that a station in the redevelopment area would be beneficial to Windsor. d. He noted that the GWRR is working with Broe to redevelop much of the area around the existing Eastman Kodak facility in Windsor. This includes significant industrial, commercial,and residential development. One industrial site that is already in operation is a glassware manufacturer that produces bottles for Anheuser Busch that the GWRR ships to the Fort Collins brewery. Plans also include further partnerships with Eastman Kodak as they re-align themselves from film products into the digital imaging marketplace. 4. We discussed how various GWRR rail facilities relate to Draft EIS Package A. a. The GWRR now owns North Yard in Fort Collins. It was acquired from BNSF as part of the GWRR's service to Anheuser Busch. The GWRR would be willing to consider expansion for commuter rail layover or maintenance needs. b. The GWRR is not particularly involved with redevelopment around the Sugar Mill site in Longmont, other than knowledge that plans exist for this area. Alex did not see significant GWRR conflicts with RTD or EIS plans in this area. c. Paul asked a few questions about track speeds and connections at various junctions. Alex responded that Mike Ogbom would be better able to answer these types of questions. A follow-up meeting (to include Mike)was proposed for about four weeks out(mid-May). Monday is often Mike's most available day. 1: _Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\GWRR Coordination Mtng 4.14 v2.doc • Page D-293 Stec; NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. GWRR Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: May 15, 2006 OmniTrax offices LOCATION: 252 Clayton Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO ATTENDEES: GWRR: Alex Yeros, Mike Ogbom (Broe Properties) C&B: Paul Brown, Craig Gaskill PREPARER: Contrition Paul Brown Attendees; Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Stan Elmquist, Carol Parr, COPIES: Steve Olson (COOT);Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison (FRU); Steve Silkworth (MDG); Gina McAfee,Julie Morrison, Chris Primus, Jennifer Merer(C&B); C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Paul Brown opened the meeting with a brief summary of the April Great Western RR (GWRR)coordination meeting to bring Mr. Ogborn up to speed. A general GWRR background discussion followed, which built upon the April 14"' information. a. In 2005, the railroad moved over 13,000 carloads. The railroad is expecting significant growth in 2006, with an ethanol plant coming on line and the Owens Illinois glass plant reaching full production (both are in Windsor). Mike estimated that carloads would grow by 4,000-6,000 over 2005 values (25%-50%growth). b. Much of the GWRR's interchange with BNSF and UPRR occurs in Fort Collins (North Yard for BNSF, along Riverside Drive for UP). The 75-car unit corn trains for the ethanol plant will typically come from UPRR, and UPRR has built an interchange track in Fort Collins for this purpose. GWRR is hoping to shift this interchange to Greeley, and is discussing the costs and logistics with UPRR. c. The railroad currently operates about 80 miles of track. This reflects the fact that they recently ceased operations between Windsor and Eaton. The alignment is being preserved under a rails-to-trails agreement in case the GWRR ever needs to restore service. 2. A discussion of operations followed. Most GWRR lines see an average of one round-trip train per day, but this can increase significantly for several weeks during various agricultural harvests in the North Front Range. Service is typically provided weekday or weekday plus Saturday, using a staff of 20-25 employees. a. Anheuser Busch is switched daily from North Yard. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Depamnenr of Transportation • Page D-294 • NORTH IE-2ISS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. GWRR Coordination Meeting May 15,2006 2 of 3 b. At least one train per day runs between Windsor and Fort Collins, and can run further east(toward Greeley) based on shipper needs. The inbound unit corn train and outbound unit ethanol train are expected to run weekly along this line in addition to the daily service. c. One train per day generally runs between Loveland and Windsor d. One train per day generally runs between Loveland and either Johnstown or Milliken. e. Service between Johnstown and Longmont (through Mead) is typically provided 2-3 times per week. f. The Welty sub (west from Johnstown between SH 56 and SH 60) is generally not used except during harvest season. 3. Paul began a discussion of the various 1-25 crossings in the study area. a. There are four GWRR crossings of 1-25—Mead (north of SH 66; highway overpass), the Welty line (between SH 56 and SH 60; highway overpass), Loveland (south of US 34; railroad overpass), and Fort Collins (north of Harmony Road; highway overpass). • b. At a minimum, the GWRR expects any crossings modified to be replaced with a single track plus access road. Future service expansions may occur, and related needs should be discussed with the GWRR engineering team (contact is Chris Dodge, Vice President of Engineering)and the operations team (contact is Al Sauer(sp?), Manager of Operations). Mike Ogborn committed to initiating these contacts. 4. Paul began a discussion of GWRR facilities that may be involved in the North I-25 EIS (above and beyond the 1-25 crossings). a. The GWRR has had several discussions with RTD regarding the Sugar Mill site and rail access to it. The GWRR's interchange with the BNSF here is minimal and the current GWRR traffic is limited, so there do not appear to be many issues. A layover facility has also been discussed with RTD. b. The GWRR is open to developing a maintenance facility or layover facility at North Yard in Fort Collins. They are also looking to build their locomotive maintenance business In Loveland, and could provide this service via the existing BNSF/GWRR interchange in Loveland. c. Alex volunteered that there is at least one difficult landowner along the GWRR in Longmont, and the GWRR would consider helping the EIS staff work with this individual if needed. d. OmniTrax operates the Chicago Rail Link RR (Chicago, Illinos) and is comfortable with operating around commuter rail time windows. 5. Alex revived the feeder system discussion started in April. He reiterated that the feeder bus network provided in Package A mimics the GWRR system to a great extent, and that a commuter rail feeder system may be feasible. • Page D-295 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. GWRR Coordination Meeting May 15,2006 3of3 a. Craig described how a preferred alternative from this EIS might be funded. Mechanisms include (but are not limited to) CDOT or other state funds, transit fares, toll lane revenues, a potential Regional Transportation Authority(referred to as an RTA, which the North Front Range MPO is considering), and possibly various federal sources. b. Alex asked how OmniTrax could encourage consideration of a rail feeder service in lieu of a bus feeder service. Craig noted that the consultant team has considered rail feeder service but due to the limited feeder ridership, considered bus service more cost effective. Craig did note that regional transit service between north front range communities could make rail service more attractive. There is a NFRMPO transportation summit planned for June 13, 2006 to discuss the RTA and other regional transportation issues in the North Front Range. This may be an appropriate forum to discuss rail service. Alex will contact the MPO regarding this event and potential GWRR participation. • 1:LTranspAlatlon\071609.900\manage\mtgAminotsvigercAG,WRR Coordination Mtng 5-15 vl.doc • Page 0-296 • NORTH I--25 EIS MEETING MINUTES SINN CSNi■olw■wue! MEMO NEE October 31,2101 FIN olflee B:ooS.Saruce.Way.Ste.Boo Catmint CI 00111 Man 011111: ap l: Chris B tofalltrexl Mt Tim Miii,Jury*1111,dish dull Farina SINN,Kilt a Ullavla Crate Ginn MEM MIME alma F►ntage Beal Impacts fur Packages Iii B • MEETING SNNN1�N► 1. Tom Anzia opened the meeting with a brief description of the North 1-25 EIS process, schedule, and the impacts to the GWRR. 2. Discussion of general project issues • Packages A & B do not add or remove any frontage road crossings with GWRR. • GWRR has no issue with relocating the existing at grade crossings in association with 1-25 improvements. Even though the project is not adding any new at-grade crossings, Chris Dodge mentioned that the GWRR is vehemently opposed to adding any new at-grade crossings. • General track structure allowance is for one track and an access road unless otherwise noted below in the specific location discussions. • At-grade Crossing Information: A. Material Standards when relocating: 1. 115# CWR 2. Concrete crossing material B. Chris Dodge has a few crossing projects currently dose to construction and noted that one of his 70 feet crossings is estimated at $50,000, which includes rail, ties, crossing material, and OTM. He is getting crossing material from $200-$250 per linear foot(transportation not included). • Chris Dodge agreed with previous project discussions with GWRR relative to commuter rail possibilities on the GWRR. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 103:23 92.MINUTES(NON-(OMMA]FF)ENOINFERNO RAILROAD COORDINAIION(;wRV 103106 Ali Page D-297 NORTH 1-25 • MEETING MINUTES EIS cn;peicoty, ,adpo,ta fiun GWRR Railroad Coordination October 31,2006 Page 2 of 2 3. Attendees discussed any issues or circumstances surrounding the five GWRR crossings with 1-25 and the associated frontage roads. • Black Hollow Line(Located between LCR 48 and SR 14) A. GWRR currently goes under I-25. B. Two frontage roads currently exist on the east and west side of I-25. C. Existing horizontal clearance is acceptable. No need to increase, to allow for access road, because Chris mentioned that any increase in clearance will likely entice more vehicles to use the access road for a u-turn on frontage roads. D. Service has recently been reactivated on the east side of 1-25 with two to three trains per week. • Greeley Line (Located just north of LCR 40) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25. B. Existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25. C. The GWRR has recently installed a private crossing for the City of Fort Collins just west of 1-25 to access the nature preserve. Access is from the existing frontage road on the northeast of the crossing of 1-25 and GWRR tracks then traverses along the north side of the GWRR, and then crosses • over the GWRR track west of 1-25. This crossing will likely need to be relocated with the 1-25 improvements. • Loveland Line(Located one half mile south of US 34) A. GWRR currently goes over 1-25 B. The existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25 is at the elevation of the GWRR. C. Chris Dodge mentioned that CDOT has plans to upgrade the signal at the crossing, currently only lights, to gates and lights within the next 2 years. D. The railroad bridge over 1-25 only needs to accommodate the one existing track. No allowance for an access road is required. E. Chris Dodge also mentioned that there are possible development plans for the east side of 1-25 north of the GWRR to US 34. • Welty Line (Located one mile north of SR 56) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25. B. Existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25. C. GWRR currently has no service on this line, but a company is interested in leasing GWRR land east of 1-25 for use of unloading poles via GWRR. • Main Line (Located between WCR 36 and SCR 34) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25. B. Existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25 has bells and lights. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • .l 0322302.MINUTES(NON-COMM/173 ENGINEERING RAIL ROAD COORU/NATIONGWlnt 103106MMdoa Page D-298 • P FELSBLIRG �i HOLT' ULLEVIG engineering puths to inunsportatton solutions MEMORANDUM To: Tom Anzia cc: Holly Miller(FHU), Paul Brown (C-B) From: Stephanie Sangaline Date: March 18, 2005 Subject: BNSF Railway Meeting 3-18-05 9:00 AM Attendees: Ed Gallagher, BNSF Railway Division Engineer Stephanie Sangaline, FHU • I met this morning with Ed Gallagher at the BNSF Globeville Yard to show him the possible commuter rail corridors being considered in the North 1-25 EIS. I left the Rail exhibit with alternatives and"pros/cons" list with Ed for his file. Ed mentioned that the rail line made more sense on the west side of 1-25 as there are more communities that seem to have a commuting interest to Denver or south to the Tech Center. Ed also felt that commuter rail along 1-25 might not be as effective in that if people need to drive their cars all the way to 1-25, they might just continue driving on I-25 rather than get on a t rain. I let Ed know that the EIS is in process, and in the future as screening pro gresses, I will need to come back and visit with him regarding any BN SF corridors that may appear to be good options for passenger rail. He said that was fine, and appreciated the inform ation. ACTION ITEMS: Steph will update Ed periodically with project information as screening progresses. 6300 „urh ��racu�e Was, Su in 600 l'entenniul, CO SCI II tc1 3e 21.144h t., 101.711.0?,i2 ‘‘«�clhucnrtr, m Inf, Li,t11 Page D-299 FELSBURG �, H O L T & Transmittal ULLEVIG 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, Colorado 80111 (303) 721-1440 FAX(303) 721-0832 To: Andy Amparan Project No. BNSF Railway 4515 Kansas Avenue Date: 8/20/2007 Kansas City, KS 66106 Ph. 913-551-4964 Subject: North 1-25 EIS Denver, CO The following items are transmitted via: Hand Deliver No. of Copies Description 1 Portion of Level 3 Alternatives involving Commuter Rail Description or Remarks: Andy— • Enclosed are three exhibits and attached text descriptions of possible alternatives incorporating commuter rail into the North 1-25 corridor north of Denver. This EIS is progressing with further evaluation at this time. However, we wanted to put this in front of you and ask for any comments or suggestions with regard to these three potential commuter rail routes. The designated FasTracks routes are shown in grey. Extensions being considered as part of the North 1-25 E IS are shown in gold. The existing BNSF track that is included in these routes is the line between Longmont and Fort Collins. Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns about these possible routes with regard to any operational or maintenance issues or possible planned improvements for the BNSF track that should be considered as the EIS analysis continues. I would appreciate any feedback you can offer. Thanks in advance. Your feedback is always appreciated. The above items are submitted: Copies are being sent to: Project File, At your request T. Anzia— FHU, P. Brown— C&B For your review For your files For your approval For your action For your information By: Stephanie J. Sangaline, P.E., CPESC • Page D-300 • p,, FELSf3URG HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation 50httions September 26, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Cassie Gouger SUBJECT: FHU Reference No. 05-071 I met with Sue Grabler of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)about the two locations of 1-25 and UPRR crossings. I-25(Loveland)& UP RR The NE quadrant of I-25 that is adjacent to the UPR R mainline has had major development • recently. Currently there are no frontage roads that cross UPRR at-grade. UPRR had a private crossing near the 1-25 overpass of UPRR but UPRR removed it because the developer was m is- using the crossing. Sue only recommends grade separated crossing at this location for the frontage road. Currently there are 4 trains a day and 2 more are planned. 1-25(Dacono) & UPRR UPRR sold the bridge to CDOT, which has been removed, and has removed the track west of 1-25 and for some distance to the east of 1-25. STB will not allow UPRR to abandon the stretch that has been removed, so UPRR still has ownership. UPRR does not currently have any interest in reestablishing track along this stretch, so the frontage roads at this location would not cross any track and could be at gra de. ('3��i� ti„urh <}raru�cW,rv, Suir(' GCs' l'.nrcnninLCo) 8CIII (el 30%.;21.1440 iIN ie 3 721.(M,i2 www.lhuenr.nnn mGo@ time ng..< in Page D-301 NOR7 F I 1-25 • [ IS January 28 2008 Paula Fitzgerald Parks & Open Space Projects Coordinator City of Longmont 7 South Sunset Street Longmont. CO 80501 RE: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement and Oligarchy Primary Greenway Dear Ms. Fitzgerald. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile I-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods. and services in the I-25 corridor The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility. accessibility. safety. and aging infrastructure problems along I-25. as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. • Two multi-modal build packages. Package A and Package B. are being evaluated. as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a pail of the multi-modal packages include highway widening. tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail. commuter bus. and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package A (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including this proposed section of the Oligarchy Primary Greenway. These improvements include an additional railroad track, adjacent to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe alignment. If Lanyon Trail exists at the time of construction a trail closure will be required. necessitating a detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect Oligarchy Primary Greenway. and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such. five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions. and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below: Condition (I) Duration must be temporary., i.e.. less than the time needed for construction of the project. and there should be no change in ownership of the land The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land • Page D-302 • II Letter of Concurrence, Oligarchy Primary Greenway Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor. i.e.. both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal Package A calls for the construction of an additional railroad track that will cross the trail. This would result in an additional rail crossing both adjacent to and at the same grade. as the existing crossing Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor there interference with the activities or purpose of the resource. on either a temporary or permanent basis. COOT will provide detours with signage. for the duration of the trail closure The map and narrative description (Attachment B) provide the proposed detour route Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored. i.e.. the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the additional at-grade crossing and related signage the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal. State. or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions Should you. or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach. Senior Project Manager. at 303-820-4807. or wendy.wallach@jacobs com. Sincerely. Cc Project file • Page D-303 \,:I ill.I, • 1 , ` Letter of Concurrence, Oligarchy Primary Greenway Attachment A: Package A, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND • Correct geometric raa-..xi 1 New General Purpose(GP)Lane in Each deficiencies Direction and replace aging o v+ 1 New General Purpose(GP)Lane4 infrastructure Auxiliary Lane in Each Direction 257 •4 .-. Commuter Rail(CR) ` Amor Commuter Bus(CB)Service in General ()� O ! Purpose Lanes and Clue Jumps `-'�`; -. Feeder Bus Service Fort*Min • VBSill Interchange Upgrades + Ni it © Number of Lanes 6 Commuter Bus Station: Stop ,ie- l i 1 Commuter Rail Station l •.. e FasTracks Rail Line Greeley t. 34 C? FasTracks Transit Station Love d D Potential Commute Rail Operational & °"�E;�` Maintenance Facility JJJJ�� c. .win.,•..• I...•n E3 Potential Commuter Bus Operational& Maintenance Facility J rnnY.. Congestion Management I Measures could include: i • -New local transit routes ,» - New express transit routes ; -Enhanced carpool lot parking t capacity and amenities -Courtesy patrol (incident man • - agement) from SH 14 to SH 7 r' -Variable messaging signs at , J+- ".■ all transit stations '6 l r -Automated Vehicle Locale:s on ` , ,.„ •. all transit vehicles - -next bus' i m• ^`,technology „„k\ }i • a:.e,,rrro -Ramp metenng and val cable t . ea:eNneRd ra messaging signs at selected ..if intercnarges _ -.Access management along 1 Northwest S iijRjght-of-Way U3 85 Corridor Rait � w, Preservation Continuo links to local bike I, t"o and pedestrian systems Im r I m nt R .� SW.11.M • 1 N. cti.n - North Metro - Support for development of a It rn tiv- • ' Corridor Trarsportation Management •r.ject• Organization (TMO) „ ,,t NOTE: � "'t�, ` -Select sections of I-25 would requite auxdhary lanes and 1 or an '1`"l��*4- ty additional through lane in addition to this 6-lane cross section. cc,iM., - Nhere widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7.the median would be used 3 III Page D-304 Sn;nil'> Letter of Concurrence, Oligarchy Primary Greenway Attachment B: Detour Map and Description " is 4• 1 . t'..,7\ - - ' i -t �"�. ^Y I " .tv? c- : fi3."-4,- .Ir .. r ' r ,. ',- 1 Oligarchy Primary Greenway `1 - .e P wk! ~ 1 $!a, y A�e d T c)II ts t .. ,1 st}`I a b C. *44' +�px arr g°' a c.... Yr h i TyyY \\„, ,:.. .., ;,,,,, -..,......,/,,,_,, \ 3 4* , T� i I �" n},. • * Zso_ibr .1'. dwF.l ,c .y it it 1 r f y� t� -'�' �Rd,I � kr� r. • , . ` r`A`H {, a-ia.�* _` �. k. 'tp , iac " yya�4L - w �!.} k E •fl� � gryqR ..� �F 'K N► • ti-!f�YGv� N� e: �{' n Y, .m 4' ai, r iti t ",f i''r' • i74.--...`3 m`•fe. 6 M�.L' ' tliu felt y ..tt tv #?r" � ye, The detour will require trail users to take 151h Avenue east to Lamplighter Drive, then north until 1/ Avenue, and west to reconnect with Oligarchy Primary Greenway. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • Page D-305 NORTH 1-25 EIS • January 28, 2008 Paula Fitzgerald Parks & Open Space Projects Coordinator City of Longmont 7 South Sunset Street Longmont, CO 80501 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Letter of Concurrence North 1-25 EIS and Oligarchy Primary Greenway Dear Ms. Wallach, Based on the provided information the City of Longmont finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Longmont concurs with the temporary • occupancy designation for the Oligarchy Primary Greenway in regard to the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: drp i,Jk__ i Q(cc (ci Date: r/ 2-1/0 Signatu • Page D-306 • N .'ntr) i 1-25 I-IS January 31 2008 Bill Bodkins Public Works Director Town of Wellington 3735 Cleveland Avenue Wellington. CO 80549 RE North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Box Elder Creek Trail Dear Mr. Bodkins. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people. goods. and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support • economic growth Two multi-modal build packages. Package A and Package B, are being evaluated. as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening. tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail. commuter bus. and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements, in both Package A and Package B (Attachment A). may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the Box Elder Creek Trail. These improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpass as part of the effort to replace aging infrastructure along Interstate 25, necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Box Elder Creek Trail. and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965 To be classified as such. five specific conditions must be satisfied These conditions. and CDOT's efforts to meet them. are outlined below: Condition (I) Duration must be temporary. i.e , less than the time needed for construction of the project. and there should be no change in ownership of the land The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land• Page D-307 Ni:RII11-?5 • Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e.. both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A and Package B calls for safety improvements. including the lengthening of the Interstate 25 Underpass of Box Elder Creek Trail This will not affect the existing trail alignment Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts. nor there interference with the activities or purpose of the resource. on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will provide detours. with signage. for the duration of the trail closure. The reap and narrative description (Attachment B) illustrate the proposed detour route Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored. i.e the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthening of the underpass. the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. • Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal. State. or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions Should you. or others in your department have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach. Senior Project Manager, at 303-820-4807, or wendy.wallach@iacobs.com. Sincerely. Cc: Project file • Page D-308 0 1. vi II I'_i I IS Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment A (1 of 2): Package A, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND C•rrect •e•metric gem t New General Purpose(GP)Lane in Each .efieiencies Direction I an• re•lace a•in• ... I New General Purpose(GP)Lane • I�•�^" ^ infrastructure Auxiliary Lane in Each Direction Commuter Rail (CR) '. �,. I Ina Commuter Bus(CD)Service in General 4' 0 Purpose Lanes and Oue Jumps - Feeder Bus Service Fort tlln VInterchange Upgrades °�'^•"v+ ,e © Number of Lanes • (`j Commuter Bus Station Stop ter - - ' Commuter Rail Station ~•••• < Greeley (' FasTracks Rail Line i/� .., . v -- j FasTracks Transit Station Love d ... f; Potential Commuter Rail Operational 8 Maintenance Facility c• ••, .. D Potential Commuter Bus Operational 8 s�1' Maintenance Facility - -1 *mow' • Congestion Management 1 6 Measures could include: i - New local transit routes .. - New express transit routes -- 1. - Enhanced carpool lot parking .a.• I capacity and amenities -Courtesy patrol (incident man- :•? agemertl from SH 14 to SH 7 > Varlab e messaging s:yns at a - transit stations -r.utomated Ve r, cle Locate rs on r ... a transit vehicles - next bus .n• '' r g ,� +`^• ;erne Rd • C1 - Ramp meter and varla b'e b 1 a P 4 messaging signs at selected � — ------ interchanges , ii -- Access management along Northwest a •s• - `� - -Right- Way-Way US 85 Corridor Rallf n,. Preservation - Continuous links to local bike tmI ment .., - 1 • and pedestrian systems • N• Actin -- ,North Metro - Support far development of a Alternative -. Corridor Transportation Management •ejects �+ Organization (IMO) � +♦-/ NOTE: -Select sections of 1-25 would require auxiliary lanes and t r an additional tt r nun0 lane in addi,on to this R-lane cross section i(��ee,.d'- -Vvbere widening is needed between SO Oh a,d SH 7 the median veould be used • i Page D-309 N,el?Ifl I:N III :iti Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment A (2 of 2): Package B, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Express Correct geometric Lane(TEL)in Each Direction deficiencies ,...,...,. and replace aging 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Express infrastructure Lanes(TEL)in Each Direction '"' 4 Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)Route(Uses , )° .. �1 TELs on 1.25) ".a Feeder Bus Service Fort fioliin �.4I2 !�73 Interchange Upgrades f i '''''''t \ _.A.o•.rw a....... r.a.` © Number of Lanes;General i 5 ...�..i Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes ( za- ww... I Sus Rapid Transit Station ( "e 4/4.. c eeiey- I ='` FasTracks Rail Line '4- LOvellnd UFasTracks Transit Station j _ .b.".6M { •.... a...i.. 'r - ..... . .Soy/ is Potential Commuter Bus Operational iii 8 Maintenance Facility y ( /: i .nom.. Congestion Management a.i..„y' Measures could include: : 4/2 r/` III New local transit routes DP i New express transit routes .......0- ....di •Enhanced carpool tot parking capacity and amenities 1o,....„r -Courtesy patrol (incident man- ; agement) from SH 14 to SH 1 If) ;s -Variable messaging signs at .' r"»...• all transit stations zsr tirA.n." -Automa�ed Vehicle Locaters on t.x -N r• -- all transit vehicles next bus' I 1f;R,gi technology 1 _ I E,,, ..... 6/2 i Right-of-Way -Ramp metering and variable ,.. . _ •-h,-,-,N.,6,., Preservation messaging signs at selected ea`••- - . up interchanges .. •8 ,•••• • 36 1.NM1 _-- Signal coordination along US 34 M 4r"-• and Harmony Road sever,, t3,,,,,AS,� - Continuous links to local bike . i w y Ezra and pedestrian systems Northwest +♦ Jr' Nog - Support for development of a Quadrant Rail;" i , North Transportation Management /2 Metro �''. Organization (IMO) �• lCorridor ;, r, NOTE_ t1 - . 'ri'' East - A wider barrier and express lanes cross section is included C7idor between SH 60 and Harmony Road ` .. • BRT stations located within an expanded median area. • A 'r • Where widening is needed between SH 6E and SH 7 the median would be used III 4 Page D-310 .,.,• III I.:' Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment B: Detour Map and Description �F , @. 1r _f LEGEND Box Elder Creek Trail ! k • 44} r •ti Asa ' I I�� 1 ) ill k441js ‘ • jk;c. !qr ,4As A g t 7 t.4:k. t 1 i'. ' V t M • ' 1A This detour will require trail users to take GW Bush Avenue west. then proceed south on the eastern frontage road to CR 58, west on CR 58 to the western frontage road, and then proceed north to Box Elder Creek Trail.. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • 5 Page D-311 \n1:Il .; rb Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail • January 31, 2008 Bill Bodkins Public Works Director Town of Wellington 3735 Cleveland Avenue Wellington, CO 80549 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Letter of Concurrence North I-25 EIS and the Box Elder Creek Trail Dear Ms. Wallach, Based on the provided information the Town of Wellington finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the Town of Wellington concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Box Elder Creek Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Environmental • Impact Statement. Printed Name: $,// l3od k„CS Date: ,2-// � E Signature'� • Page D-312 Nou"rri 1-25 EIS February 20, 2008 Rich Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 W. 92nd Avenue Westminster, CO 80031 RE: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Big Dry Creek Trail Dear Mr. Dahl, The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems • along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B, are being evaluated, as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening, tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package B (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the Big Dry Creek Trail These improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpass to accommodate additional traffic lanes on Interstate 25. Construction impacts may be mitigated in one of the following two ways: 1. A temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). 2. A three-sided trail enclosure, which would protect trail users from overhead construction. The specifics regarding the proposed improvements, such as the construction footprint or the location of cut and fill slopes, will not be known until final design. These details will provide the required information regarding safety and viability of the alternatives, therefore it is during final design phase that the alternative will be selected. CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Big Dry Creek Trail, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such, five specific • Page D-313 \aqNIII1?9 I:I> • Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail conditions must be satisfied. These conditions, and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land. The trail closure and/or enclosure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package B calls for the construction of additional lanes on Interstate 25. To accommodate this construction the existing underpass at Big Dry Creek Trail requires lengthening. This will not affect the existing trail alignment. Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will either provide an enclosure, or in the case of a trail closure, detours with • signage, for the duration of the trail closure. The map and narrative description (Attachment B)provide the proposed detour route. Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthening of the underpass, the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. Should you, or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach, Senior Project Manager, at 303-820-4807, or wendy.wallach(a jacobs.com. Sincerely, • 1, Page D-314 \<111I II I23 I I‘ Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail Attachment A: Package B, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND Correct geometric 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Express deficiencies Lane ITEL) In Each Direction .. ., and replace aging 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Express infrastructure Lanes(TEL)in Each Direction 2a' Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)Route(Uses 'TELs on 1.25) Ault Feeder Bus Service Fort Collin -$,.' � as Interchange Upgrades © Number of Lanes; General .._.,." Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes zar .r Bus Rapid Transit Station 4/4 Cr[aeley FasTracks Rail Line • R. \ - ( '' Loveland - C) FasTracks Transit Station !' I"""""^l� Potential Commuter Bus Operational L. Lly. d Maintenance Facility a♦ •N,lhr • �•Meue Congestion Management °R=•••= Measures could include: • �Z /tea l roll C) ;.. . RA . ..e"e 207 36 l ♦ rc a I t a -nit - i CI� Right-of-Way u u. r. ' Preservation 3m, JI' Ib I AraPanoe.Ro 1 '1 a ee nI HO~NIT U i ..�,�. L it':nl u _ :0 t ,.e • •«• j Ea7a 1 t Northwest Q ,`• _ North -. Quadrant Rail sy,l !2 Metro I Ildr, Wer l l - l Corridor NOTE: East A wider barrier and express lanes cross section is included 1 } Cpgidor between SH 60 and Harmony Road C� - BRT stations located within an expanded median area. ,' t o`oTsur,u„ - Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7 the median would be used. • 3 Page D-315 \,,„,„,23 Iflti • Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail Attachment B: Detour Map and Description LEGEND _ -,z. >p - - — 1 '--_I I v xyNn p eu Fow x hive �y x � a ooseu t.y. Y t I t W!P �C�P ,m5eE T'.- Clow 4, l H { • l e .',f M r ; 3 .ti ?N .4.,,„,:t 9 r . n_ it'f aj ti AF : Y 1 4 I *:. 'i I 'Kl Key j c Big Dry Creek Trail lr r edn C ! r• h i • ` v" . nY j 41 ,,_,,,r---- # ' r qq \\ x yam.` 6 It pqy 9 I • `.' . ♦ :t fit 6tf ''-], 7,r ' i3 t it i { . ; Ie R 'i I ': M'.:.` 3/ t. 3 y, 5 n it ry� �'� E. 6`4re4_ kItII r,03I 1) N J41 '41 is'-.q{R k 5 l. I el �, r \ y .Y I r. u-.�- -. F .yam i,,,„� _ �r''1 • "1T v l tstiTa 41:c. k . b ?,°„(;34-!::--,:,.. r -!:: ,?,./.4,44.!.....; .n. t t I $ aa,fw , I W I° -. ®c !gem The detour will require trail users to follow Thornton #2 Trail south until reaching Washington Street, then continue south to 128th Avenue. Trail users would then proceed west on 128th Avenue to Huron Street, then turn north until reconnecting to the existing Big Dry Creek Trail Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • 4 Page D-316 • NORTH 1-25 EIS February 20, 2008 Rich Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 W. 92nd Avenue Westminster, CO 80031 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Letter of Concurrence North 1-25 EIS and the Big Dry Creek Trail Dear Ms. Wallach, • Based on the provided information the City of Westminster finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Westminster concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Big Dry Creek Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: Date: • Signature: - • Page D-317 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Page D-318 Distribution of the Draft EIS Page D-319 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Page D-320 • NORTH 1-25 DEIS FINAL DISTRIBUTION LIST EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Date: November 24, 2008 To: Carol Parr CDOT Region 4 From: Tom Anzia Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Subject: DEIS Document Distribution List Name & Address Packages* Delivery Date LEAD AGENCIES Dave Beckhouse 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered 10/29/2008 Federal Transit Administration 12300 W . Dakota Avenue, Suite 310 1 Full CD Set Lakewood , CO 80228 Monica Pavlik 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 Federal Hwy Administration 12300 W. Dakota Ave. , #180 1 Full CD Set Lakewood, CO 80228 FHWA HQ 1 Basic Hard Copy Copy Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 FHWA - Legal 1 Basic Hard Copy Copy Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 • CDOT Region 4 Headquarters 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen 11 /10/2008 Carol Parr 1420 2nd St. 1 Full CD Set Greeley, CO 80631 CDOT Region 4, Loveland Residency 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen 11 /3/2008 Long Nguyen (Basic Copy) and 11 /10/2008 (Tech 2207 Hwy 402 1 Full CD Set Reports and CDs) Loveland, CO 80537 Tom Mauser 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered 11 /14/2008 CDOT Headquarters 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. 1 Full CD Set Shumate Bldg. Denver, CO 80222 CDOT EPB 1 Full Hard Copy Basic Signature Copy Delivered Vanessa Henderson 10/13/2008; Delivered Full Package 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. 1 Full CD Set 11 /14/2008 Denver, CO 80222 COOPERATING AGENCIES Richard Cogswell 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered on 10/28/2008 Federal Railroad Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave. , SE SE Mail Stop W38145 (Irradiated, Reg Mail) Washington, DC 20590 • USACE 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered on 10/28/2008; Provided Tim Carey CD1 /CD2 set and a Wetlands Tech 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard 1 Full CD Set Report on 11 /10/2008 Littleton, CO 80128 1 Hard Copy Wetlands Tech Report Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-321 Name & Address Packages' Delivery Date 0 RTD 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered on 10/28/2008 David Krutsinger 1600 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR US Department of Interior (DOI ) 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Monica on 10/28/2008 Willie Taylor Office of Environmental Affairs 17 Basic CDs 1849 C Street, NW , Room 2340 Washington, DC 20240 202/208-4169 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION Mr. Don Klima, Director 1 Basic CD Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Ste. 803 Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Edward C. Nichols 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 State Historic Preservation Office, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Mr. Mike Konefal 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board III 130 S. McKinley Street Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Brien Schumacherm , Principal Planner 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /12/2008 Longmont Historic Preservation Commission Longmont Planning Office 350 Kimbark St. Longmont, CO 80501 Ms. Betsy Kellums 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Greeley Historic Preservation Commission 1100 10th Street, Suite 210 Greeley, CO 80631 TRIBAL CONSULTATION - PER LIST FROM DAN JEPSON Mr. Billy Evans Horse, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Kiowa Business Committee Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 369 Carnegie, OK 73015 Mr. Clement Frost, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Southern Ute Indian Tribe P.O. Box 737 Ignacio, CO 81137 Mr. Wallace Coffey, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Commanche Tribal Business Committee Ill Commanche Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 908 Lawton, OK 73502 Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-322 Name & Address Packages* Delivery Date Mr. George Howell, President 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 881 Little Dee Drive Pawnee, OK 74058 Mr. Richard Brannan, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Northern Arapaho Business Council P.O. Box 396 Fort Washakie, WY 82514 Mr. Darrell Flyingman, Governor 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma P.O. Box 38 Concho, OK 73022 Mr. Eugene Little Coyote, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Northern Cheyenne Tribe P.O. Box 128 Lame Deer, MT 59043 AGENCY - OTHER Cliff Davidson 1 Volume 1 and 2 prior to 10/9/2008; Delivered Signature Copy NFR MPO signature on 11 /10/2008 235 Matthews Street Ft. Collins, CO 80524 1 Basic Hard Copy Aimee Ryel, District Wildlife Manager 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 CDOW 4207 W Country Road 16E Loveland, CO. 80537 US EPA Office of Federal Activities 5 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Monica 10/22/2008 Ariel Rios Building (S. Oval Lobby) Mail Code 2252-A US EPA Region 8 (*EPR-N) 4 Basic Hard Copy plus 9 Delivered to Monica 10/22/2008 999 18th Street, Suite 300 Alternatives Development and Denver, CO 80202 Screening Report & Package Concept Plans on CD Greg Monroe 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, #618 Denver, CO 80203 Bryan Kohlenberg 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 UDFCD 2480 W . 26th Avenue, #156-B Denver, CO 80211 Alison Michael 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 USFWS PO Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 ailJohn Stokes 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 City of Ft. Collins Natural Resources Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-323 Name & Address Packages* Delivery Date Mike Soderberg . 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 City of Thornton Community Services 9500 Civic Center Dr. Thornton, CO 80229 Amanda Peterson 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department 11700 Community Center Dr. Northglenn, CO 80233 Jeremy Olinger 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department 100 10th St. Berthoud, CO 80513 Gary Havener 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department 500 East Third Loveland, CO 80537 Don Bessler 1 Basic CD Mailed 11 /26/2008 City of Longmont Parks, Open Space, & Public Facilities Department 7 South Sunset St. Longmont, CO 80501 PROJECT TEAM • Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 1 Full Hard Copy Tom Anzia 6300 S. Syracuse Wa7, #600 Centennial, CO 80111 Jacobs 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered 11 /10/2008 Gina McAfee 707 17th St. , #2300 1 Full CD Set Denver, CO 80202 PUBLIC LOCATIONS Berthoud City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 328 Massachusetts Ave. 10/28/2008 Berthoud, CO 80513 CDOT Region 4 Headquarters 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on Carol Parr 10/28/2008 1420 2nd St. Greeley, CO 80631 CDOT Region 4. Loveland Residency 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on Long Nguyen 10/28/2008 2207 Hwy 402 Loveland, CO 80537 CDOT Headquarters 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on Vanessa Henderson 10/28/2008 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222 Brighton City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 22 S. 4th Ave. 10/28/2008 Brighton, CO 80601 Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-324 x M Name & Address Package? Delivery Date Longmont Civic Center 1 Basic Hard Copy Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane 350 Kimbark St. on 10/28/2008; CD mailed on Longmont, CO 80501 1 Basic CD 10/30/2008 Erie Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 645 Holbrook 10/28/2008 Erie, CO 80516 Ft. Collins City Bldg . 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 300 Laport 10/28/2008 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Ft. Collins Regional Library District 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 201 Pertson 10/28/2008 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Longmont Library 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 409 4th Avenue 10/28/2008 Longmont, CO 80501 Northglenn City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 11701 Community Center Dr. 10/28/2008 Northglenn, CO 80233 Thornton City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 9500 Civic Center Dr. 10/28/2008 Thornton, CO 80229 Dacono City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 512 Cherry St. 10/28/2008 Dacono. CO 80514 Firestone Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 151 Grant Ave. 10/28/2008 Firestone, CO 80520 Frederick Town Hall Admin Bldg 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 401 Locust St. 10/28/2008 Frederick, CO 80530 Greeley City Bldg 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 1000 10th Avenue 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80631 Greeley Lincoln Park Library 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 919 7th St. , #100 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80631 Johnstown Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 101 Charlotte St. 10/28/2008 Johnstown, CO 805034 Larimer County 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 200 West Oak St. Suite 3000 10/28/2008 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Loveland City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 500 E. 3rd St. , #110 10/28/2008 Loveland, Co 80537 Loveland Library 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 300 N. Adams 10/28/2008 Loveland, Co 80537 Mead Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 441 Third St. 10/28/2008 Mead, CO 80452 Milliken Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 2951 Ash St. 10/28/2008 Milliken, CO 80543 Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-32t i - --i i i Name & Address Packages* Delivery Date • SW Weld county Bldg 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 915 10th St. 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80632 * Packages Hard Copy Basic = Volume 1 + Volume 2 + Alternatives Development and Screening Report + Package Concept Plans Full = Volume 1 + Volume 2 + Alternatives Development and Screening Report + Package Concept Plans + All Technical Reports (Excluding Traffic Report) Basic CD = Volume 1 + Volume 2 + Alternatives Development and Screening Report + Package Concept Plans Full CD Set = Volume 1 + Volume 2 + Alternatives Development and Screening Report + Package Concept Plans + All Technical Reports II Federal Highway Administration . Federal Transit Administration - Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-326 O US Department Colorado Federal Aid Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. of Transportation Suite 180 Federal Highway October 29, 2008 Lakewood, CO 80228 Administration Mr. David Krutsinger In Reply Refer To: Regional Transportation Distric Project 14276 1600 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1399 Dear Mr. Krutsinger: Subject: North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)and Draft 4(f)Evaluation,which is now available for public review. This is a joint lead project with Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Thank you for participating as a cooperating agency. A 60 calendar day public review period begins on October 31, 2008 and concludes on December 30, 2008. Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, including the time and locations of the upcoming public hearings. The following individuals • may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 Sincerely,1O-/ Karla S. Petty, P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures: 1 Hard Copy of the DEIS/Draft 4(1) Evaluation and 1 CD Cc: D eckhouse FTA • MOVING THE AMER ICat+i ECO NOMY (�� Page D-327 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four Er . OT 1 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80631 , (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 OFPARIMFNF Of TRANSPORT A!ION November 26, 2008 Bryan Kohlenberg Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2480 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 156-B Denver, CO 80211 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Kohlenberg: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30th, 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30,2008 to be considered. If you have comments,please send to Attn: Carol Parr at the address below,or by fax(970- 669-0289),or email(carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. • The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley,Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 (970) 350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-328 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pr^ . OT Region Four • L 1420 2nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 • (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 nFPARI MINT OF I PASSPORTS IION November 26, 2008 Jeremy Olinger Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department 100 10`h Street Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Olinger: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30r11, 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30, 2008 to be considered. If you have comments,please send to Attn: Carol Pan at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289),or email (carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). • Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik,P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720)963-3012 (970)350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, cVeCiLAA Carol H. Pan N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-329 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four r OT • l 1420 2nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 n•PARTMExr OF TRANSPOR I ATION November 26,2008 John Stokes City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Stokes: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30`", 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30, 2008 to be considered. If you have comments, please send to Attn: Carol Parr at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289), or email (carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25cis/. • The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2nd Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley,Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 (970) 350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carol H. Par N I-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-330 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A.gir . Region Four 1• 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80631 ' (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DCP�N!OF IRANSPDRTAI IIr October 29,2008 Mr. Mike Konefal Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board 130 S. McKinley Street Fort Lupton, CO 80621 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Knoefal, The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. We are providing this information to you as a consulting party to the Section 106 process, to provide background information regarding the Section 106 substitution process under which this document will be processed by the State Historic Preservation Officer for historic and archaeological resource determination of effects. For the North 1-25 EIS,CDOT and FHWA have formally arranged with the SHPO to substitute the project's NEPA documents (DEIS and FEIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish • the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is intended to provide a more complete opportunity for comments on the effects to historic properties by the various project alternatives. This will, hopefully,reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties,by providing detailed information about project alternatives and impacts in the DEIS. Previous steps in the document substitution process, as applied in the North 1-25 Corridor project, have included identification of the Area of Potential Effect and the identification of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties(NRHP). 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 Section 106 participating consulting parties. Once this step was completed, and all questions and comments were satisfactorily addressed CDOT and FHWA described and made determinations of effect for these properties in the DEIS,arranged by project alternative. All Section 106 consulting parties now have the opportunity to comment upon the determinations of effect and recommended mitigation measures as presented in the DEIS. Following the consultation on effects, any changes as a result of the consultation can be incorporated into the FEIS. Once the consultation on effect has been completed,the mitigation commitments will be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)to be signed by CDOT, FHWA, the SHPO and other appropriate parties. If you have questions or concerns with this process,please notify me at(970) 350-2170 or Monica Pavlik at(720) 963-3012. Sincerely, • Carol H. Pan N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-331 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four '• . OT 1420 2nd Street ...__ Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPART MINT OF TRANSPORTA nON October 29,2008 Ms. Betsy Kellums Greeley Historic Preservation Commission 1100 10th Street Suite 210 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Kellums, The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. We are providing this information to you as a consulting party to the Section 106 process,to provide background information regarding the Section 106 substitution process under which this document will be processed by the State Historic Preservation Officer for historic and archaeological resource determination of effects. For the North 1-25 EIS, CDOT and FHWA have formally arrangcd with the SHPO to substitute the project's NEPA documents (DEIS and FEIS)in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is intended to provide a more • complete opportunity for comments on the effects to historic properties by the various project alternatives. This will, hopefully,reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties, by providing detailed information about project alternatives and impacts in the DEIS. Previous steps in the document substitution process, as applied in the North I-25 Corridor project, have included identification of the Area of Potential Effect and the identification of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP). 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 Section 106 participating consulting parties. Once this step was completed, and all questions and comments were satisfactorily addressed CDOT and FHWA described and made determinations of effect for these properties in the DEIS,arranged by project alternative. All Section 106 consulting parties now have the opportunity to comment upon the determinations of effect and recommended mitigation measures as presented in the DEIS. Following the consultation on effects,any changes as a result of the consultation can be incorporated into the FEIS. Once the consultation on effect has been completed, the mitigation commitments will be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)to be signed by CDOT, FHWA, the SHPO and other appropriate parties. If you have questions or concerns with this process,please notify me at(970)350-2170 or Monica Pavlik at(720) 963-3012. Sincerely, (p ^ n Carol H. Par • N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-332 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A. Region Four '• . 1 1 1420 2nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPART MINE OE I RANSPORTAT ION November 12,2008 Brien Schumacher,Principal Planner Longmont Historic Preservation Commission Longmont Planning Office 350 Kimbark St. Longmont, CO 80501 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Schumacher, The Notice of Availability for the North I-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)was published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. We are providing this information to you as a consulting party to the Section 106 process, to provide background information regarding the Section 106 substitution process under which this document will be processed by the State Historic Preservation Officer for historic and archaeological resource determination of effects. For the North 1-25 EIS,CDOT and FHWA have formally arranged with the SHPO to substitute the project's NEPA documents (DEIS and FEIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish • the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is intended to provide a more complete opportunity for comments on the effects to historic properties by the various project alternatives. This will, hopefully, reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties,by providing detailed information about project alternatives and impacts in the DEIS. Previous steps in the document substitution process, as applied in the North I-25 Corridor project, have included identification of the Area of Potential Effect and the identification of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties(NRHP). 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 Section 106 participating consulting parties. Once this step was completed, and all questions and comments were satisfactorily addressed CDOT and FHWA described and made determinations of effect for these properties in the DEIS, arranged by project alternative. All Section 106 consulting parties now have the opportunity to comment upon the determinations of effect and recommended mitigation measures as presented in the DEIS. Following the consultation on effects, any changes as a result of the consultation can be incorporated into the FEIS. Once the consultation on effect has been completed,the mitigation commitments will be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)to be signed by CDOT, FHWA,the SHPO and other appropriate parties. If you have questions or concerns with this process,please notify me at(970)350-2170 or Monica Pavlik at(720) 963-3012. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-333 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four ' . OT 1 1420 2n°Street • Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPARTMINr or TRANSPORTATION November 26,2008 Don Bessler City of Longmont Parks, Open Space, and Public Facilities Department 7 South Sunset Street Longmont, CO 80501 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bessler: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30`", 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30, 2008 to be considered. If you have comments, please send to Attn: Carol Parr at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289), or email (carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25cis/. • The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik,P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2n°Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 (970)350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, p % "' " \ Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-334 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ , OT Region Four • 1 1420 2nd Street • Greeley,CO 80631 - (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 OEPARtMEV!Of IRANSPORr A I ION November 26, 2008 Gary Havener City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department 500 East Third Loveland, CO 80537 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Havener: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30th, 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30,2008 to be considered.If you have comments,please send to Attn: Carol Parr at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289),or email(carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). • Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2nd Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 (970)350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely,eiviA (C ^ n v Carol H. Pan N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— I CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-335 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four • . OT' 1420 2nd Street OT Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 26, 2008 Amanda Peterson City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department 11700 Community Center Drive Northglenn, CO 80233 RE: North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mrs. Peterson: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30th, 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30, 2008 to be considered. If you have comments, please send to Attn: Carol Pan at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289), or email (carol.pan@dot.state.co.us). Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. • The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik,P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720)963-3012 (970) 350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-336 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Er^ . OT Region Four • 1 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPAR1 MINT of IRAPRFORIA HON November 26,2008 Mike Soderberg City of Thornton Community Services 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 RE: North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Soderberg: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30'", 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30, 2008 to be considered. If you have comments,please send to Attn: Carol Pan at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289),or email (carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). Additional information is available on the project wcbsite at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 (970)350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page D-337 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Page D-338 Public Involvement After the Release of the Draft EIS • • Page D-339 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Page D-340 w October 2008 NORTH 12S PRIM_�._ . . . . - EIS -e;----- _ .4• .� _- information. cooperation. transportation. f'a_ . • _.......„ North Link . . r • ,....... _ ._ ..„ THE NORTH 1 -25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE 1 -25 CORRIDOR FROM THE "_die FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER . Inside This Update on the Draft Environmental Issue Impact Statement Process Update on the Draft EIS Process 1 The Colorado Department of Transportation then be used as one piece of the selection process Stay Involved, (CDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway for a preferred alternative. Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Be Heard .. .. .... .. .. .. .........1 Administration (FTA), has initiated a Draft Envi- The preferred alternative is then studied in Summary of Alternatives ronmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to identify more detail in the Final Environmental Impact idered . .. .. 2 and evaluate multi-modal transportation improve- Statement (FEIS) to determine potential impacts ments along the 61-mile I-25 transportation and mitigation that might be needed to alleviate ovations for DEIS corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to those impacts. Subsequently, an FEIS will be Review 2 Denver. The purpose and need for the improve- prepared followed by a Record of Decision. ments is to address mobility, accessibility, safety Summary of Alternatives and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as StayInvolved . Evaluation . 3 well as to provide for a greater variety of trans- Public Hearings in portation choices. November 4 Be Heard . Two multi-modal packages are being evaluated, Contact Information 4 as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance Public comments are particularly important once with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has requirements. These packages include: been released. While we hope to see you at one of the public hearings in November, comments will • Package A: Commuter rail, general purpose lane be accepted Oct. 31 through Dec. 30, 2008, by any widening of I-25 and commuter bus on US 85 of the following means: • Package B: Widening of 1-25 for tolled Express Lanes and bus rapid transit NORTH I-25 EIS PROJECT OFFICE • The No-Action Alternative Phone: (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ A summary of information and results of the Mail: CDOT Region 4 DEIS will be available to the public during three 1420 2nd Street public hearings on Nov. 18, Nov. 19 and Nov. 20, Greeley, CO 80631 as part of the 45-day public comment period ,�,.. �' that will run from Oct. 31 to Dec. 30, 2008. The i w release of the DEIS is a major milestone in the , i, • _ .e.. ;. NEPA process, and we urge you to participate '" '4:f". ..e:.,., .4 .4. "1 I 1 ' { _ in the public hearings and provide us with your 4t - " , ,;44.40 ,.." .g , H f `�,�w"" ,__ feedback on the alternatives being considered and � %" ' it ' ,°•_ - '. _ the anticipated impacts. This information will _ - _' `' t j i 1 f' a —mama s 1 Page D-341 - —sa°m",'----, ail*—4.$4 .a -44"1-114 :Ca- AW — .'en r , SummaryofAlternati v es Considered An extensive process was undertaken ramp termini, and widening of I-25 off- Denver and along E-47O from US 85 to to identify a range of alternatives ramps at the Prospect/I-25 interchange. Denver International Airport (DIA). that could be developed to meet the purpose and need of the project. These Package A would include adding one Package B would include adding one alternatives were screened and combined additional general purpose lane on I-25 buffer-separated tolled Express Lane to produce two multi-modal packages in each direction, for a total of six lanes (TEL) to I-25 except for the section (Packages A and B). These packages, from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between SH 6O and Harmony Road, together with the No-Action Alternative, between Harmony Road and SH 6O) where two barrier-separated lanes are considered the reasonable alternatives and a total of eight lanes from E-47O to would be added. Tolled Express Lanes for this proposed action and were fully SH 52. Interchange reconstructions would would extend from SH 14 to 84th evaluated within the DEIS. be included. Package A also includes a Avenue in Thornton. Tolled Express double-tracked commuter rail line using Lanes would be used by high-occupancy The No-Action Alternative would include the existing BNSF railroad track plus vehicles for free, by single-occupancy those transportation projects for which one new track from Fort Collins to vehicles if they pay a toll, and by buses. funding has been committed, including downtown Longmont. Also included Interchange reconstructions would be the two FasTracks corridors, widening of would be a new double-tracked included. Package B would also include I-25 from SH 52 to SH 66,replacement of the commuter rail line that would connect 12 bus stations providing service along SH 66/I-25 interchange, modification Longmont to the FasTracks North I-25, along US 34 into Greeley, and along of the US 34/I-25 interchange, and Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along signalization of the SH 402 and the Package A also would include nine US 34 and Harmony Road, the buses Prospect Road interchange ramp termini. commuter rail stations and a commuter would travel in mixed traffic. Package B The No-Action Alternative also would rail maintenance facility; a commuter also would include a bus maintenance include rehabilitation of two structures bus maintenance facility and feeder facility and feeder bus routes along fi on I-25 at 84th Avenue and 1O4th Avenue, bus routes along five east-west routes; east-west streets. In addition, bus sery replacement of pavement on I-25, and commuter bus service along would be provided along E-47O from I-2 installation of signals at five interchange US 85 between Greeley and downtown to DIA. THE DEIS IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS BEGINNING OCT. 31, 2008: Berthoud Town Hall 328 Massachusetts Ave. Berthoud 80513 Brighton City Hall 22 S. 4th Ave. Brighton 80601 CDOT Headquarters 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver 80222 CDOT Region 4 Headquarters 1420 2nd St. Greeley 80631 CDOT Region 4, Loveland Residency 2207 Hwy. 402 Loveland 80537 a City of Longmont Civic Center 350 Kimbark St. Longmont 80501 Dacono City Hall 512 Cherry St. Dacono 80514 Erie Town Hall 645 Holbrook St. Erie 80516 FHWA Colorado Division Office 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Ste. 180 Lakewood 80228 Firestone Town Hall 151 Grant Ave. Firestone 80520 Fort Collins City Building 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins 80522 Fort Collins Regional Library 201 Peterson St. Fort Collins 80524 Frederick Town Hall Admin. Bldg. 401 Locust St. Frederick 80530 FTA 12300 W Dakota Ave., Ste. 310 Lakewood 80228 Greeley City Building 1000 10th Ave. Greeley 80631 _ Greeley Lincoln Park Library 919 7th St., Ste. 100 Greeley 80631 Johnstown Town Hall 101 Charlotte St. Johnstown 80534 .r I ---.A.-7- , Longmont Library 409 4th Ave. Longmont 80501 Loveland City Hall 500 E. 3rd St., Ste. 110 Loveland 80537 ,�:.6 Loveland Library 300 N. Adams Ave. Loveland 80537 .-a " r" Mead Town Hall 441 Third St. Mead 80452 '`- = - - " Milliken Town Hall 2951 Ash St. Milliken 80543 Northglenn City Hall 11701 Community Center Dr. Northglenn 80233 _ - - SW Weld County Building 915 10th St. Greeley 80632 /. Thornton City Hall 9500 Civic Center Dr. Thornton 802.29 4 2 Page D-342 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation The following table summarizes information about the relative responsiveness of the three alternatives to the factors used in the evaluation. Not all environmental factors are included in this table; rather, just those that show a clear difference among alternatives. 0 No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Improving Mobility and Accessibility Regional Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) 48.68 million 49.15 million 49.12 million/ Regional Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) 1 .53 million 1 .53 million 1 .53 million Freeway VMT 15.7 million 16.6 million 16.1 million/ Freeway VHT 325 thousand 330 thousand 327 thousand/ Average speed 31 .8 mph 32.2 mph/ 32.1 mph Transit ridership (commuter services) N/A 5,850 5,850 Transit market share (to downtown Denver) <1 % 55%/ 50% Highway travel time 128 minutes (GPL); 118 minutes (GPL); 113 minutes (GPL); (AM peak hour, SH 1 to 20th Street) 112 minutes (TEL) 101 minutes (TEL) 65 minutes (TEL)/ Transit travel time 130 minutes 93 minutes (rail) 72 minutes (BRT)/ (Fort Collins South Transit Center to DUS) (bus in GPL & TEL where available) Congested miles on 1-25 (PM peak hour) 53 miles 22 miles/ 22 miles/ Interchange ramp terminals operating at 20 ramp terminals 3 ramp terminals 2 ramp terminals/ LOSE or F (AM) Improving Highway Safety N/A 3,466 crashes 3,410 crashes/ Transit Safety (annual injuries) N/A 18/ 59 Replacing Aging infrastructure 24 minor rehabilitations 84 new structures 96 new structures/ 2 major rehabilitations 13 modifications of 23 modifications of existing structures existing structures/ 2 major rehabilitations/ 0 major rehabilitations • 6 minor rehabilitations/ 1 minor rehabilitation Expansion of Transportation Modes of Travel Does not expand Commuter rail, commuter BRT & feeder bus bus, & feeder bus added added Responsiveness to Economic Development Not responsive Responsive to needs Responsive to needs along 1-25 and BNSF/ along 1-25 Environmental Consequences Relocations None 59 residences; 24 residences; 33 businesses 16 businesses/ Traffic noise sites impacted 626 sites 623 sites./ 756 sites Transit noise sites impacted N/A 167 residences None✓ Vibration sites impacted N/A 87 residences None/ Wetlands and jurisdictional waters impacted None 19.34 acres/ 20.36 acres Water Quality: acres of impervious surface area None 1 ,946/ 2,001 Floodplains impacted None 12.8 acres./ 13.5 acres Historic/archaeological properties adversely affected None 5 1 ✓ Parks and recreational properties impacted None 7/ 8 Wildlife and aquatic species habitat None 2.01 acres terrestrial; 2.35 acres terrestrial; 1 .82 acres aquatic/ 2.25 acres aquatic Threatened, endangered, state sensitive None 283.35 acres/ 358.98 acres & protected species habitat affected Cost (2005 dollars) Capital cost $57 million $2.43 billion $2.00 billion./ Annual operating cost $4 million $43 million $20 million/ simalized cost per user per trip $0.03 $0.76 $0.58✓ = Build alternative that performs better N/A = Not Applicable 3 Page D-343 f Mark Your Calendars — Contact Information Public Hearings in November North l-25 EIS Project Office Phone: (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 Join the North I-25 Project Team for public hearings to review and comment on the Web site: vuww.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement. All of the public hearings will take place Mail: COOT Region 4 from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the following locations: 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 Nov. 18: Longmont Public Library I Meeting Rooms A & B 409 4th Ave., Longmont, CO 80501 Project Team Monica Pavlik, P.E. Nov. 19: Fort Collins Lincoln Center I Columbine Room Federal Highway Administration 417 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 David Beckhouse Federal Transit Administration Parr Nov 20: Outlets at Loveland I Space 5617 (in the wing by Levi's) Carol CDOT Project Manager 5661 McWhinney Blvd., Loveland, CO 80538 Long Nguyen, P.E. (I-25 and US 34 — Exit 257B) CDOT Assistant Project Manager Tom Anzia, P.E. The format for each of the public hearings will include an open house from 4:30 p.m. Project Manager to 5:30 p.m. for reviewing information and asking questions of the project team. Gina McAfee, AICP The project presentation and opportunity for public comment will take place Deputy Project Manager from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. The open house will then continue and the project team Kim McCarl, APR will be available from 6:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. for follow-up questions or clarification. Public Involvement Manager 4 1£908 OD 'Aaiaa.ra aaa�aS PuZ OZfi1 f, uoiIa21 IOU) .uoueuodsueJT •uolteied000 -uogewJoluw SIB kis SZ-I [mom Page D-344 Octubre 2008 NORTH 1-25 EIS '-= information. cooperation. transportation. i J ASJIII k .1 DECLARACI0N DE IMPACT0 AMBIENTAL DE LA 1 -25 N0RTE - ESTUDIANDO EL FUTURO DE ,------' TRANSPORTE A LO LARGO DE 1 -25 DESDE FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON HASTA DENVER . _amisiglig Eneste Nueva informaciOn del Proceso de la numero DeclaraciOn • .de Ambiental Nueva informacionsobre el informe El Departamento de Transporte de Colorado hito importante en el proceso NEPA por lo que ambiental (EIS) 1 (CDOT), junto con la Administracion Federal de solicitamos la participacion del publico en estas Carreteras (FHWA) y la Administracion General audiencias para recibir los comentarios del publico Participe y comparta de Transporte Publico (FTA), ha iniciado la sobre las alternativas que se estan considerando Su opinion 1 DeclaraciOn Inicial de Impacto Ambiental (DEIS) y sobre el impacto de esas alternativas. Esta men de las para identificar y evaluar mejoras multimodales informacion sera un componente del proceso de a ernativas en el transporte publico en las 61 minas (97.6 km.) seleccion de la altemativa preferida. consideradas 2 del corredor de transporte de I-25 entre el area de Fort Collins/Wellington hasta Denver. El La aternativa preferida sera entonces estudiada en Lugares pare ver el proposito y la necesidad de las mejoras es para mayor detalleparalaDeclaracionFinaldelImpacto estudio 2 responder a la necesidad de mejorar la movilidad, Ambiental (FEIS) para determinar el potencial la accesibilidad, la seguridad y el reemplazo de la impacto y las medidas de mitigacion necesarias Resumen de la infraestructura obsolota a lo largo de la I-25, a la para reducir ese impacto. Subsecuentemente, evaluacion de las vez que se busca proveer una mayor variedad de se preparara el FEIS seguido de un Registro de alternativas 3 opciones de transporte publico. Decision. Reuniones publican en Se estan evaluando dos paquetes multimodales, - - it noviembre.., 4 a la vez que la Alternativa de No Action, comparticipe • � ' `a p Information de lo requiere el Acta Nacional de Politica Ambiental • • contacto 4 (NEPA). Estos paquetes incluyen: s u opinion . • Paquete A: Tren suburba de pasajeros, Los comentarios del pu rn blico son especia ente carriles de use general, ampliacion de la I-25, importantes una vez que la Version Inicial de la y buses para pasajeros en la US 85 Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental se de a conocer. • Paquete B: Ampliacion de la I-25, carriles con Aurtque esperamos que usted participe de las peaje y buses rapidos audienrias publicoas en noviembre, se aceptaran los • Altemativa de No Accion comentarios desde el 31 de octubre hasta el 30 de -- - diciembre, por cualquiera de los medios siguientes: Una versilir on abreviada de la n informacion y los t t .y►•. . • resultados del estudio DEIS se darn a conocer al NORTH I-25 EIS PROJECT OFFICE 4 ` allpublico en las tres reunion es publicas a realizarse Telefono: (970) 352-5455 o (303) 779-3384 el 18, 19 y 20 de noviembre como parte de los 60 Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ ; ~;,' i , dias del periodo de comentarios, que impieza Direccibn: CDOT Region 4 r41,0," 7 ` ' -------• el 31 de octubre y termina el 30 de diciembre 1420 2nd Street ' ,' del 2008. La publicacion del estudio DEIS es un Greeley, CO 80631 v F J �„'T 1 Page D-345 46 1. • ♦ass'far- Ste � .�� /1 • - -) 1 \ �• rte- Resumen de las Alternativas Consideradas Se llevo a cabo un extenso proceso para cinco rampas, y la ampliacion de las el Aeropuerto International de Denver identificar una variedad de altemativas rampas de salida de la I-25 a la altura de (DIA). que pudiesen desarrollarse para satisfacer la intersection Prospect/I-25. el proceso y la necesidad de este proyecto. El Paquete B incluye un carril especial Estas altemativas fueron analizaras y El Paquete A incluye anadir un carril y separado expreso y con peaje en la combinadas para producir dos paquetes adicional de use general a la I-25 en cada I-25 excepto en la section entre la SH 60 multimodales (Paquetes A y B). Estos direction, para que tenga seis carriles y Harmony Road, donde se anadiran paquetes, junto con Ia Alternativa de entre la SH 66 y la SH 14 (ademas de barreras para separar los carriles. Los No Accion, son considerados como las carriles auxiliares entre Harmony Road y carriles con peaje iran desde la SH 14 hasta altemativas razonables para este action la SH 60) y un total de ocho carriles entre la Avenida 84 en Thornton. Los carriles con propuesta y fueron evaluadas en su la E-470 y la SH 52. Se incluye tambien peaje podran ser usadas gratuitamente totalidad para el estudio DEIS. la reconstruction de los intercambios. por los vehiculos con multiples ocupantes El Paquete A tambien incluye tren de y, pagando, por los vehiculos con un solo La Alternativa de No AcciOn incluye los pasajeros de dos vias usando las Was ocupante. Los buses tambien usaran proyectos de transporte para los cuales ya existentes de BNSF y una via entre Fort estos carriles. Tambien se incluye la se tienen fondos asegurados, incluyendo Collins haste el centro de Longmont. reconstruction de las intersecciones. El los dos corredores de FasTracks, la Tambien incluye el nuevo tren de pasajeros Paquete B incluye 12 estaciones de buses ampliacion de Ia 1-25 entre SH 52 y de dos vias que conectara a Longmont a lo largo de la I-25, a lo largo de la US SH 66, el reemplazo de la intersecciOn con la estaciOn del Corredor Norte Metro 34 hasta Greeley, y a lo largo de Harmony de SH 66/I-25, la modification de la de FasTracks en Thornton (donde termina Road hasta Fort Collins. En la US 34 y en intersecciOn US 34/1-25, la senalizacion la Linea). El Paquete A tambien incluye Harmony Road, los buses circularan junto de SH 402 y la finalization de las rampas nueve estaciones del tren de pasajeros y en trafico. El Paquete B incluye tambien de la intersection con Prospect Road. La un taller de mantenimiento de trenes, un un taller de mantenimiento de autobus Alternativa de No Accibn tambien incluye sistema de buses principales y auxiliares y rutas de buses auxiliares en direccio la rehabilitation de dos estructuras de la en cinco rutas este-oeste y un sistema de este-oeste en cinco calles. Ademas, se I-25 a la altura de la Avenida 84 y de la buses de pasejeros a lo largo de la US 85 proveera servicio de buses a lo largo de la Avenida 104, el reemplazo del pavimento entre Greeley y el centro de Denver y a lo E-470 desde la I-25 hasta DIA. de la 1-25, la instalacion de senales en largo de Ia E-470 desde la US 85 y hasta EL ESTUDIO DEIS SE PODRA VER EN LOS SIGUIENTES LUGARES DESDE EL 31 DE OCTUBRE, 2008: Oficinas Municipales de Berthoud 328 Massachusetts Ave. Berthoud 80513 Oficinas Municipales de Brighton 22 S. 4th Ave. Brighton 80601 Oficinas Centrales de COOT 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver 80222 Oficinas de CDOT RegiOn 4 1420 2nd St. Greeley 80631 1111.11111111 COOT Regibn 4, Loveland 2207 Hwy. 402 Loveland 80537 Centro Civico de Longmont 350 Kimbark St. Longmont 80501 Oficinas Municipales de Dacono 512 Cherry St. Dacono 80514 Oficinas Municipales de Erie 645 Holbrook St. Erie 80516 Oficinas de Colorado de FHWA 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Ste. 180 Lakewood 80228 Oficinas Municipales de Firestone 151 Grant Ave. Firestone 80520 Oficinas Municipales de Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins 80522 Biblioteca Regional de Fort Collins 201 Peterson St. Fort Collins 80524 Oficinas Municipales de Frederick 401 Locust St. Frederick 80530 Oficinas de FTA 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Ste. 310 Lakewood 80228 Oficinas Municipales de Greeley 1000 10th Ave. Greeley 80631 Biblioteca Municipal de Greeley 919 7th St., Ste. 100 Greeley 80631 i _ �_. Oficinas Municipales de Johnstown 101 Charlotte St. Johnstown 80534 6_--- -r--, - <`` ' ~'� � ` TT c. Biblioteca de Longmont 409 4th Ave. Longmont 80501 .. z Oficinas Municipales de Loveland 500 E. 3rd St., Ste. 110 Loveland 80537 ___ r _ - Biblioteca de Loveland 300 N. Adams Ave. Loveland 80537 .-cs-d -: Oficinas Municipales de Mead 441 Third St. Mead 80452 at- vr Oficinas Municipales de Milliken 2951 Ash St. Milliken 80543 \ Oficinas Municipales de Northglenn 11701 Community Center Dr. Northglenn 80233ar Edificio del Condado Weld (SW) 915 10th St. Greeley 80632 f -_*-- _- 0ficinas Municipales de Thornton 9500 Civic Center Dr. Thornton 80229 /. t ,_` 2 Page D-346 Resumen de Ia Evaluacion de las Alternatives La siguiente tabla es un resumen de la informaciOn sobre las respuestas relativas que cada una de las tres alternativas ofrece a los ip factores utilizados como evaluacian. La tabla no incluye todos los factores ambientales considerados, sino solamente aquellos que claramente muestran una diferencia entre las altemativas. Alternative No Accion Paquete A Paquete B Mejorar movilidad y accesibilidad Millas de viaje regionales por vehiculo (VMT) 48.68 millones 49.15 millones 49.12 millones ✓ Horas de viaje regionales por vehiculo (VHT) 1 .53 millones 1 .53 millones 1 .53 millones VMT en carretera 15.7 millones 16.6 millones 16.1 millones / VHT en carretera 325 mil 330 mil 327 mil ✓ Velocidad promedio 31.8 mph 32.2 mph ✓ 32.1 mph Pasajeros (servicio interurbano) N/A 5,850 5,850 Porcentaje del mercado de pasajeros <1 % 55% / 50% (centro de Denver) Tempo de viaje en carretera 128 minutos 118 minutos 113 minutos (AM hora pico, SH 1 a 20th Street) (carril general); (carril general); (carril general); 112 minutos (peaje) 101 minutos (peaje) 65 minutos (peaje) ✓ Tempo de viaje en transporte publico 130 minutos 93 minutos (tren) 72 minutos (Fort Collins South Transit Center a DUS) (bus en carril general o peaje) (buses rapidos) / Millas congestionadas en 1-25 (PM horas pico) 53 millas 22 millas ✓ 22 millas ✓ Rampas en intersecciones operando 20 rampas terminates 3 rampas terminales 2 rampas terminales / a velocidades lentas (AM) Mejorar Ia seguridad vial N/A 3,466 accidentes 3,410 accidentes / Seguridad del transports publico (heridos por ano) N/A 18 ✓ 59 Remplazar infraestructura anticuada 24 rehabilitaciones menores 84 nuevas estructuras 96 nuevas estructuras ✓ 2 rehabilitaciones mayores 13 modificaciones de 23 modificaciones de 0 estructuras existentes estructuras existentes / 2 rehabilitaciones mayores ✓ 0 rehabilitaciones mayores 6 rehabilitaciones menores / 1 rehabilitaciones menores Expandir modos de transport° de viaje No hay expansi6n Agrega tren de pasajeros, Agrega buses rapidos buses y buses auxiliares y buses auxiliares Respuesta al desarrollo economico No da respuestas Responde a necesidades Responde a necesidades en la 1-25 y en BNSF / en Ia 1-25 Consecuencias del medio ambiente Mudanzas Ninguno 59 residencies; 33 negocios 24 residencies; 16 negocios / Sitios afectados por el ruido del trafico 626 sitios 623 sitios ✓ 756 sitios Sitios afectados por el ruido del transporte publico N/A 167 residencias Ninguno ✓ Sitios afectados por vibraciones N/A 87 residencies Ninguno / Pantanos y aguas jurisdiccionales afectados Ninguno 19.34 acres / 20.36 acres Calidad del agua: acres de superficie no porosa Ninguno 1,946 / 2,001 Praderas inundables afectadas Ninguno 12.8 acres / 13.5 acres Sitios historicos y arqueolOgicos Ninguno 5 1 ✓ afectados negativamente Parques y centros recreativos afectados Ninguno 7 ✓ 8 Habitat de vide silvestre y especies acuaticas Ninguno 2.01 acres de tierra; 2.35 acres de tierra; 1 .82 acres de agua ✓ 2.25 acres de ague Habitat afectado de especies protegidas y amenazadas Ninguno 283.35 acres / 358.98 acres Costo ((Mares del 2005) Costo de infraestructura $57 millones $2.43 mil millones $2.00 mil millones ✓ Costo de operaciones anuales $4 millones $43 millones $20 millones ✓ o anualizado por viaje $0.03 $0.76 $0.58 ✓ II = Construir Ia alternative con mejor desempeno N/A = No aplicable Page D-347 .3 j - _ - fi Marque sus calendarios: Informacion de Audiencias publicas en noviembre Contacto Participe junto con el Equipo del Proyecto de la I-25 Norte de las audiencias publicas North I-25 EIS Project Office para revisar y opinar sobre la Declaration Inicial del Impacto Ambiental. Todas las Telefono: (970) 352-5455 o (303) 779-3384 audiencias seran de 4:30 p.m. a 7 p.m. en estos lugares: Internet: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Nov. 18: Biblioteca Publica de Longmont Direction CD0T Region 4 Salas A y B 1420 2nd Street 409 4th Ave., Longmont, CO 80501 Greeley, CO 80631 Nov. 19: Centro Lincoln de Fort Collins Equipo del Proyecto Sala Columbine Ing. Monica Pavlik 417 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 AdministraciOn Federal de Carreteras Nov. 20: Outlets en Loveland David Beckhouse Espacio 5617 (en el ala junto a Levi's) Administration General de Transporte Publico 5661 McWhinney Blvd., Loveland, CO 80538 Carol Parr (I-25 and US 34 - Salida 257B) Gerente del Proyecto de COOT El formato para cada una de las audiciones publicas incluira una casa abierta de Ing. Long Nguyen 4:30 de la tarde a 5:30 de la tarde para revisar information y para hacer preguntas Subgerente del Proyecto de COOT del equipo de proyecto. La presentation del proyecto y la oportunidad para el Ing. Tom Anzia comentario publico sucederan de 5:30 de la tarde a 6:30 de la tarde. La casa abierta Gerente del Proyecto entonces continuara y el equipo de proyecto estara disponible de 6:30 de la tarde a Gina McAfee, AICP 7 de la tarde para preguntas de seguimiento o clarification. Subgerente del Proyecto Kim McCarl, APR 4 Gerente de Relaciones POblicas T£908 OD 'AalaaID laaitS PuZ 0ZtT I7 uota>l jOUj .uoileliodsueal •uoilejadooa .uolewJoiui sia SZ-I H.L2ION Page D-348 Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 212/Friday, October 31, 2008/Notices 64943 • hourly burden still increased because of column),correct the docket ID number (Bahamas)Lease Area,8 to 10 miles an increase in the number of Partners. to read EPA—HQ—OAR-2008-0670.This off the East Coast of Florida to the For perspective on the magnitude of previous Federal Register notice Northeast of Port Everglades,FL. partner growth,the number of Partners provided instructions for submitting Summary:EPA expressed at the end of 2004 was 865,whereas by comments and such instructions should environmental concerns about pipeline year-end there will be an estimated continue to be followed with the docket impacts and impacts related to fuel use 1,286. number provided by this notice. onboard the purpose-built Storage and The total cost estimate over the 3 year Dated:October 22,2908. Regasification Ship, period for this renewal ICR is $1,991,978,or all average of$663,992 Robert J.Meyer, EIS No. 20080287,ERP No. F—BLM— per year,of which$16,632 is O&M Principal DeputyAssistant Administrator, J65490—UT, Moab Field Office costs.The total cost to GPP and CHP Office of Air and Radiation. Planning Area,Resource Management Partners is$1,549,178 (16,632 is O&M), [FR Doc.E8-25793 Filed 10-30-08;8:45 am] Plan,Implementation,Grand and San or$516,393 (5,544 is O&M) per year. In BILLING CODE 6560-50-M Juan Counties,UT. the previous 2004 ICR renewal,the total Summary:EPA continues to have cost over the 3 year period was environmental concerns about impacts $1,101,749.The total cost estimate ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION to air quality from oil and gas increase for Partners is due to an AGENCY development,impacts from motorized increase in the number of Partners and [ER-FRL-8587-2] vehicle travel on natural resources,and increases in wages. impacts on Areas of Critical Dated:October z4,2008. Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Concern, Regulations;Availability of EPA EIS No. 20080310,ERP No.F—COE- Kathleen Hogan, Comments E11060-NC,West Onslow Beach and Director,Climate Protection Partnership New River Inlet(Topsail Beach) Shore Division. Availability of EPA comments Protection Project,Storm Damages [FR Doc.E8-26017 Filed 10-30-08;8:45 aml prepared pursuant to the Environmental and Beach Erosion Reduction, BILLING CODE 6560-50-P Review Process (ERP), under Section Funding,Pender County,NC. 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section Summary:EPA continues to have 102(2)(c)of the National Environmental environmental concerns about impacts ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Policy Act as Amended. p AGENCY on marine habitats and migratory Requests for copies of EPA comments species from dredging and filling. EPA [FRL-8735-31 can be directed to the Office of Federal requested adaptive management and Activities at 202-564-7157. An water quality monitoring of the borrow • California State Nonroad Engine explanation of the ratings assigned to areas. Pollution Control Standards;California draft environmental impact statements EIS No. 20080316,ERP No. F—BLM— Nonroad Compression Ignition (EISs)was published in FR dated April J65436—UT,Vernal Field Office Engines;Within-the-Scope Request; 6,2008 (73 FR 19833). Resource.Management Plan,To Opportunity for Public Hearing; Draft EISs Revise and Integrate the Book Cliff Correction of Docket Number and Diamond Mountain Resource EIS No. 20080326,ERP No.DS—FHW— AGENCY:Environmental Protection E40165—NC,US 74 Relocation,from Management Plans,and Analyzing the Agency. US-129 in Robbinsville to NC 28 in Management of Non-Wilderness ACTION: Notice;correction. Stecoah,Funding and U.S.Army COE Study Area Lands with Wilderness Section 404 Permit,Transportation Characteristic,Implementation, SUMMARY:On October 7,2008,the U.S. Daggett,Duchesne,Uintah,and Grand Environmental Protection Agency's Improvement Program Project No.A— Counties, UT. (EPA's)Office of Air and Radiation 9 B&C,Graham County,NC. announced an opportunity for public Summary:EPA has environmental Summary:EPA continues to have hearing and written comment,The objections to the proposed project environmental concerns about impacts notice concerns the California Air regarding significant impacts to to air quality from oil and gas Resources Board's request seeking EPA's wetlands and high quality streams.EPA development, impacts from motorized confirmation that its amendments also believes there are significant and vehicle to natural resources and impacts affecting emission standards for three unaddressed construction impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental broad categories of new compression resulting from the proposed 2,870-foot Concern. ignition engines are within the scope of tunnel under the Appalachian Trail at EIS No. 20080322,ERP No.F—NRC— previous authorizations issued by EPA. Stecoah Gap. Furthermore,EPA believes E06024—GA,Vogtle Electric Please be advised the docket number for there are significant and unresolved Generating (NUREG 1872)Plant Site, that notice was incorrect. impacts to residences,water supplies, Early Site Permit(ESP),for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: terrestrial forests,NFS lands,aquatic Construction and Operation of a new David Dickinson,Compliance and habitat,air quality,and noise receptors. Nuclear Power Generating Facility Innovative Strategies Division (6405J), Rating EO2. Application Approval,Burke County, GA.Summary:U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Final EISs EPA continues to have U.S. Pennsylvania Ave NW., y Washington,DC 20460.Telephone: EIS No. 20080274,ERP No. F—CGD— environmental concern about (202) 343-9256,Fax: (202)343-2804,e- E03017—FL,Calypso Liquefied bioentrainment and other impacts to mail:Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV, Natural Gas (LNG)Deepwater Port aquatic species from surface water • Correction License Application,Proposes to withdrawals and discharges. Own,Construct and Operate a EIS No. 20080328,ERP No.F—BLM- In the Federal Register at 73 FR 58583 Deepwater Port,Outer Continental J65418—UT,Price Field Resource (October 7, 2008),on page 58583 (2nd Shelf(OCS) in the OCS NG 17-06 Management Plan, Selection of Page D-349 64944 Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 212/Friday. October 31, 2008/Notices Preferred Alternative D,Non- Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Plan,To Provide Direction for • Wilderness Study Area(WSA)Lands Statements Managing Public Lands in Central and with Wilderness Characteristics, Filed 10/20/2008 through 10/24/2008. Eastern Oregon,Prineville District, Implementation,Carbon and Emery Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Grant,Wheeler,Gilliam,Wasco, Counties,UT. EIS No.20080432,Draft EIS, COE,LA, Sherman, Umatilla,Jefferson and Summary:EPA continues to have Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Morrow Counties,OR,Comment environmental concerns about impacts (MRGO),Louisiana,and Lake Borgne Period Ends:01/29/2009,Contact: to air quality from oil and gas Wetland Creation and Shoreline Anna Smith 541-416-6747. development,impacts to Areas of Protection Project,Proposes to Amended Notices Critical Environmental Concern and on Construct Shoreline Protection wild and scenic river management. Features Along the Lake Borgne EIS No.20080327,Draft EIS,FHW,MT, EIS No. 20080362,ERP No.F—AFS— Shoreline to Restore and Nourish Russell Street/South 3rd Street Recons J65505—CO,Durango Mountain Resort Wetlands,Lake Borgne,LA,Comment Curren Uuctior Project,To Address Improvement Plan,Special-Use- Period Ends: 12/15/2008,Contact:Dr. Current and Projected Safety and Permits,Implementation,San Juan William P. Klein 504-862-2540. Operational e Needs,Funding and U.S. National Forest,La Plata and San Juan EIS No. 20080433,Final EIS, COE, 00, Army COE Section 404 Permit,City of Counties,CO. Programmatic—Port of New York and Missoula,Missoula County,MT, New Dredged Material Comment Period Ends: 11/04/2008, Jersey Summary:EPA continues to have J y g Contact:Lloyd H. Rue 406-449-5302. environmental concerns about potential Management Plan,2008 Updated adverse impacts to water quality, Information,Implementation,NY and Revision to FR Notice Published wetlands,especially forested wetlands, NJ,Wait Period Ends: 12/01/2008, 08/29/2008:Extending Comment Period and lynx habitat. Contact:Christopher Ricciardi,Ph.D. from 10/20/2008 to 11/04/2008. EIS No. 20080363,ERP Na. F—AFS— 917-790-8630. EIS No.20080422,Draft EIS, FTA,MD, K65277—CA,Modoc National Forest EIS No.20080434,Draft EIS,FTA, TX, Purple Line Transit Project,Proposed Noxious Weed Treatment Project, Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor 16-Mile Rapid Transit Line Extending Proposes to Implement a Control and Project,Transportation Improvements from Bethesda in Montgomery County Eradication Project,Lassen,Modoc in the Cities of Fort Worth,Haltom to New Carrollton in Prince George's and Eradication Siskiyou Counties,CA. City,North Richland Hills, County,MD,Comment Period Ends: Colleyville,and Grapevine,Funding 01/14/2009,Contact:Gail McFadden- Summary:EPA continues to have and U.S.Army COE Section 404 Roberts 215-656-7100. environmental concerns about potential Permit,Tarrant County,TX,Comment Revision to FR Notice Published impacts to groundwater from herbicides Period Ends: 12/15/2008,Contact: 10/17/2008:Extending Comment Period with high leaching potential. Robert C. Patrick 817-978-0550. from 12/01/2008 to 01/14/2009. • EIS No. 20080376,ERP No. F—NOA— EIS No.20080435,Draft EIS,FHW,MS, Dated:October 28.2008. K39102—CA,Cordell Bank,Gulf of the MS-601 Transportation Project, Robert W.Hargrove, Farallones and Monterey Bay National Extension of MS-601 from I-10 Canal Marine Sanctuaries,Proposes a Series Interchange to Connect with U.S. 49, Director,NEPA Compliance Division,Office of Regulatory Changes,Offshore of Funding,Harrison and Stone of Federal Activities. Northern/Central,CA. Counties,MS,Comment Period Ends: IFR Doc.E8-26028 Filed 10-30-08;8:45 aml Summary:No formal comment letter 12/15/2008,Contact:Cecil W.Vick,Jr. BILLING CODE 6560-50-P was sent to the preparing agency. 601-965-4217. EIS No. 20080387,ERP No. F—NPS— EIS No.20080436,Draft EIS, FHW, CO, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION J61112—CO,Curecanti National North 1-25 Corridor,To Identify and AGENCY Recreation Area Resource Protection Evaluate Multi-Modal Transportation Study,Gunnison and Montrose Improvement along 61 miles from the [EPA—HO—OPPT-2008-0776;FRL-8387-7] Counties,CO. Fort Collins-Wellington Area, Funding and U.S.Army COE Section National Advisory Committee for Acute Summary:No formal comment letter 404 Permit,Denver,CO,Comment Exposure Guideline Levels for was sent to the preparing agency. Period Ends: 12/30/2008,Contact: Hazardous Substances; Notice of Dated:October 28,2008. Monica Pavlik 720-963-3012. Public Meeting Robert W.Hargrove, EIS No.20080437,Final EIS, NPS, WA, AGENCY:Environmental Protection Director,NEPA Compliance Division,Office San Juan Island National Historical Agency(EPA). of Federal Activities. Park,General Management Plan, ACTION: Notice. IFR Doc.E8-26031 Filed 10-30-08;8:45 am] Implementation,WA,Wait Period BILLING CODE 6560-50-P Ends: 12/01/2008,Contact:Cheryle SUMMARY:A meeting of the National Teague 206-220-4112. Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure EIS No. 20080438,Final EIS,FHW, CA, Guideline Levels for Hazardous ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Doyle Drive Project,South Access to Substances (NAC/AEGL Committee) AGENCY the Golden Gate Bridge,Propose to will be held on December 3-5,2008,in [ER—FRL-8587-1] Improve Seismic,Structural,and San Diego,CA. At this meeting,the Traffic Safety,Presidio of San NAC/AEGL Committee will address,as Environmental Impacts Statements; Francisco, San Francisco County time permits,the various aspects of the Notice of Availability Transportation Authority,Marin and acute toxicity and the development of San Francisco Counties,CA,Wait Acute Exposure Guideline Levels Responsible Agency:Office of Federal Period Ends: 12/01/2008,Contact: (AEGLs) for the following chemicals: • Activities,General Information (202) Cesar E. Perez 916-498-5065. Acrylonitrile,ally]alcohol,aluminum 564-1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ EIS No.20080439,Draft EIS,BLM, OR, chloride,antimony pentafluoride, compliance/nepal. John Day Basin Resource Management bromoacetone,dichlorodimethyl silane, Page D-350 • News Releases Northeastern Colorado/CDOT Region 4 November 5, 2008 CDOT RELEASES I-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, SEEKING PUBLIC INPUT GREELEY—On Friday, October 31st, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) released the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for a 60- day comment period in order to collect public input on the two multi-modal transportation packages and the no-action alternative being evaluated for the I-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins/Wellington. The purpose of the study is to identify reasonable transportation improvements that will address mobility, accessibility, safety and the aging infrastructure along I-25 while providing more transportation choices. The two packages being evaluated include both highway and transit improvements: • • Package A: Widens I-25 to accommodate an additional lane in each direction, for a total of six lanes from State Highway(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 also be included. The package also includes commuter rail from Fort Collins to Longmont and commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport. • Package B: Adds one buffer-separated tolled Express Lane to I-25 except between SH 60 and Harmony Road where two barrier-separated lanes would be added. Tolled Express Lanes would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue and would operate much like the HOV/tolled Express Lanes on 1-25 between Downtown Denver and US 36. Interchange reconstructions would be included. The package would also include bus rapid transit along the corridor. "The 1-25 north corridor has experienced a tremendous amount of growth in recent years and we expect that growth to continue," said CDOT Region Transportation Director Bob Garcia. "To ensure that our transportation system remains safe and efficient, it is important that we study the corridor now and determine the most beneficial and feasible transportation improvements for the future. Before we can decide on what improvements will fit the corridor the best, we need members of the public to get involved in the process and share their comments." During the 60-day comment period that started on October 31st and continues through December 30th„ the DEIS can be viewed at 26 locations along the corridor and in Denver (list of locations attached). In addition, CDOT will host three public hearings in November to allow members of the community to review and comment on the DEIS. All • hearings will take place from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. with a brief presentation and an Page D-351 opportunity for public comment beginning at 5:30 p.m. The public hearings will be held • at the following locations: • November 18, 2008: Longmont Public Library in Meeting Rooms A& B-409 4th Avenue • November 19,2008: Fort Collins Lincoln Center in the Columbine Room-417 W. Magnolia Street • November 20, 2008: Outlets at Loveland in Space 5617 (in the wing by Levi's)-5661 McWhinney Boulevard near the I-25/US 34 interchange "There are many opportunities to comment on the DEIS and we strongly encourage everyone to participate in some manner," added Garcia. "We are at an important stage of this study and all of the comments we get in the next 60-days will help determine what transportation improvements will take place along the I-25 corridor in the years to come." Those who are unable to attend the public hearings are encouraged to submit comments via the project Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, contacting the project office by phone at(970) 352-5455 or(303) 779-3384 or by sending a letter to: CDOT Region 4, Attn: Carol Parr, 1420 2nd Street, Greeley, CO 80631. • • Page D-352 • NORTH I-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, November 18, 2.008 4 : 30 p.m. - 7 : 00 p.m. Longmont Public Library - Meeting Rooms A & B 409 4th Avenue, Longmont, Colorado 80501 COMMENTS MADE BY INDIVIDUALS DURING HEARING • • Page D-353 2 1 COMMENTS MADE DURING OPEN HOUSE SESSION • PRIOR TO PRESENTATION 2 3 ANDY KELLER, Human Factors Design, 4 1455 Twin Sisters Circle, Longmont, CO 80501-3038 5 My name is Andy Keller, resident of Longmont. 6 A-n-d-y, K-e-1-1-e-r. E-mail address is Andy at Human 7 Factors Design dot Biz, B-i-z. And I talked to Long Nguyen 8 and another gentleman whose name I cannot remember, and they 9 were both very helpful and informative. The subject is 10 pavement smoothness. And I encouraged all those responsible 11 in the laying of roads and inspection of the roads to assure 12 that they are produced smoothly. The reasons are not just 13 aesthetic; they are to help retain the integrity of the road 14 surface, especially roads traveled by heavy-duty trucks. • 15 16 * * * * * 17 18 GENE PUTMAN, City of Thornton, 19 9500 Civic Center Drive, Thornton, CO 80229 20 Biggest concern I have is in option A, where they 21 show eight lanes north of E-470 and six lanes on I-25 south 22 of E-470. I find that to be logically poor because if you 23 think about I-25 coming south, you would think that the 24 roads would widen as you went south because there's more and 25 more volume as you go south. To sit there and go from four • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-354 3 • 1 to six to eight, and in the most congested section of I-25 2 that we have now, to go back to six, I have a phrase, it 3 doesn't pass the laugh test. It' s one of those things that 4 the public sits there and goes, this doesn't make sense. 5 And it doesn' t. I have been involved in this process 6 through the entire time. I have told them, the state and 7 the consultant, that that didn' t pass the laugh test. And 8 since they' re still showing it, I'm going to write a written 9 comment to the fact that it doesn't make sense. 10 I 'm a transportation engineer. This is what I do, 11 and have done for 30 years. And that is the only part of 12 the study that I think is flawed. The rest of it I think is 13 good, but that piece -- and it' s not an engineering • 14 decision; it is a political decision. And that ' s wrong, to 15 be in this study that way, because it' s not defensible. 16 17 * * * 18 19 KEITH DAMERON 20 2000 Little Raven Street, No. 103, Denver, CO 21 Keith, K-e-i-t-h, Dameron, D-a-m-e-r-o-n. I live 22 in Denver. Big proponent, package A. We absolutely need 23 the rail piece in this puzzle. Package B, there' s no rail 24 piece, and that' s a travesty, sad, I don't know. The cost 25 of package A is shown much higher than B. There are some • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-355 4 1 costs that can be changed in package A. You do not need to • 2 double-track the entire route from Longmont to Fort Collins 3 to make the service work. You can have passing sidings at 4 each station; in other words, at every station the tracks 5 would be split. But you can single-track a good portion of 6 that railroad right-of-way. Saves huge amounts of money in 7 capital outlay. 8 The headways will still work with passing sidings, 9 and I 'm not convinced you need 30-minute headways peak 10 period to be successful. That ' s what they're telling me is 11 the reason they're going to double-track almost all of that 12 section of track, was to meet 30-minute peak period things. 13 Unnecessary. You can get excellent ridership, 45-minute or 14 hour headways on that track. You don' t have to do • 15 30-minute. Save you a huge amount of money. 16 The proposed new track from Longmont to Thornton 17 does not have to be an initial part of this program. It can 18 be added in later when demand and other financial resources 19 are there to do that. Building new track, Longmont to 20 Thornton, is going to be extremely expensive to put in. 21 Those two items, the right-of-way from Longmont to Thornton, 22 and the double-tracking Longmont to Fort Collins, inflate 23 the cost of package A, and it could be the same or less than 24 package B, just using those two items . I guess my 25 disappointment is that they're showing package A so • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-356 5 • 1 expensive that it ' s forcing everybody to lean towards 2 package B, when I don' t think it' s the best answer, meaning 3 they' re inflating the cost of package A. It would not have 4 to be done to be successful. 5 Ridership. Historically, the experts that predict 6 what ridership will be on rail transit systems underestimate 7 that number. I know they use a formula, but the formula is 8 wrong. It was wrong on every one of RTD' s corridors so far. 9 RTD' s ridership exceeded their projected numbers 10 and 15 10 years down the road on opening day. Historically, toll 11 roads overestimate the number of users . E-470, just in the 12 last year or two, finally reached their projected numbers 13 that the experts said they would have on the day E-470 • 14 opened. If in fact you were to take the toll road numbers 15 that they' re using and reduce it by 50 percent, and take the 16 transit ridership on the commuter rail and increase it by 50 17 percent, it would change the whole cost estimates and, I 18 think, be much more accurate as to what' s going to happen. 19 That would make package A much more fiscally attractive. 20 I applaud the proposal for commuter bus from 21 Greeley to Fort Lupton or Brighton, I 'm not sure where it 22 goes, in package A. Very good. Could possibly be converted 23 to a passenger commuter rail project down the road. 24 Existing tracks there. 25 I'm a big fan of doing something. We absolutely • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-357 6 1 need to expand the highways, in addition to adding the • 2 commuter rail on this project. T-REX is an excellent 3 example of a highway widening project with a rail transit 4 connection, rail transit link, also. And it has proven to 5 be extremely successful. This project would benefit from 6 the acknowledgment that the highway expansion and the 7 commuter rail link would make this much more palatable and 8 acceptable and successful to everybody. 9 I' ll close with this. Package B leans heavily on 10 the assumption that most people will drive or want to drive 11 to where they need to go and want to go. Package A 12 acknowledges that there is a large number of people that 13 either can't drive, medical reasons or age, the very 14 elderly, the young, people like that, disabled, disabilities • 15 prevent driving. And there are people who shouldn't drive . 16 Statistically, we have a huge number of people in this state 17 that do not have insurance or are under driving restraint 18 action, don't have a license. Adding lanes doesn' t improve 19 the number of safe drivers, and commuter rail system 20 provides excellent opportunity for people that either can' t, 21 don't or shouldn't drive to be able to get where they' re 22 going. 23 24 * * * * 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-358 • 1 MARK ENOS 2 704 Fair Lane C, Longmont, CO 80501 3 My name is Mark Enos, resident of Longmont. I want 4 to register my desire to have package A approved so that the 5 commuter rail, the FasTracks, comes up through Longmont and 6 that commuter rail comes up and connects to Longmont, too, 7 and goes up the 287 corridor through Loveland and all the 8 way up to Fort Collins that way, because I just think that 9 that ' s -- I just think that will impact more people. It 10 will benefit more people, for commuters and stuff along the 11 Front Range here, because the population center is along 12 that corridor. And it will help the downtown areas of 13 Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins by connecting them to • 14 Denver via a rail system. So I think that will help with 15 all the downtown areas getting more shopping and stuff like 16 that. That' s it. 17 18 * * * * * 19 20 RALF SOCHER 21 3160 County Road 20, Longmont, CO 80504 22 My concern is the portion of the commuter rail, why 23 it' s being located along County Road 7 versus what seems to 24 be the more obvious option of locating along the I-25 25 median . And previously a lot of questions were raised about • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-359 a 1 this in a meeting two years ago, a public hearing at that • 2 time, and no answer, no sound answers were given. Every 3 answer that was given -- for example, they said, well, it 4 would cost more to do it that way. When it was pressed on 5 what the cost was, option A or option B, they couldn't say 6 what either of the costs were. So we were challenged to 7 find out how they could come up with a decision on cost when 8 they didn't have the cost figured out yet. And my concern, 9 it seems they have a preconceived notion of what they want 10 to do and are making things fit to what they want rather 11 than looking at all the real environmental impacts . 12 13 * * * * * 14 • 15 COMMENTS MADE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PRESENTATION 16 17 ANDREW BARTLETT 18 4 South Busch Lane, Longmont, CO 80501 19 Hi, I 'm Andy Bartlett. I live at 4 South Busch 20 Lane in Longmont here. I 've lived here 19 years. I 've seen 21 I-25 get quite a bit more busy over those years. I strongly 22 support the option A that you have that improves the rai]. 23 transit aspect . My worry is that the rail side of it is 24 going to get bogged down and the highway widening part is 25 going to be full speed ahead. And this is historical. CDOT • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-360 9 • 1 has been widening the highways for quite a few years and 2 they' re very new in the commuter rail business. 3 So I 'm wondering, I guess my worry, my concern is 4 that the rail be given, if not a priority, at least be paced 5 to go along at least as fast as the highway project. I saw 6 your statistics showing a little growth in expected traffic 7 after the widening, and I think it ' s going to be huge, B especially when you get three new lanes to Weld County. You 9 can fill it all up with cars in no time, the way their 10 county commissioners will allow any development. And so I 11 don' t see the time as being that much improved by the 12 widening. I think it will be more, three lanes of horrible 13 traffic each way instead of two, as soon as all the new • 14 development in Weld County and parts of Larimer blend. 15 So if I were running the zoo, I 'd go with the 16 commuter rail and the no action alternative on I-25. 17 18 * * * 19 20 KEITH DAMERON 21 2000 Little Raven Street, No. 103, Denver, CO 22 My name is Keith Dameron. I live in Denver, 2000 23 Little Raven Street, No . 103, five blocks from Union 24 Station. I 've had family for well over 25 years living in 25 Longmont, however, so I 'm very motivated in this area, and • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-361 10 1 I 'm very much affected by how the rail travels to Denver. • 2 I 'm retired from the Colorado State Patrol, so I 'm somewhat 3 familiar with traffic. And I graduated from Denver High 4 School, so I 'm fairly familiar with the fact that CDOT has 5 actually been talking about widening I-25 since I was in 6 high school in the 1970s, north of Highway 7 . It just took 7 them 30 years to actually start doing that. 8 Couple, three comments. Package A, certainly much 9 better proposed solution. Not including commuter rail, 10 which package B fails to include, is a travesty, in my 11 opinion. Not appropriate to not consider that. T-REX is an 12 excellent example of how widening a highway and adding a 13 transit, rail transit component can be beneficial, and 14 certainly needs to be considered. • 15 I am very much concerned, what I see as inflated 16 cost in package A that make it look unfavorably from a 17 fiscal standpoint. Specifically, two items that jump out. 18 One is that I don' t believe it ' s necessary to double-track 19 from Fort Collins all the way to Longmont initially. You 20 could get by with passing sidings very easily for a vast 21 majority of that and double-track at each of the stations 22 and save a huge amount of capital cost. I 'm not convinced 23 you absolutely need 30-minute headways to be successful peak 24 period; 45-minute or hour might work. And again, the saved 25 capital cost would certainly make this better. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-362 11 • 1 I guess I' ll -- not trying to go too long here. 2 I'm concerned that -- I realize that you guys are stuck with 3 formulas that somebody has determined that you use for 4 ridership and transit. The formulas that -- every transit 5 thing that ' s opened up anywhere in the U.S. in the last ten 6 years that I 'm aware of, the ridership has exceeded the 7 formula, or the prediction. RTD certainly proved that. On 8 every corridor they' ve opened ridership exceeded 10 and 15 9 years down the road on the month they opened. Interestingly 10 enough, toll roads, E-470 specifically, has never reached 11 its projected -- actually, they did finally. Two years ago 12 it reached the numbers they were supposed to open with well 13 over ten years ago. • 14 So if you were to change your numbers a little, 15 i.e. , say maybe 50 percent more people ride transit than you 16 think, then maybe 50 percent less cars use toll roads than 17 you think, your numbers are going to be much better for 18 package A. I realize that the formulas are controlled by 19 somebody outside, nobody gets to come up with a best guess. 20 But statistically, where they've done studies where a bus 21 has been put, or a train, a train usually takes more 22 passengers by a factor of four over what rides a bus, 23 meaning there' s an awful lot of people that would much 24 prefer to be on a train and have no desire to ride on a bus. 25 I 've written up some comments and other things, so • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-363 12 1 I 'll quit there. But I really think package A is your only • 2 solution, and I 'm disappointed that package B fails to 3 include the rail component. I guess the last thing is, you 4 could in fact use the rail as a mitigating factor for while 5 you put I-25 under construction for the five to 15 years it 6 will take to do the work there. And if you had a transit 7 component, you actually provide mitigation. And the feds 8 usually have to give mitigation dollars for that. So 9 consider using that. And implement it by phasing. You 10 could start with some peak period and very little off peak 11 right away and use all the existing track with just a few 12 sidings. There' s a lot we can do with commuter rail that 13 doesn' t require it all to be built at once. Thank you. 14 • 15 * * * * * 16 17 EVELYN KING 18 6321 14th Street S.W. , Loveland, CO 19 I 'm Evelyn King, 6321 14th Street S.W. in Loveland. 20 Tonight is the first time that I recognized, and I had a 21 concern when I looked at this summary sheet and it showed 22 that there are 22 miles that are still congested even after 23 we spend several billion dollars. So now it' s my 24 understanding that the highway portion really only goes from 25 State Highway 1 down to E-470 and that there are not • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-364 13 • 1 additional improvements down into Denver. And that 's why 2 you see a lot of the slides that we saw that include all 3 that congestion down there mixed with what happens on the 4 northern end where the improvements are. So that 5 information is somewhat inaccurate, because there are no 6 improvements down on that southern end. 7 I also have a concern about the information in here 8 that shows transit market share at 55 percent for package A 9 and 50 percent for package B. And I noticed in the slide it 10 did say commuter, but it really doesn' t explain the fact 11 that the North Front Range commuter percentage is about 6 12 percent coming to Denver. So the 55 and 50 percent is 13 really only of that 6 percent. • 14 Also, it says that the average speed, and I kind of 15 assumed that that was on I-25, is around 32 miles per hour 16 for both packages, and that looked really wrong to me. 17 However, in explanation tonight, I've been told that that ' s 18 for all the roads in the study area, and there was a real 19 tiny increase from the no-action plan to those. But that ' s 20 certainly something different than what' s portrayed in this 21 summary of information. 22 Also, the cost per user, which is clear down here 23 at the bottom, I would like to know what calculation, the 24 actual number calculation was used for that . Because I ' ve 25 done my own spreadsheet, and just to let you know, this says • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-365 14 1 that package A, the cost per user per trip is 76 cents, and • 2 that ' s a daily number. Package B is 58 cents. My number 3 for -- and this is not using the annualized capital numbers, 4 which I think is also very important. The only numbers you 5 saw up here was the raw capital numbers. And in fact, case 6 of the operating costs, the numbers on the slide do not jibe 7 with the numbers on this form as well. They' re slightly 8 less, I think. But my numbers show that for package A, the 9 general purpose lanes, is 37 cents per user. And the 10 transit piece of that is $59. 53 a day per user. That' s a 11 huge difference. So when you glob all that stuff together, 12 the ending number is very deceiving. 13 I also have a question regarding FasTracks. I know 14 it ' s extremely underfunded. And I would like to know, if • 15 that line is shortened, it probably will not come to 16 Longmont, what will happen then. Or if it' s pushed clear 17 out to 2034, or whatever the date is they' re looking at they 18 might be able to do that extension, what will happen? It' s 19 easy for me to say that I want to have rail with BRT, but 20 when I look at the costs, they're just huge, astronomical in 21 fact . But I don' t see where I can pick just one package. 22 In looking at the numbers, I 'd like to choose just the 23 general purpose lanes only, because that way I could save 24 about $4 billion over the other costs. And in package B I 25 could save about $2 billion. If you' re talking a billion • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-366 15 1 dollars, 4 billion, that' s 4, 000 million dollars . That ' s a • 2 lot of money. And at the same time you could take care of 3 98 percent of the users, because if you look at the total 4 users of transit, it equates to about 2 percent. 5 I think I mentioned the thing about the annualized 6 capital, but I really think we should see those numbers, 7 because that includes the cost of bonding, and any of these 8 large projects would have to be bonded. Thank you. 9 10 * * * * * 11 12 MILAN KARSPECK 13 706 Eighth Street, Berthoud, CO 80513 • 14 My name is Milan Karspeck, 706 Eighth Street in 15 Berthoud. And I support package A also. I have some 16 questions about whether things could be phased maybe 17 differently than what you suggested here. I think there' s 18 an excellent point about what seems to be very large capital 19 costs for the commuter rail and whether or not those could 20 be reduced by the single-tracking, at least initially, and 21 then later on bringing in the double-tracking. 22 Second of all, initially when this was considered, 23 the thought was to hook up to FasTracks and then go to 24 Denver Union Station via FasTracks through Boulder. Is that 25 in the picture, is that still a possibility, or is that • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-367 16 1 something that ' s not being considered? Seems like that • 2 would give us a way to reduce a fair amount of expense 3 initially, which is the new tracks along 119, then down to 4 north Denver. Then long term, I think it would be good to 5 have the connection. But I hate to see this option taken 6 out of the picture because of the costs if we do a full 7 thing on 119 initially. 8 Then I also had a question about some of the 9 presentation. You mentioned the time it took to go from 10 Fort Collins to Denver Union Station and from Greeley to 11 Denver Union Station. And I think it would be also very 12 interesting to have summarized more of the intra-region trip 13 times which, as Ms. King pointed out, are really the 14 majority of the travel times. You have a fairly small • 15 amount of trips going directly down, from the region down to 16 Denver Union Station. What ' s probably more important is the 17 time for trips from, let ' s say, Fort Collins to Loveland, 18 Fort Collins to Longmont, within the region. And I think it 19 would be good to get some kind of a sense of the difference 20 in those times as opposed to just the ones from Fort Collins 21 and Greeley to Denver. Thank you. 22 23 * * * * * 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-368 17 1 DAVE MCCULLOCH • 2 1050 16th Avenue, Apt. E-10, Longmont, CO 3 Dave McCulloch, 1050 16th Avenue, Longmont, 4 Colorado. My concern is with package A. We haven't 5 discussed this with Burlington Northern Santa Fe, whatever 6 you want to call the railroad. The problem is with 7 FasTracks they' re trying to negotiate now, and in the future 8 you' re going to have to negotiate. That ' s a profitable rail 9 line from Denver to Cheyenne, with stops -- my company that 10 I work for is moving to Berthoud. We' re going to have a 11 rail stop in Berthoud for newspaper paper, and that you have 12 to -- there' s only one line going through Berthoud at this 13 point. So I don't know, I don't know what the explanation • 14 for a commuter line when it ' s a freight line only at this 15 point. But you' re going to have to look at the 16 accessibility of going two lines at certain places, because 17 it's just not feasible with one line at this point . 18 19 * * * * * 20 21 COMMENTS MADE DURING SECOND OPEN HOUSE SESSION 22 23 BOB BREWSTER 24 11300 Shimley Road, Golden, CO 25 Bob Brewster, B-r-e-w-s-t-e-r, 11300 Shimley Road, • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-369 18 1 S-h-i-m-l-e-y, Coal Creek Canyon, technically Golden, • 2 officially. I favor commuter rail by far over everything in 3 the plan. I like the idea of incremental implementation 4 because it can be done, depending on the railroad' s mood, it 5 can be done faster and more cheaply to focus on our real 6 transportation problems, and that involves peak hour. We 7 could start peak-hour commuter rail, that ' s why it ' s called 8 commuter rail, because it ' s geared to commuters, and start 9 on that and perhaps in the beginning reach Denver by way of 10 the Boulder line without transfer. Forcing people to 11 transfer trains costs ridership. Not everybody will 12 tolerate the connection. 13 I don' t know if the railroad is insisting on a 14 double track alignment all the way. If they are, then • 15 there' s not a whole lot you can do about that . But would 16 they be willing to do certain passing sidings that would 17 permit a peak-hour operation. The railroad calls it an 18 operating window. In other words, would the railroad 19 allowing a peak-hour operating window to reduce the need for 20 all of the infrastructure up front and make the improvements 21 as demand grows. You can fund it as you go, something like 22 that. Prove the value of the service first, and you might 23 find the flow of dollars to more service more easily 24 achieved. 25 Let 's see. Regarding the buses, the BRT concept, • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-370 19 • 1 the last place on this planet you want to put bus passengers 2 is in the middle of an interstate highway, if that ' s what 3 they' re planning on doing with the stations . You have 4 safety issues, the noise of passing traffic, spray when it ' s 5 wet or snowy, the occasional crash that can vault vehicles 6 or parts of vehicles over concrete barriers. It' s a 7 dangerous place to put people. Any bus stations really need 8 to be off to the side, off the line. 9 Buses will never attract the ridership the trains 10 will. That ' s pretty much a proven fact. They are also very 11 subject to weather restrictions . In a barrier separated 12 lane, all it takes is one petrified driver to virtually 13 bring the HOV bus lane to a halt, somebody too afraid to • 14 drive in snowy conditions. You have destroyed any semblance 15 of speed in an HOV BRT system. Same thing, if there is a 16 crash in an HOV lane, you also lose any advantage of that 17 mode of travel . Buses are also far more uncomfortable than 18 a train. And I made my living on buses, by the way, for 19 over 39 years, so I know what I 'm talking about. 20 I would say the primary goal of this would be to 21 get some semblance of passenger rail service operating as 22 quickly as possible. Perhaps the bully pulpit of the 23 governor would help, not unlike New Mexico Governor 24 Richardson, who accomplished commuter rail in basically the 25 blink of an eye compared to the way these projects are going • RESLINC REPORTING SERVICES Page D-371 20 1 in this state. And I certainly hope that there is an • 2 overlap between the North I-25 corridor and the entire Front 3 Range commuter rail concept to share expenses for equipment 4 and the ability to run trains through without changing 5 trains in Denver to go from one end of the state to the 6 other, from Cheyenne to Albuquerque, for that matter. There 7 are probably great savings in doing that . And the trains of 8 this proposed service do need to travel on through to Denver 9 Union Station. And for that matter, the idea of not running 10 commuter rail on the Union Pacific tracks from Greeley to 11 Denver really needs to be examined again using the same 12 formula I just outlined for the BNSF alignment from 13 Fort Collins to Denver. I suspect the numbers don' t look 14 good for that at this point, but again, a peak-hour service • 15 might make some sense with the cooperation of the Union 16 Pacific. 17 When I mention the idea of peak-hour rail service, 18 it can certainly be augmented by off-peak bus service for 19 the lighter load demands between peak hours and after peak 20 hour in the evening, so people don't get stranded if they 21 can only use the train one way, for example. This is done 22 elsewhere, where you don't have enough people to warrant the 23 cost of operating a full train. A bus will suffice, tracing 24 the same approximate route of the train. Buses don't have 25 as much difficulty in the off-peak hours, as a rule. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-372 21 • 1 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE 2 3 Lisa D. Anthony, RPR, CRR, and Notary Public, State 4 of Colorado, appointed to record individuals ' comments at 5 said public hearing, does hereby certify that the comments 6 were stenographically recorded by me at Longmont Public 7 Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont, Colorado, on November 18, 8 2008, then reduced to typewritten form consisting of 21 9 pages herein; and that the foregoing constitutes an accurate 10 and complete transcript. 11 I further certify that I am not in any way 12 connected with any of the parties to said proceedings. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and • 14 affixed my seal this 24th day of November, 2008 . 15 My Commission expires : September 14, 2009. 16 17 18 LISA D. ANTHONY, RPR, ORR for Resling Reporting Services 19 18 East Fountain Boulevard Colorado Springs, CO 80903 20 21 22 23 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-373 ! III/' 1 ` ,k" h - v �.. Tel. 3 l i.... e . ° Q n 1 � /4.,,i44.,-,..,..,, . c1,:: -.7. o in 4:P `." a 9 Ib � T in • 1 `1 V ,s �� Oc. .. - . In v) x H 0) Ye=. a. 06. '^ �+ p 0 r� W of ` � V J 5,4 z a '" - w 3 a l y 1 � Q ►' J 1 0 by , „ Iii, IN ,N V4 j ei, d 13. e^ +.1,-,:‘,..4.,,e-i � w , CY s Stu \ y � e. 55 . m - ,4 _ a_ 1T < O } :fl• ; �. u v w o e, r (t0�1 Y �+ N -IT) _ t ') n r . ki ..;,.72-2,,,,..7,.... J _ a Q. 4 , i " .--, v..._fip.4_, 4:7 ,..,, __ c: ‘ _1 .Q .. ‘e O , _ ,,, ,. .... t, 1 es x ,), _ffn ..‘.;i:th,t3.,Li., ta \ .Q; _ ......„.... 4 k.? , .4 tsc ___ co = _ . 4.,w � �, �,' { a I _ l Cl < YS J W .2 i ' ---4 C-� l to -1;_ 5 i �, \J ID c) •Z a O J kk? � � � N t0 v ip Co N. m 6'. ra,3y�.��d e'a`� r N M d' b COm I . Ol N la tN M N M 0 c+E ct",,,,,- ai al': o 3 "!' p a 'r, ti o 0o Is a. N go � " 4 '94, �( x o vC u ' k�t� ' ') J r' J C- tpp d�t.� O �_ 8. �• .v ^� Up el ei C s5 CV U f 1� J c. ;40i 4- 000 ----—,\T ,14 r r 5 '3 N \ rD Cr -.° \ • • f ttµ�L'-Wi O - v J I 71,./;„:, 6v-.7a k_ift t. WO S�'._ky s: k.) -"-s----t ® rj \ Ain J v PO* o' , ft, x G 9) J \ V^ UI S v 4" dam; � s p a 6 �`� iii *,6 k e. t fi c ("Ark-, It. .� gyp, s — r� 2 a 1 ry N W 0 ,:ii, saxtf +1 1 v csil W� O Si` ra .. -, \ (o -; l.. O e A a , , '-i,„21_ lsl Z O o J ,, o r N CI c "n t0 1*- @ OD 0 co . lo 4474; 41 1 n 3 r o. .4 F4 C . s �i Q A -A 1i,: 'D j IPM Q! m t c/1 ly 1\\ M1 ''1 tYo- cti{ — g 0J` /.s Y c t. 7 i ai u'n} teA o 0 \° 'S o s �yl Tal s — 11: M ��r 101` 'J ;rnit '#` .:. L. lrol r' t cif-1cd, F 11 .'....1:Y.??',:*.- O ory ,,, 2 ...$1O4‘ ;'141 :' a- '6:it reY4 b _o 17� Q. �k: J v G ° Y J 6 Q a �-- a .' le f '4 ca` C ' c L /v � � Yb a .--) 4+ 4f i� Q J FY t 1. V J 4 Y^ k . ,fox _ r m x 6mn f j < 2 i" u a Yzi . W ' :: ti T- en O. ~ X42- W � � T- 0E R O O N n < uJ co P oD O Z 0 0 J r r N n n u) (O a W N • NORTH I-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4: 30 p.m. - 7 : 00 p.m. Fort Collins Lincoln Center, Columbine Room 417 West Magnolia Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 COMMENTS MADE BY INDIVIDUALS DURING HEARING • • Page D-377 2 1 COMMENTS MADE DURING OPEN HOUSE SESSION • PRIOR TO PRESENTATION 2 3 GLORIA AUSTIN 4 1221 East Prospect Road, Unit C-4, Fort Collins, CO 80525 5 My name is Gloria Austin, A-u-s-t-i-n, 1221 East 6 Prospect Road, Unit C-4, that's here in Fort Collins, 80525. 7 Although there is a temporary dip to gasoline prices, it 8 would be very shortsighted to procrastinate a mass transit 9 solution such as the I-25 train further. We must resolve 10 the upcoming transportation challenges, and the proposed 11 train is an important first step. 12 13 * * * * * 14 • 15 NORA DIXON 16 1704 West Brookhaven Circle, Fort Collins, CO 80525 17 Nora, N-o-r-a, last name Dixon, D-i-x-o-n. 18 Well, I'm very much hoping that there will be train 19 transportation, and I like the idea of utilizing the tracks 20 that are already here in town on Mason Street . And one of 21 the reasons that I like the train is the quality of life, 22 that when you' re riding a train for a distance, you' re 23 relaxing, and you can read and relax rather than driving. 24 And I would like to see, I just think the ideal would be a 25 train system that goes from Fort Collins through all the • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-378 3 • 1 towns down to Denver. And I think another plus for that is 2 that would help with keeping the centers of towns vital. 3 I 've experienced this living outside of Chicago in the 4 suburbs, and the train station at each town into Chicago was 5 at the center of town. And you get off the train, and that 6 helps with restaurants downtown and keeping the downtown 7 vital. 8 9 * * 10 11 COMMENTS MADE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PRESENTATION 12 13 ROBERT SCHMIDT • 14 1207 Wooded Creek Court, Fort Collins, Co 80526 15 After reviewing what you have up there, it seems 16 like that you're trying to get the train alternative to 17 fail. (Applause) The travel time is absolutely -- it' s 18 just impractical to go from Fort Collins to Denver in 93 19 minutes, expect people to do that every day, and then turn 20 around and have to connect with some sort of transportation 21 mode in the Denver area, because we realize that everybody 22 doesn't work in downtown Denver or around the Union Station 23 area. Just to go to DIA you'd be looking at over, it locks 24 like over a two-hour ride. And again, there ' s no way a car, 25 no matter how bad the traffic is going to be within the next • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-379 4 1 20 years, is ever going to take you two and a half hours to • 2 get to DIA. So to catch a flight, you' re looking at about 3 four or five hours to leave Denver, which means a 6: 00 a.m. , 4 you'd have to leave Denver a 1 : 00 a.m. train, which isn' t 5 even running. 6 The whole transit thing looks like too many 7 stations involved once you get south of the Longmont area. 8 We' re far enough from Denver, it ' s got to be redesigned so 9 we're an express train up to Longmont, or maybe one stop 10 below that. And then if you're going to design the train 11 system not as a local train, like a light rail, where in 12 Denver it stops at numerous stops and picks up people, but 13 the distance is short, here you' re talking 50 miles to go 14 from Fort Collins to Denver in 93 minutes. That ' s less than • 15 60 miles an hour. I know somebody in here said they 16 worked -- and I was raised on Long Island. The commuter 17 train there does 80 to 100 miles an hour. And you' re 18 talking about a train that' s going to go 45 miles an hour, 19 maybe, plus stops. That' s totally outrageous . 20 Also, it looks like by changing I-25 before a rail 21 line gets in, you' re actually encouraging people to move out 22 of the Denver area, to move up here, so they can turn around 23 and commute down to Denver. And that's not what we' re 24 supposed to do in the 21st century. You' re supposed to live 25 closer to where you work. And therefore I think the rapid • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-380 5 • 1 rail system should come in, of some sort, before we consider 2 increasing the capacity of I-25. (Applause) We should be 3 discouraging the use of I-25, discouraging people to move up 4 here to travel down that far distance . It' s okay if you 5 want to somehow develop a system, a road system to go maybe 6 Fort Collins to Loveland, maybe, max, Longmont. 7 But this idea that people -- when I first moved to 8 Fort Collins, I know I 'm oddball, but I was a pilot flying 9 out of Denver, still am, and I was in the Guard in Cheyenne. 10 Well, there was restrictions on how far i could live from 11 Cheyenne and serve my Guard duty, and Fort Collins began to 12 reach that limit . So I picked Fort Collins. And when I 13 moved here, I 'm not an old resident, but 1984, I never had a • 14 neighbor that ever commuted to Denver. Now Fort Collins is 15 becoming a, shall we say a bedroom community of Denver, 16 which it should never be, number one; number two, the 17 distance is too far, the pollution levels . Everything is 18 just turning against it, and we've got to maybe reconsider 19 that. That' s my comments. 20 KIM MCCARL: Robert, will you state your name and 21 your address, please? 22 ROBERT SCHMIDT: Oh. Robert A. Schmidt, and it' s 23 1207 Wooded, W-o-o-d-e-d, Creek Court in Fort Collins, 24 80526. 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-381 6 2 3 PAUL FEBVRE 4 4640 Travis Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524 5 I 'm Paul Febvre, 4640 Travis Road, 80524 . First of 6 all, I want to show my support very clearly in favor of the 7 train because I think it ' s the only safe and practical way 8 to transport people quickly, especially when it snows. I 9 mean, the bus seems fantastic, but in a snowstorm it ' s kind 10 of out of fashion. However, I want to very strongly echo 11 the comments of the gentleman who spoke in front of me. 12 We' re applying 20th century solutions to a 21st century 13 situation. A train going 40 miles an hour just totally -- I 14 don't want to be derogatory, but trains go 200 miles an hour • 15 all over Europe, all over Japan, all over China, and I don' t 16 know why the Denver metro area does not embrace those 17 technologies. I guess I know why, because maybe it ' s a 18 question of money or whatever. But we' re still embracing 19 totally out-fashioned technologies. That' s it. 20 21 * * * * 22 23 SANDY LEMBERG 24 6851 Poudre Canyon Route, Bellvue, CO 80512 25 Hi, I 'm Sandy Lemberg. Is this good for the • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-382 7 • 1 microphone? 6851 Poudre Canyon Route, Bellvue, 80512 . Is 2 that what you want? Okay. I 've been involved with this 3 process, I believe, since the very beginning when they had 4 something at the Harmony library, where it broke into groups 5 and we were supposed to come up with alternatives. Never 6 once was high-speed rail offered and never once was rail on 7 the I-25 corridor offered. They always put rail on 287, 8 where it does not belong. We already have too much rail on 9 Mason Street. And the bus rapid transit was always put on 10 the I-25 corridor, where it does not belong. Bus rapid 11 transit belongs on the 287 corridor. So this program has 12 been stacked at the beginning, as the previous speakers have 13 said, against effective public transit, and in particularly, • 14 against effective rail. 15 And now after, this has been going for how many 16 years, three years now, or something like this, four years, 17 now in the past year the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority has 18 emerged with viable alternatives for high-speed rail. And 19 the CDOT and the I-25 EIS, or whatever this group is called, 20 has absolutely ignored that . We didn't hear a word about 21 the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority here, and John Peacock, 22 who was here earlier and had to leave -- but what is going 23 on? Are you going to try to plow ahead with this outdated 24 technology and put in a pink elephant? White elephant? I 25 don't know what they are. But anyway, I think that • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-383 8 1 attention has to be paid, you have to get serious. This • 2 project basically is a bad joke. All it' s going to do is 3 take tax money and give us nothing back for it . So what we 4 need is high-speed rail, we need rail on the I-25 corridor, 5 and then if you want to supplement that with bus rapid 6 transit, that could go on the 287 corridor. 7 Additionally, the comments that -- I forgot your 8 name already -- Robert made about too many stops, at worst, 9 you could have an express service and a local service. But 10 to have every service stop every five miles, it ' s like 11 riding a Greyhound bus up from Denver to Fort Collins. It 12 takes half the day. It 's ridiculous. I mean, this is 13 absolutely outrageous for this Front Range corridor to have 14 no effective public transportation. If you want to get just • 15 from Boulder to Fort Collins, it takes four hours. You guys 16 have not addressed the situation, absolutely not. I don' t 17 know what planet you 're operating from, but it ' s absolutely, 18 it 's absolutely not in touch with the needs that this area 19 has . So thank you. But I really do hope you' ll pay 20 attention to these comments . 21 22 * * * 23 24 ART MITCHELL 25 2818 Hanover Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-384 9 • 1 My name is Art Mitchell. I live at 2818 Hanover 2 Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. I am the section 3 foreman for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad here 4 in Fort Collins, so I know what we have, reason why we run 5 particular speeds, whatever, okay. Now, to start off, I 6 think we need some nice facts and figures about this . 7 According to Railway Age magazine, 76 percent of the 8 operating costs of operating the system comes out of 9 passenger fares. That is the most effective system in the 10 United States. The next closest system is the New York City 11 subway system, which operates at 64 percent. Now, we had a 12 meeting similar to this over at city hall a few years ago. 13 I don't know if any of you guys remember that. But we had • 14 one of the fellows from RTD come up to speak. And I asked 15 him specifically, why did you build the light rail system 16 down to Littleton, rather than bus rapid transit, which had 17 an incredibly cheaper initial setup cost. He told me that, 18 if we did bus rapid transit, we knew nobody would ride it. 19 The only thing that we felt people would ride is a train. 20 The reason why is because it ' s effective. It' s not involved 21 with other traffic. It runs on its own right-of-way. So if 22 there' s an accident somewhere on I-25, well, there goes your 23 bus rapid transit system, because you' re letting people on 24 this toll road, which the buses go on, which don't know how 25 to drive. So there goes your transit system up in flames. RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-385 10 1 Railroads run 24/7 . Doesn' t matter how deep the • 2 snow is; it runs. In the 50-year history we had trolley 3 cars running in Fort Collins, there was only three days 4 where the trolley car did not run because of the blizzard 5 of, I believe, 1918 . 6 So anyway, what we do need is we need something 7 that New Mexico has done. I don ' t know if any of you have 8 heard of the Rail Runner project that runs from Belen, which 9 is south of Albuquerque, through Albuquerque . The governor 10 there said, well, let 's dispense with all of these studies, 11 I 've got enough money to build it and run it for three 12 years, and we'll see what we do. It turned out to be 13 extremely successful. And now they're running -- they're 14 building a line down the I-25 corridor, down the median • 15 strip, from Albuquerque to Santa Fe . And they divert off 16 south of Santa Fe and run on the short-line railroad called 17 the Santa Fe Southern. Now, this system here is going to be 18 done next month. You can ride a commuter train from south 19 of Albuquerque to Santa Fe. 20 Now, our great fear here on the railroad is that 21 the RTD light rail system, and possibly this system here, 22 will be studied to death. Now, last year we had -- RTD 23 hired some woman to come, not bad it ' s a woman, but they 24 hired this group of women to do a historical study. They 25 come from San Diego to do a historical study on the line • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-386 ii • 1 which is affected by RTD FasTracks between Denver and 2 Longmont . They spent like five months doing this, and they 3 had a person working with them being a flagman so they 4 didn't get run over by trains. Now, all they needed to do 5 was ask me or Ken Jessen, and I could have told them exactly 6 where it was and they could have saved millions of dollars. 7 But this thing here is turning into a cash cow for 8 people who love to do studies. Just do like New Mexico did; 9 build it. (Applause) If it ' s down 1-25, build it. End the 10 studies. These guys here come up with all these things 11 about the initial cost. Yeah, rail was initially a cost . I 12 don 't know if you remember the slide that was up here. Down 13 in this lower part here (indicating) you saw some railcars . • 14 Those are RDC cars; stands for rail diesel car. It ' s 15 basically the predecessor of the DMU. Those were made in 16 the early 1950s and they' re running today. Do you see any 17 50-year-old buses running in regular service today? The 18 life expectancy of a commuter railcar is in excess of 50 19 years . You don't have to change the tires on it. The 20 wheels are good for several million miles . 21 Now, also, let ' s talk about the cost efficiency. 22 Now, it takes us 1. 4 horsepower per ton to move a train 23 between here and Denver. Now, I don't know if a bus can 24 move at 1 .4 horsepower per ton down to Prospect street. And 25 that might even be downhill. But the whole idea is this 1. 4 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-387 12 1 horsepower per ton turns into fuel savings. It also turns • 2 into less maintenance. You can also electrically power a 3 commuter train, whereas you cannot electrically power a bus. 4 Plus, if you double-deck the commuter trains, like Florida 5 has done around Miami, your cost per seat is cheaper than 6 that of a bus. Your initial cost, of course, is like double 7 tracking, signaling, things like that, that you would have 8 to do. But what is the cost per mile of adding an extra 9 lane onto I-25? It doesn't work. 10 We need trains, like you say, down the middle of 11 I-25, express trains running. But we also need something 12 that ' s local too. And I've always been a purveyor of 13 running just a local type commuter train or a light rail 14 type service between Longmont and Fort Collins to take care • 15 of the smaller spots . So if you live in Berthoud, you can 16 take the train down to, a commuter train or whatever, down 17 to Longmont and get on the RID FasTracks and continue your 18 trip to Denver. 19 KIM MCCARL: Mr. Mitchell, why don't you start 20 wrapping it up. 21 ART MITCHELL: Yes, okay. That is it. 22 23 * * * * * 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-388 13 • 1 EVELYN KING 2 6321 14th Street S.W. , Loveland, CO 3 My name is Evelyn King. I live at 6321 14th Street 4 S .W. in Loveland. I wanted to speak to the mobility issue 5 and the fact that although it ' s not really clear, there are 6 actually no general purpose lane improvements on I-25 past 7 E-470, which means that new projects will move traffic 8 along, and then by 2030, or probably even before, the north 9 end of Denver is basically gridlocked for 22 miles. And 10 that provides a real distortion in the data that you see on 11 the board, information regarding the travel time, the 12 average speed, and the operation and maintenance costs, 13 because those are all included for that 22-mile highly • 14 congested area. 15 Now, also in this study I like to look for knowing, 16 what do I get for what I pay. Unfortunately, you did not 17 see any boards around that contained any cost data. And 18 there were only two quick slides, and those slides showed 19 only the capital cost and not the annualized cost, which you 20 would think that for a project this large you'd probably do 21 bonding and should include the cost for that financing. 22 So I created my own spreadsheet, and using the same 23 2005 numbers, and I ' ll go ahead and just use the capital 24 column only. And for package A, the cost per user for the 25 general purpose lanes per day is 37 cents, comparing that • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-389 14 1 with $59. 53 daily for the rail and bus elements. Overall, • 2 we would spend $4 billion more for the transit piece than we 3 would for the general purpose lanes . And $4 billion is 4 basically 4, 000 million dollars. That ' s an awful lot of 5 money. Even in package B, the BRT, requiring the toll 6 lanes, is $2 billion more than the general purpose lane 7 cost. And the general purpose lanes take care of 98 percent 8 of the users, versus only 2 percent for transit. Even the 9 tolled express lanes cost $500 billion more to build and 10 operate than the general purpose lanes . The toll revenue 11 from that does not even pay for the operation and 12 maintenance costs. 13 I might think that it would be fun to take the 14 rail, or train, down to Denver, but I really don't see how I • 15 could possibly justify those huge numbers. Thank you. 16 17 * * * * * 18 19 WANDA MAYBERRY 20 500 Tulane Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 21 I'm Wanda Mayberry at 500 Tulane Drive in 22 Fort Collins, 80525. Mainly, I want to just make two 23 points. I've been to these meetings over the years, and it 24 seems that even though we talk about the alternatives to 25 driving, the psychology is towards the driving and the cars • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-390 15 • 1 and the kind of development that that leads to, the kind of 2 widening of I-25 that that leads to . I would like to have 3 us think a little bit more in the future. I 've lived in 4 Los Angeles. I know what widening the roads does. And it 5 clogs by the time you get them built, and then you have to 6 widen more, and it clogs by the time you get them built. 7 So I would really like to have us look at serious 8 alternatives to the driving. And having a dedicated bus 9 line I think is probably a good idea. I do think rail down 10 the middle of I-25 we were talking about in the 1970s . 11 Didn't do anything then, they aren't going to do anything 12 now. But I still think it' s the best alternative in the 13 future when we' re looking at something beyond the 20th • 14 century. 15 16 * * * * * 17 18 HUGH MACKAY 19 1212 Ash Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80521 20 My name is Hugh Mackay, M-a-c-k-a-y, and my address 21 is 1212 Ash Drive, Fort Collins, 80521 . I 've lived in 22 Fort Collins since about 1974 . And I would just like to 23 make two observations about all of this. One is, I 'm very 24 proud of the way the city of Fort Collins and Northern 25 Colorado has developed over the last ten or more years. But • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-391 16 1 I 'm very concerned about the effect of increased population • 2 and transportation on our health through air pollution 3 issues . Fort Collins right now is on the verge of exceeding 4 the federal ozone levels, and ozone is probably one of the 5 more dangerous chemicals that we have to cope with here. 6 Primarily on the Front Range, our biggest source of 7 pollution is the burning of fossil fuel, and mostly through 8 automobile engines. So I would like to say that I strongly 9 support the extra expense of a rail system because of that. 10 And my second observation is, having lived in other 11 parts of the country, as the lady just before me mentioned 12 with respect to Los Angeles, I've had the misfortune of 13 having to commute to work over long distances in a number of 14 cities. In Chicago I commuted about 75 to 80 miles, very • 15 similar to what we have here. I've commuted in Boston and 16 I 've commuted in Philadelphia. And there must be some 17 sensible reason why all of these cities survive with a rail 18 system, other than, as in Los Angeles, by simply adding more 19 automobile pollution. 20 So I would like to ask us, or for you folks to look 21 very carefully at the experiments that other cities have 22 been doing with respect to rail solutions . And the 23 New Mexico one that you mentioned is one we should start 24 looking at very carefully. Thank you very much. 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-392 17 1 * * * * • 2 3 BLUE HOVATTER 4 132 South College Avenue, Apt. 5, Fort Collins, CO 80524 5 Blue Hovatter, 132 South College Avenue, 6 Apartment 5, 80524 . I 'd like to echo a lot of what 7 everybody was talking about already as far as the lack of an 8 I-25 commuter rail option. I 'm not a proponent of build-out 9 on I-25, and I enjoy the idea of having dense urban 10 population centers . And I also want to echo the thoughts 11 about the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, because the project 12 that's going on down in New Mexico that people have 13 referenced is also part of a larger vision for an entire • 14 Front Range commuter rail system that would allow us to 15 travel from Cheyenne to Albuquerque on a high-speed rail 16 system. 17 I was down at -- there was a conference two 18 weekends ago for the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority which a -19 representative from the North I-25 DEIS study was at . But 20 one of the interesting things that they noted in their 21 studies -- they did a nice little computer mock-up of what 22 it would be, how quickly and what sort of speeds they would 23 be able to get by using the existing rail lines, the 24 Burlington Northern rail lines that they talked about in 25 this study. And they threw it out. They basically said • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-393 18 1 that this isn't going to work because the speeds aren't • 2 there, and people aren't going to ride something if the 3 speeds aren't there. 4 So their main model was to, as this study sort of 5 does, which is come out of Longmont, or either somewhere 6 around the Frederick/Firestone area, and run a high-speed 7 rail up I-25 . The beauty of this was this was another 8 opportunity to free up -- it was one of the first times I 've 9 actually heard an interesting way for us to be able to free 10 up these Burlington Northern lines here, and that was that 11 they would be willing to trade time on their high-speed line 12 that would meet on the north side of Fort Collins with the 13 Burlington Northern lines and then reconnect with the 14 Burlington Northern lines down near Longmont and allow the • 15 Burlington Northern trains to get off of going through the 16 middle of Loveland and Fort Collins and get on the 17 high-speed lines and avoid our community entirely. 18 And I think that this is a great alternative, 19 because then it does what we need to do, which is free up 20 those rail lines for regional travel . The MPO has done 21 studies, and you can see that a lot of Fort Collins and 22 Loveland and Windsor and Greeley, a lot of the trips, the 23 majority of the trips that we make are within that triangle. 24 That triangle between Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley is 25 where we mostly do our travel in this area. And if we want • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-394 19 • 1 to come up with a viable alternative, we need to come up 2 with an alternative that helps us as individual communities 3 to get ourselves moving forward, but it also needs to allow 4 us the options to get down to Denver, because I do want to 5 go to DIA, I do want to go see a Rockies game, I do want to 6 go check out the art museums. But it doesn' t need to be an 7 everyday thing. 8 The gentleman talked about earlier, I don't want to 9 live in a bedroom community of Denver, but I do want to get 10 there. So I would also like to echo the thought that I 11 really just feel like these alternatives really were pushing 12 more towards a bus rapid transit and adding lanes. And I, 13 too, have lived around the country, and I 've seen • 14 Los Angeles and I ' ve seen Chicago and I 've seen some of 15 these places where more roads and more roads means more 16 clogging and more clogging. Even within our own community 17 you can look down the Harmony corridor, and more lanes meant 18 more traffic and more congestion, and it doesn't do anything 19 to free up the space. 20 Yeah, and the other piece that I wanted to echo was 21 the gentleman' s comments about safety issues. I think with 22 the first meeting that I was at for this North I-25 EIS 23 three years ago, or whatever it was, we were in this room, 24 and people were showing up late because there had been an 25 automobile accident on I-25 that closed down north I-25 for • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-395 20 1 an hour and a half. So it' s the same idea. I believe even • 2 at that time you guys talked about how this section of 1-25, 3 for the style of interstate it is, is actually one of the 4 more dangerous sections of roads, given how straight, and it 5 truly is, because of the snow, because it encourages people 6 to drive at higher speeds and therefore encourages more 7 accidents. 8 So I just would strongly encourage to hopefully 9 look at some alternative plans to put up a rail through the 10 middle of I-25, as the woman earlier said, before it' s too 11 late, before you put too many lanes of traffic in and we 12 don't have any more space, and then we have to start looking 13 at green fields and trying to take over people' s properties 14 and eminent domain, and that ' s just not a pretty future. • 15 Thanks. 16 17 * * * * * 18 19 JAMES ROSS 20 1455 Bubbling Brook Court, Fort Collins, CO 80521 21 Hi, I 'm James Ross, 1455 Bubbling Brook Court, Fort 22 Collins, 80521. I 've been following this a little bit, but 23 I haven' t -- I missed your presentation today. I was coming 24 from work, driving in traffic. (Laughter) But 25 nevertheless, I do want to comment on this, because I have • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-396 21 • 1 lived in Los Angeles and in New York and in Madrid, Spain, 2 where the rail systems are just really phenomenal. And they 3 do arrive on time, even though it' s a southern European 4 country. That ' s the only thing that arrives on time, is the 5 trains . 6 But it is really -- what you see is that when 7 there's any kind of vision made for how their communities 8 are going to grow, everything includes consideration of 9 rail. And it' s an option that is always, it ' s always there, 10 it ' s assumed. It's not something, do we do this or do we do 11 that. And it's because -- and they build their communities 12 around that, they integrate their transportation systems 13 around being able to tie into the rail systems. And you can • 14 move so efficiently to really anywhere you need to go. I 15 lived there for three years the first time, two years the 16 second time. We never owned a car. There was no need to 17 own a car to go anywhere in the city, much less anywhere in 18 the region. 19 Obviously, we ' re not going to get there in Northern 20 Colorado overnight. But I think we need to, as we're 21 thinking about how we want to grow and what kind of 22 communities, what kind of community we want to be and how we 23 want to connect ourselves to each other, this has to be on 24 the table at every discussion. 25 The previous speaker spoke to the question of • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-397 22 1 speed, and this is, I think, a very important issue . People • 2 aren't going to use it if they can't move quickly. So you 3 need that, you need to be able to move through, move to 4 Denver in a quick way. But I don't want to -- I have 5 concerns also about moving everything out to I-25, because 6 then our growth moves out in that direction in a way that 7 may not be good for our city. 8 So I just want to throw that out. I know it' s much 9 more complicated than that, but I do think that rail needs 10 to be a part of our future. Thank you. 11 12 * * * 13 14 TIM JOHNSON • 15 1337 Stonehenge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 16 My name is Tim Johnson. I live in Fort Collins. 17 And one of the things -- 1337 Stonehenge Drive in Fort 18 Collins, 80525 . I would like people to consider the kind of 19 investment that many of our communities have made in our Old 20 Towns and our downtowns, and that with that in mind, that 21 this kind of transportation system that we would be 22 selecting tonight could discriminate strongly against the 23 one that we have, the model we have in Fort Collins, if we 24 chose the I-25 centric model, adding more lanes, adding bus 25 rapid transit. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-398 23 • 1 If we look back at the function of I-25 when it was 2 built in the 1960s, industrial transportation corridor, so 3 that we may think of this in another way as well, that maybe 4 we want the freight moving along I-25, we want the people 5 moving from community center to community center to keep our 6 investment in our Old Town and downtown alive. We've been 7 building this Old Town and downtown in Fort Collins since 8 the 1970s. We've been at it for 30 years. We have just a 9 fabulous destination area. We do not want to see 10 willy-nilly development along I-25 that ' s driven there 11 because of a choice that was made to add more lanes and to 12 add a rapid, fast rail system along I-25 . 13 The other thing I want people to consider very • 14 strongly is that a lot of our destinations are not just 15 Denver. We have a university here, CSU, and in Boulder 16 there are lots of university connections . There are lots of 17 people who are moving, if they're not associated with the 18 university, but they may go there because of family, because 19 they have classes there, because they have research programs 20 that are ongoing there with different corporations and so 21 on. So they may be going to one or going to the other. 22 These are linked through the heart of the town, so we have 23 lots of Boulder destinations. 24 The key thing for this area in the short term is to 25 be looking at something like our system A, to be looking to • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-399 24 1 linking our communities, downtown to downtown, Fort Collins • 2 to Loveland to Berthoud to Longmont . And for the first 3 phase, it would be a fantastic step forward if we were able 4 to walk to the train, bike to the train here in downtown, 5 Old Town, anywhere in Fort Collins, rather than to have to 6 make a trip to the freeway, which would preclude a lot of us 7 from using a system like that easily. And then in Longmont 8 we address the situation of being able to connect up to RTD 9 and to go wherever RTD goes. I think that ' s how we should 10 break it up. We don't have that phase here in place now. 11 We need to consider it. And I ask you to go back and to 12 draw up, what is it, package A to include a couple of 13 different phases so that our first real link in Northern 14 Colorado is that easy connection to Longmont and to RTD. • 15 Thank you very much. 16 17 * * * * * 18 19 COMMENTS MADE DURING SECOND OPEN HOUSE SESSION 20 21 ART MITCHELL 22 2818 Hanover Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526 23 What I was telling other people, that what we can 24 do, what I wanted to see is, I wanted to see a locally 25 operated line along the present BN line from Fort Collins to • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-400 25 • 1 Denver to take care of local traffic, and then to have a 2 line which runs from downtown Fort Collins out to the rapid 3 transit line for Denver commuters. That way there we get 4 the best of both worlds, we get local transit -- because I 5 would say that of the transit that goes up and down, like 6 say 287, it 's crowded, and that 's local traffic, and that 7 same local traffic can be put on a train. And those people 8 who want to commute to Denver can take the same train. In 9 fact, the rapid transit train that comes up from Denver 10 could just take a turn and come right into Fort Collins, the 11 same way the Long Island railroad does. The Long Island 12 railroad, their trains come right off the Long Island 13 railroad tracks and go right into the New York City subway • 14 system. That ' s what we need here. 15 16 * * * * * 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-401 26 1 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE • 2 3 Lisa D. Anthony, RPR, CRR, and Notary Public, State 4 of Colorado, appointed to record individuals ' comments at 5 said public hearing, does hereby certify that the comments 6 were stenographically recorded by me at the Fort Collins 7 Lincoln Center, 417 West Magnolia Street, Fort Collins, 8 Colorado, on November 19, 2008, then reduced to typewritten 9 form consisting of 26 pages herein; and that the foregoing 10 constitutes an accurate and complete transcript. 11 I further certify that I am not in any way 12 connected with any of the parties to said proceedings. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 14 affixed my seal this 24th day of November, 2008 . • 15 My Commission expires: September 14, 2009. 16 17 18 LISA D. ANTHONY, RPR, CRR for Resling Reporting Services 19 18 East Fountain Boulevard Colorado Springs, CO 80903 20 21 22 23 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-402 ii . c p • 'II i k.,.-1n as a - N a ‘2 -(... • 't..) @'. C/1 ...a m ` I b f Iq ' mil. 'IN J o a v 6- �l \--X Il l v N44 r� a N. Lcc�� Z o La q --1-e.IP --'..' ib\-3.' f '. ----; 2 42‘-"Ci\--.-2:-14\ f "-r- U M ---i. 1 % s 0 1 : ...: i ce _t a y 6. I. f l ® d s C - co v� v �-O S v 1 -) m • -i Lj 1 `>3 ,,ii------) d E. LT] a , S ea 5' " . �� N �) r4 Al p S ! ll W O E CO O •• \ ` �7 Z 0 0 J 0 M ? to O N 6 0 a O N VI Q '[) CD N- CO O) N a e ir v $° r'i a 6 1 LL. ki , W N � 0 w $ s ' ,_\ kV. tom " ti c C 4+ W o r" Li—a.c ' r + f U _ cn(..( V vui 1 sG O YY U m ��, k ML, N N (. 1. "S o t, � It,' ?i'44 :7440: IO1 --11 © VJ : =;171', ‘,;'.'�* ' C :. - - �C �+ de 1 —+= 3. £ { ill. t ,9 CO 6-, c ' atj- � r d 2 � ii, ` a iii : rP k lam},\ 1 Z /A.:c: i d 3 � 2 '' N, ti + ca 1` \irteO A Cc 'I'l -.-. ) r .2 _.,/ .4, �! `r • ZOO J . ,.. s .. r N Co V of {D r 63- a- O !- N M '7 to CO r of m 8 3 • �u d pp o o • JO- N \ V� / L a "a )—i o : : ,, a, - .s y < i q Li , ‘• 1 C5":-'7-;- 14 •-i \i x Do ay u - 0 0 ,. .-, Is: --)- \-. l, is Ly \) .. ‘SI tk613 a.G „ '4 C1 aiii y.,./42,.,,9-, - 6 6 C P i -4-9, C 3_ ,-fc 1(-:c‘n) O i 0i:i d j, o p�: .:;;N l � �; CJ v' J X01 . ::, 04,.,. �y, -2 @I ,� .1 N f e 4 :4,, a, 3 e 4t \ og `-i' jam\ - :: Jo kS1f G L i 4 .-ii U \'.1 v `l` t\ � � 1 � 'V Wp e.......--..... ' r '1, 0 -,-, .. -,..., .., _14 k. • _, ,... , , A r-s......,*4 O E R O O (Si M Q t0 t� m O Z O O J N • ZM Q ,O t0 N OI N 1 _ v'� \ r T. • di i \ DU by % ( a 0 i L t / ` ^tkrin. o• , c `p Z c-7 ;JD: . f `^ n r� �Z ` c v�` E--1 0 lJ �1� m eF r p 1V-" y3-' z CaQj.. J Q J • '�Q vi �j y.fi eye � t ''..,4 - � i ,� � �s n 7 U j� A 1JIfl ` am; r•-• ��,� x G o 6A >r hif ,y 1- v � �v `J V o 'c 1, � �+ ark a ir• ' ca %ITS M b ll • Iw} e.r 6.} ; v on y S Fl �� rZi ff .; N °l 2 d ) j ,,,.� 12f&---- , I f wa b v r'r� V- N fl V U) OD N- CO O) O • Z G o J , ,,,. ., r N co ? co n m Q) N N- • NORTH I-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, November 20, 2008 4 : 30 p.m. - 7 : 00 p.m. Outlets at Loveland - Space 5617 5661 McWhinney Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado 80538 COMMENTS MADE BY INDIVIDUALS DURING HEARING • • Page D-407 2 1 COMMENTS MADE DURING OPEN HOUSE SESSION • PRIOR TO PRESENTATION 2 3 JIM WHITE, Town Administrator, Town of Berthoud 4 328 Massachusetts Avenue, Berthoud, CO 80513 5 Jim White, Town Administrator for the Town of 6 Berthoud. For the record, I just wanted it to be known that 7 the Town of Berthoud Board of Trustees, on Tuesday night 8 last, I don't know what the date is, the 18th, on November 9 18 passed a proclamation in support of plan A of these 10 proposed transit options that are remaining on the table. 11 They also indicated at that meeting that their intention is 12 to strengthen the support for a plan A through a resolution 13 to be forthcoming, hopefully in the month of December, 14 hopefully in the month of December 2008. • 15 16 * * * * * 17 18 CAROLINE CREAGER • 19 P.O. Box 1317, Berthoud, CO 80513 20 I just wanted to give my support of option A for 21 the rail system through the downtown areas of Berthoud, or 22 Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins. That ' s both personal 23 and as a business owner in Berthoud. The community of 24 Berthoud, the Chamber of Commerce of Berthoud, we support 25 the option A. • RESLINC REPORTING SERVICES Page D-408 3 • 1 85 percent of the residents of Berthoud commute to 2 their workplace . 3 4 * * * * * 5 6 BRUCE PHILBRICK 7 3636 Fletcher Street, Loveland, CO 80538 8 Bruce Philbrick, 3636 Fletcher Street here in 9 Loveland, 80538 . I would support the alternative A with the 10 rail. I learned recently that in the Rio Grande Valley of 11 New Mexico, that the Rail Runner system will be up and 12 running as of December 15th, running from Santa Fe all the 13 way south through Albuquerque to suburbs south. I think • 14 it ' s about an 80-mile stretch. And I guess my feeling is, 15 if New Mexico can pull it off, certainly the Front Range of 16 Colorado can do it as well . And I think, I think the 17 New Mexico project was pulled off in a relatively pressed 18 time period, which makes it even more impressive. And I 19 think they had to actually lay some new track. I don't 20 think they ran it strictly on existing freight line, freight 21 track. 22 So anyway, we absolutely have to look at 23 alternatives. I think that we could certainly add lanes to 24 I-25. It will only be a matter of time before they're 25 congested again. Even in this period of declining fuel • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-409 4 1 prices I think that we have to be wary that the cost of oil • 2 is going to go up again. Have to continually keep our eye 3 on alternatives. I think that ' s it. 4 5 * * * * * 6 7 COMMENTS MADE DURING PRESENTATION 8 9 ("Rich" posed a question) 10 CAROL PARR: We are going to have to identify where 11 those improvements happen. Bob, do you want to speak to 12 this? 13 BOB GARCIA: The question is really going to start 14 to hit to the heart of this next phase of the study we' re • 15 going to be doing. As you know, we don' t have enough money 16 to build the entire study, at least at this point in time, 17 unless that magic man throws from on high. But in the 18 meantime, what we're going to do, our preferred alternative 19 is going to be the complete solution. We' ll break that up 20 then into little parts that we can actually build with 21 whatever funding is available to us. Now, the question then 22 becomes, how do you prioritize that? Well, I can sit here 23 and tell you right now that, as he said, it could become a 24 political process. We like to think, though, that it ' s 25 going to be based more on engineering and science and good • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-410 5 • 1 common consensus, okay. And I 'm optimistic. (Laughter) 2 In all seriousness, though, it is going to be a 3 difficult process. But all of these folks here, and around 4 the room you see staff from your local agencies, and they've 5 been working with us for four years . And those folks are 6 committed, just as much as we are, to coming up with a 7 unified vision. We ' re already starting to hear things like, 8 this segment makes really good sense; others are saying this 9 makes good sense at the first. It ' s premature for us to say 10 we have that, but we' re going to in the next four to five 11 months . 12 For right now, Rich, that' s probably the best I can 13 commit to, except to say, it' s going to be a joint effort. • 14 RICH: I think that ' s great . Even if it ' s at a 15 broad level, you can say, here' s the top third, the middle 16 third and the bottom third of your perceived priority, 17 without trying to get any more detailed than that. 18 BOB GARCIA: The biggest thing we've got to decide 19 first off is maintaining a viable trans component and still 20 trying to address the needs of the highway users. That ' s 21 going to be the first and biggest discussion, is how do we 22 come to a consensus on that . Then we break it up, okay. 23 24 * * * * * 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-411 6 1 COMMENTS MADE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PRESENTATION • 2 3 IRENE FORTUNE 4 4830 Avon Avenue, Loveland, CO 80538 5 Irene Fortune, 4830 Avon Avenue, Loveland, 80538 . 6 I 'd like to thank the group for giving us a chance to ask 7 questions, because, goodness knows, I 've had quite a few. 8 And I 've gotten good information, so thanks. 9 I 'm a proponent of rail mass transit. I say, build 10 it and they will come. When we, my husband and I, were 11 considering moving to the Front Range in 2004, we drove up 12 I-25 through Denver, and I said, they' re building rail. We 13 thought, of course, any area where your population lives in 14 a straight line is an obvious place for mass transit, and • 15 they're doing it. So, check, got that, moved on. And when 16 we got here a year and a half later and I started reading 17 the paper and I learned that FasTracks was limited to Denver 18 metro, I felt gypped. And so here I am today, missing 19 transit and the joy of taking it that I 've had in other 20 places that I 've traveled to and worked and lived. 21 I wanted to question that the projected mass 22 transit commuter rail ridership seems really low to me. I 23 understand the surveys were done like 2000, ' 90s. How many 24 people like me have moved here since then and said, hey, 25 where' s the mass transit? (Show of hands) Yeah. So we're • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-412 7 • 1 here now. And then I read that Seattle and San Jose and 2 San Diego were the comparison cities, transit systems. And 3 if I think of one big difference between here and there, 4 it' s the weather. Seattle, it rains 300 days a year. Here 5 we've got sun 300 days a year. Put those stations in places 6 where people can walk and bike to and get to, and they will 7 come. 8 This country kind of diverted from the rest of the 9 industrial world about 50 years ago by building highways and 10 becoming a more car-based economy. And it ' s been a good 11 experiment, but our road surfaces are crummy. And if you 12 think I-25 is bad, come back to Michigan with me. It 's 13 really bad there. And the car-based economy -- and now • 14 people have had a credit scare like, seems to have finally 15 hit their heart. People are conserving. And we all know 16 there's a huge global imbalance between us as a debtor. 17 nation and other countries as a lender nation, and I would 18 be surprised if that debtor/lender relationship works it out 19 in time for us to ever see credit again like we 've had in 20 the last 20 years that have built the car-based economy. 21 Also what came out, about the same time that the 22 study went up on the Internet, the Global Energy Outlook 23 report for 2008 came out, which said the fuel -- oil 24 reserves are being depleted at a rate much faster than was 25 projected just a year ago. We also read that projects where • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-413 8 1 the oil costs 70, 80, $100 a barrel to get it out of the • 2 ground and make a profit are being shut down in anticipation 3 of the day when oil will cost that much again. And bottom 4 line for that report was, in 2030 they expect oil at $200 a 5 barrel. They think people know that. They' re looking for 6. options, and we don' t have options here. We' re looking for 7 options. 8 I 'd like to say one thing about air quality. I 9 was, on September 2nd of this year I was up on Long's Peak, 10 that way (indicating) , on the shoulder of Long' s Peak. It 11 was an overcast day like this, but the ceiling was high 12 enough I could see above the cloud layer and below the cloud 13 layer. And above the cloud layer there was that typical 14 brown cloud that we see, thin, dissipates, you know, we've • 15 all seen that brown cloud. Below the cloud layer the air 16 was the color of mud. It looked scary. And you can' t see 17 it. It ' s like when you' re driving into Denver, you look 18 ahead and think, oh, I 'm driving into that? But when you 19 get there it doesn't look that bad. It looked bad. It ' s 20 here. It ' s us . We' re doing it. 21 So, this being 2008, people are looking for a way 22 to conserve, they're doing things differently. And so I 23 would say give them options. Commuter bus from Greeley to 24 Denver looks like a very easy thing to do. That' s your 25 cheapest option. Gives those people an option, gets some • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-414 9 • 1 cars off the road, lets people know how nice that is. Lets 2 Denver know, hey, we ' re coming, be ready to start dealing 3 with us when we do arrive en masse. Commuter rail would be 4 my next wish. To me, it ' s worth it to get as close to 5 Denver on rail, as close to Union Station on rail as we can 6 get . So the extra distance past Longmont, to me, it ' s 7 absolutely worth it . And then the third step would be to 8 promote the new options as much as we can. There' s been 9 lots of studies that said, when people know that other 10 people are doing it, other normal people like me are riding 11 the bus, you know, however normal you think I am, they will 12 do it too. I go to meetings. Who else knew that Loveland' s 13 bus ridership is up 19 to 20 percent over last year? And • 14 Fort Collins is up 10 percent. And back in 2001 -- 2004, 23 15 of 31 ballot measures for mass transit were voted in in 11 16 different states, and some of those people will be coming 17 here. 18 So we' re missing mass transit here. If we gave 19 that a good shot, we could then evaluate how many more lanes 20 we need. But I say, build it and they will come, and they 21 will ride. Thank you. 22 23 * * * 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-415 10 1 ART MITCHELL • 2 2818 Hanover Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526 3 Good evening. I 'm Art Mitchell, 2818 Hanover 4 Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado. I am the section foreman for 5 the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad in Fort Collins . 6 I 've got some comments to offer and some realities to offer. 7 I 'm a proponent of rail transit. Number one, the estimated 8 72 minutes on the bus route from Harmony Road to Denver is 9 kind of an unfair thing, as compared to the train, which I 10 believe took 112 minutes . The reason why is the train 11 leaves from downtown Fort Collins and goes to downtown 12 Denver. This bus rapid transit route will go from Harmony 13 Road. So it takes about 30 to 40 minutes through rush hour 14 traffic to get out to the Harmony bus station from • 15 Fort Collins . So that kind of rounds it out right there. 16 Number two, the route can be made a little bit 17 faster. Right now the line is capable of handling trains at 18 60 miles an hour, right now, without any adjustments 19 whatsoever. Now, there are places where we have curves, and 20 the thing is, the curves kill speed. Grades, of course, 21 kill tonnage. Somebody came up with the idea of running a 22 commuter line down I-25 and possibly using that for freight 23 too. Well, because of berth and given all the other stuff, 24 it creates a problem with hauling direct freights. But I am 25 in favor of using the Front Range rail line through • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-416 11 • 1 Fort Collins, Berthoud, and down in Longmont to connect up 2 with the FasTracks system as a local rail transit system. 3 But as far as rapid transit is concerned, something 4 else has to be done, because of all the towns, all the 5 stops, and things like that. What I would propose is to 6 build a line down I-25, rapid transit high-speed line down 7 I-25, with direct lines that go into the various urban 8 areas. Now, of course any kind of rail construction has an 9 extremely high cost to it, as opposed to building roads. 10 Well, their proposition for bus rapid transit is to go ahead 11 and allow cars to also use it as a toll lane. That' s 12 allowing a bunch of idiots who don' t know how to drive in 13 your dedicated rapid transit right-of-way. Now, that is not • 14 going to work. The second you have a car accident down 15 there, your rapid transit system goes to heck. Your 16 multibillion dollars goes out the window. There' s always a 17 daily wreck on I-25. 18 Next problem is that rail transit is all-weather, 19 so it' s going to cost a little bit more, but the price you 20 pay for a rail transit system is well worth an all-weather 21 system, rather than paying a little bit cheaper price and 22 having a fair-weather bus system. 23 Now, I was at the Fort Collins meeting last night, 24 and I was asked to come down here and speak. Now, I 've 25 listed the problems on that. Also, of course, is your fuel • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-417 12 1 economy. To take a train from Fort Collins down to Denver • 2 requires 1 . 4 horsepower per ton. Now, that' s quite a fuel 3 savings. I don't know if a bus will handle that at all. 4 Also, your infrastructure costs are high in the beginning, 5 but they're cheaper in the long run. I 've worked on this 6 section of line for 30 years, and there are some places that 7 I have not had to work on it in a maintenance mode. It 8 lasts that long. There' s a picture over there (indicating) , 9 says the welcome thing there, if you notice, there' s a 10 couple of railcars down there. Those are Budd RDC cars. 11 They were made in the early 1950s, and they're still running 12 today. Can you find a bus that ' s nearly 60 years old 13 running? I don't think so. 14 So anyway, another problem is that I 'm kind of • 15 worried about the RTD FasTracks system. And what the 16 problem with the FasTracks system is, I believe they're 17 wasting the money on unnecessary research. And I hope this 18 is not the same thing here. I wonder how much money went 19 into this easel development over here. (Indicating) And it 20 might be in the millions of dollars. Well, if it ' s the 21 millions of my taxpayer dollars, I ' d like to ask, where' s my 22 train? The gentleman over here said he'd been working on 23 this project for 15 years . 24 Now, from my understanding, that the Rail Runner 25 project in New Mexico was conceived about seven years ago. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-418 13 • 1 I've got a picture of the project here . (Indicating) 2 They' re building track down the middle of I-25 between 3 Albuquerque and Santa Fe, a high-speed rail line. They' re 4 doing that now. Bill Richardson basically said several 5 years ago that, I 've got the money to build this line and to 6 run it for three years, and we' ll see how much of a success 7 it is. It turned out to be a screaming success . Now, you 8 go down to Denver, take RTD light rail . RTD light rail has 9 the highest operating ratio of all of the light rail systems 10 in the country. 76 percent of each operating dollar that it 11 cost to operate that line comes from paying passengers. The 12 next closest is the New York City subway, which goes at 64 • 13 percent. • 14 Now, I asked the head of the bus here in 15 Fort Collins, how much passenger fares actually pays each 16 operating dollar? 24 cents. That means 76 cents is paid 17 for by us. Now, I also asked the head of the RTD, who came 18 up to Fort Collins, I says, why didn't you build the South 19 Santa Fe line in bus rapid transit, which was cheaper than 20 light rail? And he told me, if we build a bus rapid 21 transit, nobody would ride it. 22 That ' s all I have to say. My time is up. Thank 23 you. 24 25 * * * * * • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-419 14 1 CECIL GUTIERREZ • 2 1035 Crabapple Drive, Loveland, CO 80538 3 Thank you. Cecil Gutierrez, 1035 Crabapple Drive, 4 Loveland, Colorado. And I 'm here speaking as an individual 5 this evening. But I have, I would like to urge the adoption 6 of most of option A as the primary alternative, mostly 7 because of a lot of the other reasons that have been stated 8 here already and were stated in the last couple of meetings 9 the last couple of nights . 10 But I want to add one&more thing here tonight, and 11 that is the economic impact that commuter rail would have 12 through -- for all of our communities. A lot of our 13 communities -- Fort Collins has already spent a lot of 14 money, Longmont has spent a lot of money, Berthoud is about • 15 to finish spending a lot of money, Loveland is in the 16 process of taking a look at spending a lot of money on our 17 downtowns, in order for us to be able to create a viable and 18 economic downtown to all of our- cities, the heart and soul 19 of all of our cities . Commuter rail through the downtowns 20 would have a great economic impact to it for our cities and 21 would just ensure and help ensure some of that economic 22 viability that we 're looking for in the downtown areas, in 23 the core areas of all of our cities . 24 And with option A we get kind of the best of both 25 worlds. We are looking at expansion of I-25 and upgrading • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-420 15 • 1 I-25, as well as the commuter rail through the Front Range. 2 And so you get the best of both worlds with option A. 3 Whereas with option B you are really taking a look at just 4 the expansion of 1-25. So for me, option A makes a greater 5 deal of sense economically in almost every way. So that' s 6 why I 'm urging the adoption of option A. Thank you. 7 8 * * * * * 9 10 BECKY JAY 11 1008 South County Road 23E, Loveland, CO 80537 12 I also would urge you to -- Becky Jay, 1008 South 13 County Road 23E, Loveland, 80537 . I also would urge you to • 14 look at option A as the best solution, long-term solution. 15 I don't see option B as being a long-term solution in terms 16 of pollution, population centers, population growth, or 17 cost. A train system and not widening the freeway causes 18 less -- brings less pollution and runs through the existing 19 population centers . As Cecil was just saying, we need to 20 concentrate in our urban areas rather than sprawl more than 21 we already have. Density in downtown urban areas should be 22 increased, rather than increasing sprawl outward from those 23 centers. 24 The long-term cost -- the gentleman who works for 25 the railroad was saying it' s cheaper to run the rail longer • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-421 16 1 than it is to buy new buses and build new highways every ten • 2 years . You have fewer cars going down into the Denver 3 basin, which helps with the pollution, and also fewer cars 4 running up and down the north corridor here, and that will 5 help our brown cloud. I really appreciate that earlier 6 comments were heard and we no longer would have to go to 7 Boulder to get to Denver. I appreciate that the line has 8 been zigged to the east and on down south. I think that 9 makes a lot more sense. 10 The only comment I would add was, instead of taking 11 the bus from Brighton that go from Greeley to Brighton on 12 down into Denver, take them over to the transit center on 13 Highway 7 so those people can get on the light rail sooner, 14 there are less buses and less traffic down into the center • 15 of Denver. Those people have the option sooner to take -- 16 get off at the other transit centers and take buses east and 17 west of the corridor. 18 And I also would urge that you do the rail first. 19 I think, again, build it, they' ll come. And if we do the 20 rail first, we may see that we don' t need to do quite as 21 much expansion on 1-25 in terms of highway. Thank you. 22 23 * * * * * 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page 0-422 17 • 1 ANN HARROUN 2 3321 Apple Avenue, Loveland, CO 80538 3 I 'm Ann Harroun, 3321 Apple Avenue in Loveland. 4 And I came here from a meeting with my broker, which is kind 5 of a sad thing to do today. And I see our nation as in big 6 transition. And we don' t know where that ' s going to sugar 7 off yet. We won't know for a while. But we have been a 8 profligate nation, profligate in our energy use and in our 9 borrowing and spending and running up of debt as a nation, 10 and as individuals. And that whole house of cards is 11 collapsing right now. It ' s hard to predict where it will 12 come down. But there ' s going to be a big shift. And my 13 broker is saying it may be 2010 before we see any • 14 turnaround. When gas prices went sky high, people learned 15 to do things in a different way. They actually tried riding 16 the bus and riding their bicycles and walking and doing 17 anything they could to conserve money. And they found out 18 that they can do it. The prices came down, and they may go 19 back to the old way. But if they do, prices will go right 20 straight back up again. So people do adjust and they will 21 adjust. 22 I 'm a big believer in maintenance, and I think all 23 our highways need to be taken care of. I drove to Maine and 24 back this September, the highest prices of gas. And one of 25 those places, I think it was Ohio, as we went through, it • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-423 18 1 was almost impossible to dodge the potholes in the road. • 2 And I 'm glad my car isn' t out of line, but I 'm amazed that 3 it isn't. 4 With the markets down, people are paying off their 5 debt and saving money for the first time in a long time, and 6 the era of profligacy is over. So I'm wondering how 7 accurate your assumptions are based upon figures from 8 several years back, a few years back, not a lot . But I 9 think, given the changes that are coming for individuals, 10 that plan A is our future, and plan B looks to me like so 11 yesterday. 12 13 * * * 14 • 15 EVELYN KING 16 6321 14th Street S.W. , Loveland, CO 17 I 'm Evelyn King, at 6321 14th Street S .W. in 18 Loveland. So tonight, package A or package B, that ' s the 19 question. And we really have no other alternatives. I have 20 a little analogy about how that might be. It ' s like we have 21 this big bucket of ice cream. You add in 2 percent horse 22 manure. Now, ice cream has its pros and cons, horse manure 23 has its pros and cons, but when you mix them together and 24 you say, pick which half, it ' s really unacceptable. 25 I don' t like package A because package A costs • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-424 19 • 1 $2 billion more than package B. But you have to dig through 2 all the big books back there on the tables to find this 3 information, because there ' s no cost information on any of 4 the boards. And the slides that were used only show the raw 5 capital costs . And I think that you all would agree that if 6 we' re going to pay taxes, we're probably going to have to 7 also pay the financing. So the annualized capital cost plus 8 operation and maintenance for package A really comes out to 9 a total of over $7 billion. Package B is over $5 billion. 10 Package A could meet the needs of 98 percent of the users at 11 a cost $4 billion less by just building the general purpose 12 lanes. But that' s not an option. The general purpose 13 lanes, annualized capital cost plus maintenance, is • 14 $3, 240, 000, 000 . 15 I don' t like package A because it will cause more 16 traffic congestion and approximately 60 highway rail 17 crossings from Fort Collins to Longmont. So if you don' t 18 like stopping at the railroad crossings now, you' ll have 19 much more opportunity to do so. I don't like package A 20 because it causes 59 residences, 33 businesses to be 21 relocated, possibly requiring eminent domain. And that 's 22 considerably more than package B. I don't like package A 23 because it requires fencing of the railway from Fort Collins 24 to Longmont, and that will create a physical barrier through 25 your cities. So if you think about down by the depot now, • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-425 20 1 especially when you have community events, there' s a lot of • 2 people crossing across the railroad tracks, that will be 3 fenced right up to where you cross the street . 4 I don' t like package B because, overall, including 5 the BRT, it costs 2 billion more than simply using the 6 general purpose lanes, meeting, again, over 98 percent of 7 the users ' needs. But that ' s not an option either. I don't 8 like package B because it costs $500 million more to have 9 the toll lanes to be simply utilized, to simply utilize the 10 general purpose lanes. 500 million to build, plus the cost 11 of BRT, to satisfy only 2 percent of the users. I don't 12 like package B because I don't like paying tolls where the 13 tolling revenue will not even pay for the overhead 14 maintenance of those highway lanes. • 15 Now, I also like to think about business needs . 16 And as you know, much of the transit does not take care of 17 any business trips. I was unable to find out tonight, but 18 there is a question, will the tolled lanes accept any kind 19 of business trucks, any kind of semi tractor trucks in those 20 lanes, or will they be stuck along with all of the rest of 21 us in the general purpose lanes if we choose not to pay the 22 toll? 23 The bottom-line cost, if you want to look at cost 24 per user, I did some calculations, and for package A, the 25 daily cost per user for a general purpose lane is 37 cents. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-426 21 • 1 The daily cost per user for the rail part of that package A, 2 or it' s actually all of transit in package A, is $59. 53. 3 Now, if you take the annualized cost, because that' s just 4 the raw capital costs, and I was comparing that with what 5 CDOT has put together, and if you take the annualized 6 capital cost, that number then becomes, through the general 7 purpose lanes, 82 cents per user per day versus $96. 64 for 8 the transit elements in package A. 9 So we can either choose to spend 7 billion for 10 package A or 5 billion for package B, with the majority of 11 the users going to be going slower down to Denver by the 12 year 2030. Today we travel an average of about 58 miles an 13 hour. Package A drops that to 50 miles an hour. Package B • 14 drops that to 49 miles per hour. 15 So maybe the best choice is just to do nothing, 16 take the no-action plan, save a lot of billions of dollars, 17 and guess what, it says we' ll still be going 46 miles per 18 hour, only one difference than package B. Neither package A 19 or package B are acceptable . 20 21 * * * 22 23 ROGER HOFFMANN 24 1118 East Seventh Street, Loveland, CO 80537 25 Hi. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Roger • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-427 22 1 Hoffmann, and the address is 1118 East Seventh Street here • 2 in Loveland, 80537. And first a general comment about the 3 comment period itself. Given the complexity of both the 4 problem you're trying to solve, we' re trying to solve, and 5 of the various alternatives and the comparisons, and given 6 that this comment period extends not only over the election 7 period that just concluded but also several holidays, major 8 holidays, I would really like to see the comment period 9 extended by a month to the end of January. I think that 10 would be much more reasonable because, again, given the 11 complexity and the amount of information in the documents, 12 the looking -- I 've taken a cursory look at the documents 13 that are available on the web, but I have not had a chance 14 to digest them. It ' s going to take a little while. And I • 15 think you really want to make sure that you do a good job of 16 this. So I would urge that to be longer. 17 At a glance, one of the things that I note is that 18 the coupling of the various packages, or the way the 19 packages are contrived, tends to lead to certain comparisons 20 which I think bias the conclusion towards package B. And I 21 think that' s very unfortunate. I think when you look at, 22 for example, impacts to air quality, you look at costs, and 23 there are some other factors driving those cost differences 24 as well that I'd like to cover, but I think that that ' s very 25 unfortunate, especially the inclusion of the expansion, a • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-428 23 • 1 major expansion of I-25 with the rail option. To me, that 2 seems like an unfair bias towards the outcome, so towards 3 your list of comparisons that I 've seen there. And a lot of 4 people will just really look down the list and see where the 5 checkmark is in the column. And where that is today really 6 predisposes somebody to say, package B must make sense. I 7 think when you really look at comparing, for example, BRT 8 with rail, the gentleman from BNSF has already touched on 9 some of those things, but I think really we ought to compare 10 apples to apples. And that ' s something that we should do. 11 As Ms. Jay stated, for example, it ' s possible that 12 as ridership on the rail lines takes off, for example, we 13 might need less investment in the highway itself. • 14 Generally, the transit times comparison should look at the 15 timing such as -- other timings, for example, Loveland, 16 downtown Loveland and points south and compare that as well. 17 I think just looking from a south transit center, as, again, 18 the BNSF rep noted, is a little bit unfair and misleading in 19 terms of overall transit times . 20 Related to that, I ' d like to see -- understand the 21 transit assumptions especially as they pertain to the bus 22 theater lines that will have to support a BRT. Now, I can 23 tell you as a resident of Loveland, and in having talked to 24 a lot of people in Fort Collins who use the transit up 25 there, most of the -- many of the users of the Fort Collins • REELING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-429 24 1 bus system think that the bus, Fort Collins bus system, • 2 local bus system, is terribly inadequate. But it ' s head and 3 shoulders above what we have in Loveland. There's been very 4 little local commitment to local transit. So I' d like to 5 see what the requirements would be and who will pay for 6 those to make that successful and to provide the kind of 7 ridership that rail would obviously offer. 8 I would like to say that I 'm glad the record of 9 decision and the preferred alternatives will really consider 10 a phased implementation. I think that ' s especially 11 important in terms of rail . One of the things that bumped 12 up the cost, I noticed from a previous version of the 13 packages to the subsequent one, that actually pushed the 14 cost to nearly a half billion dollars of difference, have • 15 more -- higher for package A, was the inclusion of the link 16 from Longmont down to Union Station. And I would like to 17 see that treated as if that' s a phased implementation. It 18 may be the right solution long term, but we don't know 19 what ' s really going to happen with RTD. Right now there' s 20 ongoing discussions. I think we really need to focus on 21 completing the first segment, with the assumption that RTD 22 will probably be involved in a long-term solution from 23 Longmont south, and take that half billion dollars back out 24 of the equation. The costs become roughly comparative. 25 There really -- I want to point to something, I 'm . • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-430 25 • 1 not sure if the analysis covered it, but there' s been a 2 major investment in Fort Collins and in Loveland, in our 3 communities generally and of valuing downtown, an investment 4 in that. Fort Collins has developed the Mason Street 5 corridor plan. Clearly the BNSF oriented line would tag 6 right in with that, that whole concept of investment as 7 well. I think we don't want to do, the last thing we want 8 to do is undermine the downtowns by sending a market signal 9 that all transportation is centered along the I-25 corridor. 10 Terrible, terrible mistake in terms of the communities 11 overall . 12 It was mentioned about rail crossing times, and I 13 think that was very misleading, by the previous speaker. • 14 Clearly, we're not talking about freight lines and freight, 15 long freight trains that move and take several minutes of 16 our time at any crossing in Fort Collins. It ' s a bigger 17 problem than here in Loveland, but it ' s enough of an 18 annoyance. We 're talking about ten-second passage times for 19 commuter rail. And I think it' s something everybody needs 20 to keep in mind. We' re talking about perhaps freeing up 21 vehicle traffic time on the highways, as people that can use 22 the rail would use that, and I think the inconvenience would 23 be fairly minor. 24 Another quick point is that the technology for rail 25 really makes sense in terms of our energy picture globally • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-431 26 1 and nationally. It' s so much more readily adaptable to • 2 changing energy technologies, rail is, that is, as compared 3 with rubber-tired transit, and especially, of course, 4 compared with automobiles. The reason for that is the 5 relative number of units that you have to address in terms 6 of changing the configuration. 7 Also, I 'm especially concerned about the long-term 8 maintenance costs. We ought to consider that. Right now 9 we' re in a sudden dip of oil prices . I don't think anybody 10 believes, in the energy field, this will last. The cost of 11 pavement and of maintaining highways is going to only 12 increase over time. Notwithstanding this little dip we've 13 got going on right now that everybody is very grateful for, 14 we' re going to see the long-term picture increasing the cost • 15 of oil products, and of course asphalt being a part of that 16 and rubber tires being part of that as well . 17 I 'm also concerned, and I hope we' ll give thought 18 to, the air impacts of the comparative transit operations as 19 well. Obviously you' l.l cut down on the ozone somewhat, and 20 some of the emissions, by using transit of any kind. But 21 again, part of the problem is rubber tires on hard surface; 22 the particulate aspects of that need to be considered as 23 well. 24 I know I 'm taking a lot of time, but thank you. 25 I 'm going to be submitting comments in writing. I would • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-432 27 • 1 encourage other people to do that . Thank you very much for 2 hosting this . 3 4 * * * * 5 6 ELIZABETH KEARNEY 7 1600 West County Road 10E, Berthoud, CO 80513 8 Hi. Elizabeth Kearney, 1600 West County Road 10E, 9 Berthoud, Colorado, 80513 . Thanks for having this meeting 10 so we can all come, contribute some thoughts. 11 I think if you look at the global picture for 12 economic, environmental, energy resources, if you do a more 13 global analysis than kind of the pinpoints that we're • 14 looking at tonight, and I understand those are important 15 too, but I think if we look at this big picture and we look 16 at a long period of time as well, it becomes very clear that 17 rail transport of people is much more efficient, more 18 cost-effective and fuel efficient than personal cars or 19 buses . The rail system is, as we heard from our friend that 20 works for the railroad, a rail system is much less expensive 21 to maintain, once its built, than roads are. 22 Another issue that Mr. Hoffmann touched on I think 23 is critical for the development of the Northern Front Range 24 is that if we encourage transit options only at I-25, that 25 is going to pull sprawl out there, and that' s going to • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-433 28 1 increase sprawl and it is not going to support the • 2 revitalization of the downtown areas that are currently -- 3 the towns along the Burlington Northern route are really 4 trying to work on now. And there' s great resources there, 5 but if we don't get the support in terms of funneling people 6 there, those old downtowns are going to die and we ' re going 7 to have Thornton and Westminster all the way from Wellington 8 down to Westminster. So sprawl would be encouraged by 9 option B. It would not encourage the revitalization of the 10 downtowns. It would create the same pattern of usage that 11 we see now, which is, it ' s not sustainable. 12 Personal automobile use, and I think that there is 13 some -- the economics are a bit skewed in the costs, because 14 I think when you talk about people, cost of the people using • 15 a car lane, a lane to drive their personal automobile on, 16 you' re not counting the cost of purchasing the car and 17 purchasing the gas and storing the car and driving it on 18 side streets to get to that main road the same way that 19 you' re including the cost of the railcars and all of the 20 stuff that goes into getting somebody from point A to 21 point B on a rail line. So I think that that, it' s very 22 deceptive, because you' re saying, oh, we ' re going to slough 23 those costs off on all the people who are going to be 24 driving their cars, so we don't have to include those. But 25 if you' re going to look at the big economic picture and look • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-434 29 • 1 at the economic well-being of this area, I think you need to 2 think about those costs as well . Thank you. 3 4 * * * * * 5 6 BRIAN HOLCOMBE 7 1308 Crestmore Place, Fort Collins, CO 80521 8 My name is Brian Holcombe. I live at 1308 9 Crestmore Place in Fort Collins, 80521. I 'd like to comment 10 real briefly. I 'd like to follow up on something that Roger 11 said regarding the comment period for the draft EIS. I 'm a 12 member online of the SmartTrips web site. I really engage 13 in alternative transportation in Fort Collins. And I didn't • 14 hear about the comment period beginning until today on an 15 e-mail in Fort Collins . There are a lot of us that are 16 having that happen. We've been very engaged in the general 17 election coming up into early November, and a lot of people 18 have been caught off guard. So I would like to mirror 19 Roger' s sentiment in extending the comment period until 20 January 31, 2009, for the draft EIS. 21 One of the big keystones of the need for process is 22 the public involvement, and we need to do a better job of 23 reaching out to our communities . I haven't received one 24 e-mail from any of the alternative transportation groups in 25 Fort Collins regarding the process. So we really need to do • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-435 30 1 a better job of reaching out to these communities, getting • 2 more of the young people engaged who are a lot -- people who 3 are very interested in projects like this, and getting us to 4 these meetings, getting our comment letters out there. 5 I 'd like to briefly share an experience that I had. 6 In the fall of 2007 my wife and I became carless. We sold 7 our only car and were going to make a go of commuting 8 without one. However, I work for a nonprofit that works 9 statewide, and I commute to the Denver/Boulder area five to 10 ten times a month. I 'm not exactly the everyday commuter 11 that programs like SmartTrips appeal to, where you're paying 12 a fee for a seat in a van five days a week. Unfortunately, 13 programs like SmartTrips don't accommodate people who only 14 commute, let' s say, one to three days a week. It doesn't • 15 make sense financially for us. And unfortunately, there' s 16 not an alternative program there. 17 So I tried every option out there. I tried to 18 steal a seat on SmartTrips from friends that commute, and 19 they weren't comfortable doing that . I tried riding the 20 Greyhound, which is the great bus service that we have to 21 Denver right now (laughter) , at noon on the way south and at 22 midnight on the way home. So my wife, my fiancee at the 23 time, was none too pleased when I had a business meeting in 24 Denver in the afternoon and would crawl into bed around 1: 45 25 in the morning, if the bus was on time. Other options I • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-436 31 • 1 attempted were the bus line to south Loveland and then 2 getting on my road bike and taking that to Longmont, where I 3 could hop on the regional RTD system into Boulder and then 4 hop on another bus into Denver. So that was another option. 5 I also tried one option where I would commute at 6: 00 in the 6 morning with other friends who commuted to Boulder and then 7 again wait until midnight to come back on the Greyhound bus. B So we really don't have a viable alternative 9 transportation or a mass transit system between 10 Fort Collins -- really between south Loveland and Longmont 11 is where the bulk of the gap is. And I find that hard to 12 believe and disappointing. And I 'm really excited to see 13 that we' re in this process to where we' re making positive • 14 progress. 15 As telecommuting and flex scheduling grow, there 16 are more people coming into situations like me and like many 17 of my friends . We need an option to get us all to Boulder, 18 we need an option to get us all to Denver for our jobs, but 19 not every day. Perhaps we ' re traveling two to three days a 20 week. So people like me are only growing. 21 And finally, to discuss the financing of the 22 project, I appreciate the in-depth financial analysis by the 23 young lady over here in the corner. I would say that it 's 24 important to balance the expense of a program like this. 25 And as she pointed out and as many people pointed out, a • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-437 32 1 rail system is a more expensive option immediately. The • 2 long-term costs, however, diminish significantly versus 3 other mass transit options. And quite frankly, the service 4 is much improved. I don't know how much time a lot of 5 people have spent riding regional buses. They can work 6 really well and they cannot work really well. Regional rail 7 transit, however, is oftentimes extremely efficient, 8 extremely comfortable, and extremely cost-effective. And 9 I 'm willing to pay that higher service cost for a mass 10 transit rail system in our region. 11 So with that I 'd like to close by just saying that 12 I plan to submit more detailed comments after I have time to 13 review the draft EIS, and I plan to spread the word 14 throughout the Fort Collins community so we can get more • 15 people at these meetings and more people engaged. Thank 16 you. 17 18 * * * * * 19 20 JEANNE BOLTON 21 1586 West County Road 10E, Berthoud, CO 22 I'm Jeanne Bolton. I live at 1586 West County Road 23 10E, and that ' s Berthoud. And the first time I talked to 24 anyone about rail service along the Burlington Northern line 25 was in 1995. And they at that time had a person who worked • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-438 33 • 1 for them nationally who was trying to promote passenger rail 2 on their existing lines. Since that time we haven't done 3 much about it. But they, at that point they were very 4 interested in promoting it, sent the guy to Fort Collins, we 5 had a meeting with him. And so I 've been thinking about 6 being able to ride that line into Denver and DIA for a long 7 time. I hope that it' s not going to take another 18 years . 8 But my comments focus around rail service on the 9 existing rail lines from Fort Collins to Denver. It makes 10 the most sense. It is the heart of option A. And anything 11 else could go away in option A, if that happens, and we 12 would have a real improvement in transportation for the 13 Front Range. That ' s all we have to do, and we would see • 14 amazing, good changes to our downtown areas, to the safety 15 of the people going from here to there. Rail safety is so 16 far above anything the highways have ever been able to do 17 that I don't know why anyone doesn't mention it. If you 18 look at rail safety and you look at CDOT' s even, and I 've 19 examined that point to point down I-25, there' s no 20 comparison. Rail is so much safer. You can do something 21 while you're riding, and you' re saving energy, you' re 22 helping our air quality. It' s so convenient. The cost per 23 mile, per passenger mile over a 20-year period is just so 24 much less than any other way you're ever going to get from 25 Fort Collins to Denver. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-439 34 1 And I agree with Roger that the way package A and 2 package B are set up doesn' t show what a great solution 3 passenger rail on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail is . 4 So that ' s what we need to do. That ' s maybe all we need to 5 do. 6 7 * * * * * 8 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has anybody done a count of how 10 much of the traffic on I-25 is trucks versus commuters? 11 CAROL PARR: I 'm pretty sure that ' s in our study. 12 KIM MCCARL: We' ll get Tom to answer that question. 13 * * * * * 14 KIM MCCARL: In answer to your question, yes, • 15 unofficially, we have looked at that, and we do have some 16 percentages . It varies depending where on the highway. But 17 Chris and Tom are in the back, and they're happy to show you 18 the details. 19 20 * * * * * 21 22 JIM WHITE 23 115 East Indiana Avenue, Berthoud, CO 24 328 Massachusetts, Berthoud, CO 80513 25 My name is Jim White. I 'm the Town Administrator • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-440 35 • 1 for the Town of Berthoud. I live at 115 East Indiana Avenue 2 in Berthoud and I spent a lot of time at 328 Massachusetts 3 in Berthoud as well. I made some of the comments to the 4 court reporter earlier, but I thought it was important for 5 the record, for those of you who took the time, our 6 neighbors who came out to talk about this, to identify the 7 official position of the Town of Berthoud first, and then I 8 might make some personal comments as well. 9 The official position of the Town of Berthoud is to 10 support option A. Our town has been involved in this 11 process for five or six years, watching it as it' s evolved 12 and paying more attention as it ' s getting to the point where 13 the options are being limited and pared down to the two that • 14 are present, three, I guess I should say, that are present 15 tonight. So with that our town board passed a proclamation, 16 - or issued a proclamation on Tuesday night, on the 18th of 17 November, and they plan to strengthen that resolve and that 18 support through a resolution on December 9th, coming soon. 19 So with that, that represents the official position 20 of the town board. And this is a new town board 21 predominantly, via an election that occurred in April of 22 this year. Prior to this, our other board also endorsed the 23 same option, option A. So it ' s a pretty consistent and 24 confirmed opinion in the Town of Berthoud officially that 25 that ' s our position. • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-441 36 1 Stepping now to the personal side, I grew up in • 2 Chicago. There' s obviously rail from, great distances from 3 the downtown area to bring people into the downtown to keep 4 it vibrant, still allow them to live away from the city. 5 I 've spent some time traveling in Europe, not a lot, but 6 enough to enjoy both the convenience and the comfort of the 7 rail in that country and some of those countries in Europe 8 that I visited. And also I 've seen some places here in the 9 United States that have had tremendous rail services . And I 10 think that, I was happy that our town has supported this 11 option. I certainly do personally as well. Thank you very 12 much. 13 14 * * * * * • 15 16 KAREN STOCKLEY (spelling uncertain) 17 316 Boston Road, Berthoud, CO 18 Karen Stockley, 316 Boston Road, Berthoud. And I 19 came straight from work and didn' t prepare anything, so I ' ll 20 speak off the top of my head here. I think one thing we 21 really need to look at is the future and our carbon 22 footprint. And more vehicles and more fossil fuels, the 23 more we're really damaging everything we have that' s great 24 here. I think if we look at option A and we look at light 25 rail, this is the way of the future. And anyone who' s lived • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-442 37 1 in Colorado for a lot of years knows what I-25 used to be 2 like. Way back when I was a child I remember going to 3 Cheyenne, and there was hardly anyone on the road. And you 4 look at it now and it ' s bumper to bumper. If we continue to 5 widen and widen, what are we doing here? It makes no sense 6 at all . 7 You look at -- everyone wants to be a visionary, B and if we look at successful communities, they have mass 9 transit. We need to have some sort of transit. If we 10 decide ten years from now that ' s the right thing to do, it ' s 11 going to be too late and it ' s going to be too expensive. We 12 need to find a way to do it now. It' s the smart thing to do 13 for the future, for the people who want to commute and leave • 14 their cars at home, and I think we need to find a way to 15 come up with the money, because it ' s going to be too 16 difficult and too expensive later. Thank you. 17 18 * * 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-443 38 1 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE • 2 3 Lisa D. Anthony, RPR, CRR, and Notary Public, State 4 of Colorado, appointed to record individuals ' comments at 5 said public hearing, does hereby certify that the comments 6 were stenographically recorded by me at the Outlets at 7 Loveland, Space 5617, 5661 McWhinney Boulevard, Loveland, 8 Colorado, on November 20, 2008, then reduced to typewritten 9 form consisting of 38 pages herein; and that the foregoing 10 constitutes an accurate and complete transcript. 11 I further certify that I am not in any way 12 connected with any of the parties to said proceedings. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 14 affixed my seal this 24th day of November, 2008 . • 15 My Commission expires: September 14, 2009. 16 17 18 LISA D. ANTHONY, RPR, CRR for Resling Reporting Services 19 18 East Fountain Boulevard Colorado Springs, CO 80903 20 21 22 23 24 25 • RESLING REPORTING SERVICES Page D-444 N � i11 U) y (pi ai -) .,1�) I J V 5J a ^ 1 0 IP Q � � M c,. m ), .: ,„ , 0. . N,J 6 \) d 4 Ny m �o < 3 I. I lt �' J V", c N.is r 1§ psi,st �' � � �S ° Iwo ) h x a �: N c d ,` � � vZ ra O o V1.7L; 2 L 1Nii CD 2 :1t Q • q � ‘ v 1-, (iii G ,r v s 'f l '` �� y 3 , k hyc. � a: n 1 � Jj \. cs U Nn S S • v r ,1 p , s � . ' 4 q ' v is-) a % E s 5 1 ;1 d R O ,fTHE:w! ,e ) 4 S V i oa O i' ;, : , ci s \ - s .� ' ,� v £ L ea � o S s o S .s a _ 9J S s 3\ks%Fr Le-', -- V t crkl .'' k I --4.-- wL d o 2 J .� . a N y C y ` r-• S O tg jj .iC � • O to Offl O r " m v ,n m r ca rn C Z a C J .,,. . N ttl N co IC: W Ol N H it/ ' " \p v0 3-; +mow �� 0�U 1 :C V r M \ v 0 .21N � a w 2/21 1, V.ir � l-' � v,1 �Qt -cg . s g 1fl4t � N 4) is ; Z 0 XX o C SV� 4 al .2 ? hr, v car \ l.� �`CO. : c Ni ED k'�D ® I„ a fir'ge J m 7 c f; N. o � � o ' acs v °` � c. rd CD -) Z\ "1"-) C:, 4- -lir 2 d ,.; Q ,( E _ c 2 s o t� 0.! 1 a n u L £ a ` ` -fit ,• ci C - y-( :J J c SJ SJ C a- -z - r + 1 � � 4 0 es as d - s i 4, d C.---,/ 4 r -----.. NJ ... V.i \-/ 9:, -i c N y 5 C P� `� Kj 5. ,� n('f��1: S U o R -• o to J `-1 Z O O J <v c+) o u) cp r m m o ' _ N M v �n Cotp r m rn N Fl n �,, 4 • ko o r. h `) i U-3 ` °` a . (a ' _ v IS' cp n (/) W ✓ z• 'c _ 'c K ' �y ,a by Ili •-; rvii w o t ..4 . _ - J ►, Z a 11 v� �� u 1^J J ' E Z k L ' --P1 , el 'V '2 ' S.. ") ,„ in.A47.:FN .41 -;) E \ c . >I\ '- Li 1Z O � c‘( r" is d ` / 4 v t �� Lc ; � ? \ q ,, n G . .4. - - _A �1 4 f^ p < Jl.. @i v -t- v F r ILL to A e4 Sji t , - -C •�l�� s. it a ``� M v...IL,fa• 1 I 411- i 4-1 NJ'!-/+4'X v C�•1 ' z •,y • t td ItLi o Li ) � � Z C O J — N M a � c0 � a0 Ol O N c1 � (D n O) CNI O CO _ a M n G ‘S' P J1 IL. A ce .7 a CS co ci H O W/ rot pp 3 v \ I t r 1 7 a O W' N y > '\A s^V `� 1 i "c J' G 7 q , \ J" L V 3 C zed z , 3 ci, Sr- in !r `Y� E, NI E V) s T. S �'NS/ r COI t.E �- a v' S. v U ' v �S p0 40. :n R v -h Q ti a c.,/ c ici 9 Q`\ e a 1L xIt ct S �. v� CA�I� i ' i �^\\ U� /��1 (Z\QJ Gc. . J ' 2 S 1 % v c_v V Q i s 6 i --Q � � �V .s .� Via , Qs d J E S 0 S \ 1—fN y2 r zro ° / V\ \ J 1I c1/4. A S CE r 0 � \I. � rc," Z O 0 J — N On V LO (O W O O N t7 < 0 (O 1� N T O N ca o N su co gl o I VT (X), 0t0 a;g o. n o Vnn� hJ I40 0 l� vi 41 o s a¢ L t N '_' Qi a Ni Z ) ^ 43 y' a_QQ qo !� W o Ie. .. A J L C td�r,. A J \ In• III "tea. u- H (� fll O Y. O _ �/ g \Y E AV Z a n � 4a- S U u 3 C A— J a d 4y y „S N 3 CO ` - 41. t • J T 1 £ O 7i - "'" 1 • }. ? '. 3 Yr }-Ve I Q O 'a� 3 J 4)12 �i :!= '„"-T/tpab"..!;: '"' , Qui— '‘' .--- s- , Ie E. H 'c h es j O, J Al�6 —3 d u \T3 -.O-f-^ 0 1 sy CV ScJ .. A (s s 1 iJ ie., O a - .' Z T.� v v? Ira 73 -e, ,,,_ -___a r4. t �c4 s LW 1.I" Y ,� J Q I`` • tc � � ; � hw ��- � 0 ;° m O Z O O J r..,,. .,„. _ r N M Q to (O r c0 O3 O N M (O r co N tql NORTH IEIS-25 Summary of Impacts and Benefits to the information cooperation. transportation Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision 4 �The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to identify and evaluate multi- modal transportation improvements along I-25 from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The alternatives analyzed in the DEIS are described below. No-Action Alternative Includes safety improvements and maintenance improvements necessary if a build alternative were not constructed. Elements of this alternative that occur in the vicinity of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision include: • Replacement of I-25 pavement north of State Highway (SH) 66 by 2030. • Minor rehabilitation of the SH 392 structure over I-25 by 2030. Benefits • Some safety improvements at the SI-I 392/1-25 interchange as a result of minor rehabilitation. Impacts • 69 residences would be impacted by traffic noise. Noise levels would generally increase in intensity by less than two decibels (dBA) compared to current levels. Noise level increases less than two dBA are not noticeable to most people. • No noise mitigation would be provided. • Increased air emissions and noise levels, longer travel times, traffic delays at key interchanges, deteriorating safety conditions, and increased emergency response times. Package A a. Includes widening of I-25 to include additional general purpose lanes plus , providing commuter rail service along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe r 4 '. ktir X Y No railroad (BNSF) tracks. Elements of this package that occur in the vicinity of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision include: . g Future I-25 • Addition of one general purpose lane in each direction on I-25. The Improvements It. - �, frontage road lanes would stay in their current location, but the shoulders i would be widened to 10 feet. I-25 would shift farther away from Mountain 4 I,�.-•_ ' jar I . Range Shadows subdivision; access to Mountain Range Shadows ,,— � �.: ' y .1 subdivision would be maintained in its current location. . , ' �t i 25 r ' i } + _'' • Reconstruction of the I-25/SH 392 interchange to a tight diamond ',,; ,. � ., �: # I ; \.' configuration. f ` ,' =. . • Addition r '` �' , :,�of traffic signals at both ramp terminals of the I-25/SH 392 f.. :�f 70 . . interchange, and at the intersections of SH 392 and the east and west 1-25 • ' •r ~ gp. ' Future frontage roads. �►t,i a .� f o i f r Frontage Road r_ . ,,,, 1 ti 1r; Improvements Benefits " / • Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities. ~ _ y i t. =o,� • Improved safety, mobility, and emergency response times. 4.- Li `,' • Improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. f-4. '� `?-�" I 2.: • Regional connections between communities. 4ill_ _C a i� ' �1f% I I le,i \ J� Impacts • .tr ff ��' 1' j f Without noise mitigation, 69 residences would be impacted by traffic - noise, which is the same as the No-Action Alternative. • Noise mitigation would be provided by installation of a noise barrier, which would remove noise impacts from 37 of the 69 residences that would be impacted without mitigation. • Noise barriers will change the view looking at the highway. • Temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of-direction travel due to construction activities. III Page D-450 Package B .---wratrremirow - A impfr -ir kr Includes widening of 1-25 to include tolled Express Lanes and bus rapid transit. Elements of this package that occur in the vicinity of the Mountain Range IIII) Bus Shadows subdivision include: 2 'sapid•, • Addition of two barrier separated tolled Express Lanes in each direction on Future 1-25 tin— i ransit ' Station: I-25. 1-25 would remain the same distance from Mountain Range Shadows Improvements I i subdivision. i �` • Construction of a bus rapid transit station with 140 total parking spaces at I- - 25 and SH 392. ----,4,- - - • V, ' WReconstruction of the I-25/SH 392 interchange to a tight diamond �21 •4O , A configuration. F' • 4, , A r .;:ii . ,s • 4 : 1 -- , • Addition of traffic signals at both ramp terminals of the I-25/SH 392 .:� �h4 •� . atinterchange, and at the intersections of SH 392 and the east and west I-25 • 4. • Future frontage roads. • r a Pt' Frontage Road • The frontage road lanes would stay in their current location, but the Improvements shoulders would be widened to 10 feet. Access to Mountain Range Shadows subdivision would be maintained in its current location. i _it P • '' 1 v-A Benefits #�.�# �y ri �' • + • Short-term and long-term employment opportunities. 1.0 • •- 4 • Improved safety, mobility, and emergency response times but not in areas ---.1 - 1' ".."'et ,.:,N where toll lanes are barrier-separated. �*� • Improvements in mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. - t • Regional connections between communities. Impacts • Without noise mitigation, 69 residences would be impacted by traffic noise, which is the same as the No-Action Alternative. Ill • Noise mitigation would be provided by installation of a noise barrier, which would remove noise impacts from 37 of the 69 residences that would be impacted without mitigation. • Noise barriers will change the view looking at the highway. • Temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of-direction travel due to construction activities. Package A and B — I-25/SH 392 Tight Diamond Interchange 0 The public comment period extends until December 30, 2008 and we urge you to provide us with yourLit_ ? r e - feedback. -_ �92� _. Comments will be accepted by any of the following means: c Phone: 970 -,_F_ j ( ) 352 5455 or (303) 779-3384 LEGEND n { Website: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Roadway North /---- Mail: CDOT Region 4, 1420 2"d Street, Greeley, CO 80631 Impact Line 1; N,,, 'r Structures ,t, ' Traffic Signal ® Stop Sign Ill Page D-451 PIN NORTH 1-E S Sumario de los Impactos y beneficios para la information cooperation. transportation. Subdivision Mountain Range Shadows • El Departamento de Transporte de Colorado (CDOT, en ingles), en cooperacion con la Administracion Federal de Carreteras (FHWA) y la Administracion Federal de Transporte Publico (FTA), ha preparado la Version Inicial de la DeclaraciOn de Impacto Ambiental (Deis) para identificar y evaluar las mejoras multimodales en el transporte a to largo de la carretera I-25 entre Fort Collins/Wellington y Denver. Las alternativas que el estudio DEIS analizo se describen a continuacion, Alternativa de No Accion Incluye las mejoras necesarias en la seguridad y en el mantenimiento si no se construyen ninguna de las otras alternativas. Los elementos de esta alternativa que ocurren cerca de la subdivision de Mountain Range Shadows son los siguientes: • Reemplazo del pavimento de la I-25 al norte de la Carretera Estatal SH 66 antes del 2030. • Rehabilitacion menor de la estructura de la SH 392 sobre la I-25 antes del 2030. Beneficios • Algunas mejoras en la seguridad en la interseccion de la SH 392/1-25 como resultado de la rehabilitacion. Impactos • 69 residencias se verian impactadas por el ruido del trafico. El nivel del ruido generalmente aumentara en intensidad menos de dos decibeles (dBA) comparado con el ruido actual. La mayor parte de las personas no nota un aumento menor al de dos decibeles. • No se proveera mitigacion para el ruido. • Aumento en las emisiones del aire y en los niveles del ruido, mayor tiempo de viaje, demoras de trafico en las intersecciones claves, deterioramiento de las condiciones de seguridad y aumento en el tiempo de respuesta de vehiculos de emergencia. Paquete A Incluye ampliar la I-25 para incluir carriles adicionales de uso general y proveer I w " 1-- -..--.. _ {. ,r tren interurbano de pasajeros a lo largo de las vias del ferrocarril Burlington t Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Los elementos de esta alternativa que ocurren cerca .. de la subdivision de Mountain Ran a Shadows son los si g guientes: Mejoras de _ ', i� r . - c: �4,. • Adicion de un carril de uso general en cada direccion en la I-25. La calle la I-25 1,,, � � '�, frontal seguiria donde esta ahora, pero se agregarian banquinas y se la i. tit, ; ,' ampliaria a 10 pies (3 metros). La I-25 se alejana de la subdivision y�, - Mountain Range Shadows; el acceso a la subdivision Mountain Range ` '�I Shadows se mantendria en su lugar actual. _ • Reestructuracion de la interseccion 1-25/SH 392 pan adoptar la tt - •'' x "configuracion de diamante". _• Y ` �_ ` +• �.` • Adicion de semaforos en las rampas terminales de la interseccion I-25/SH ' • . . L .� Mejoras de la 392 y en las intersecciones de la SH 392 y de las calles frontales este y '. . • P is .' :?;e .4 Calle Frontal oeste de la 1-25. '�►• , 4 . � . Iiis . ,c re r r. f ., As, i Beneficios , , . �• jiy � ��a • Podrian surgir oportunidades de empleo a corto y largo plazo durante la s f .r . . ' construccion, operacion y mantenimiento de las instalaciones. - • Mejoras en la seguridad, movilidad y respuesta de los servicios de0 . :rA'. i IP , emergencia. y '��: ; �'� � . C' • Mejoras en la movilidad pan el transporte de las poblaciones `�' .4>. �� desaventajadas. r.. • - • Conexiones regionales entre las comunidades. Impactos • Sin mitigacion del ruido, 69 residencias quedaran impactadas por el trifico del ruido, como con la Alternativa de No Accion. • La mitigacion del ruido se haria por medio de paredes anti-ruido, que eliminaria el impacto del ruido en 37 de las 69 residencias que de otra manera serian impactadas. • Las paredes anti-ruido modificaran la vista al mirar a la carretera. • Ruido temporario, polvo, desvios, retrasos del taco y viaje en otras direcciones por las actividades de construcci0n. Page D-452 Paquete B i _ Incluye ampliar la I-25 para incluir carriles con peaje expreso y buses rapidos. �= -�^'"' Los elementos de esta alternativa que ocurren cerca de la subdivision de •. n Esta Mountain Range Shadows son los siguientes: de Buse Mejoras de • Anadir dos carriles expresos separados por barreras en cada direccion de Rapldos la 125 la 1-25. I-25 se mantendra a la misma distancia de la subdivision Mountain Range Shadows. =----1 ' • Construction de un estacion de buses rapidos de pasajeros con 140 y ,_ ' lugares de estacionamiento en I-25 y la SH 392. . , ;,�r '! • Reestructuracion de la interseccion I-25/SI-I 392 para adoptar la 4 t ic �' ` "configuration de diamante". Adicion de semaforos en las rampas terminales de la interseccion I-25/SH !II ,' i ' L:--; 392 y en las intersecciones de la SH 392 y de las calles frontales este y - ,]] Mejoras de la oeste de la 1-25. 4: 'i i 1 . V,.. Calle Frontal • Las calles frontales permanecerian donde estan ahora, pero se agregarian re Vt.' ''` '� banquinas y se las ampliaria a 10 pies (3 metros). El acceso a la ti, X47%-i k %* f r • subdivision Mountain Range Shadows se manten - , F f g drta en su lugar actual. 1 , �„e , , .1 , f, , ` " V44• itBeneficios '' se .r". ', - • Podrian surgir oportunidades de empleo a corto y largo plazo . , - :� � • Mejoras en la seguridad, movilidad y respuesta de los servicios de ..� .i. '� 1Z„t k! r '" emergencia, pero no en las areas separadas por barreras. . ; ■ i, el, S x Y • Mejoras en la movilidad para el transporte de las poblaciones {` .� :.. desaventajadas. • Conexiones regionales entre las comunidades. 0 ImpactOS • Sin mitigacion del ruido, 69 residencias quedaran impactadas por el trafico del ruido, como con la Alternativa de No Accion. • La mitigacion del ruido se haria por medio de paredes anti-ruido, que eliminaria el impacto del ruido en 37 de las 69 residencias que de otra manera serian impactadas. • Las paredes anti-ruido modificaran la vista al mirar a la carretera. • Ruido temporario, polvo, desvios, retrasos del trafico y viaje en otras direcciones por las actividades de construction. Paquetes A y B — I-25/SH 392 Intersection de "Diamante Reducido" '� L. El periodo de comentarios del publico termina el 30 de diciembre del 2008. Le pedidas que nos haga llegar su comentario. • . - 392 illrir ' -- - � . Los comentarios se pueden enviar por estos medios: i . ' Telefono: (970) 352-5455 o (303) 779-3384 LEGEND : Internet: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Roadway North _Y ,J, • Correo: CDOT Region 4, 1420 2nd Street, Greeley, CO 80631 ter' t Impact Line 5. , 'flip f li ael ' Traffic Signal _'. _ ® Stop Sign Page D-453 NORTH 1-25 411 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Sumnaisy of Impacts and Benefits in Longmont • The North I-25 EIS project is currently in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) phase. Based on Level 3 Evaluation findings, two build alternative packages have been developed and fully analyzed in the DEIS, as well as a No-Action Alternative. These alternatives are described below. No-Action Alternative includes safety improvements and maintenance improvements necessary if a build alternative were not constructed. Elements of this alternative that occur in or near Longmont include: • Replace I-25 pavement north of SH 66 by year 2030. • Upgrade I-25 pavement between SH 52 and SH 66. • Rehabilitate I-25 structure at CR 34 by 2030. • Install traffic signal at CR 34 ramp terminals. • Widen I-25 off-ramps at Prospect Road. • Construct FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor along SH 119 from Boulder, terminating at Twin Peaks Mall. Package A includes widening of I-25 to Package A Transit Components lialli include additional general purpose lanes plus providing commuter rail service = Legend t 66 along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSF) tracks. Elements of this 23RD AV O Commuter Rail Station package that occur in or near Longmont aim Upgraded Grade Crossing include: 21STAV ■ ■■ ---- Commuter Rail Line • An additional commuter rail track would be built east of the existing o 0.25 0.5 Miles No„,, BNSF and Great Western railroad 17TH AV ■ is. (GWRR) tracks, from 3rd Street III southeast to the Sugar Mill site, 15TH AV Lon m O n t then east along the south side of SH N g 119 to CR 7, where it would turn w MTN VIEW AV o south along CR 7 to the Union a ■ ■■ v-- 8 Pacific railroad (UPRR), and follow 11THAV W W the UPRR corridor east across I-25. c :n ST VRAIN RD • There is one section in Longmont _, _it w that does not have the added train LONGS PEAK AV r" s track and that is in front of 122 8th `�`� Avenue. o��psi i 5TH AV 7 • Upgraded BNSF and GWRR - &ea 3RD AV train/roadway crossings and a AND AV R°°Ge/i. - �, grade-separated crossing at SH 119 where none currentl exists. AA ` ` n +��• y L■ �SUGARh41Ll RD Two commuter rail stations: one at ti BNSF and SH 66 with 30 parking spaces, and one at Sugar Mill located north of alignment and south of Rogers Road with 150 parking spaces. • Improvements to I-25/CR 34 and I-25/SH 119 interchanges (not shown on figure). • Local bus routes would be modified to provide bus access to the two rail stations. Package B includes widening of I-25 to include tolled express lanes and bus rapid transit (BRT). Elements of this package that occur in or near Longmont include: • Feeder bus route along SH 56, US 287, and SH 119, connecting Berthoud and Longmont to the BRT provided along 1-25. • Improvements to I-25/CR 34 and I-25/SH 119 interchanges (not shown on figure). • The Firestone BRT station (the one nearest Longmont) would be located in the median at I-25/SH 119 and have 450 parking spaces (not shown on figure). 0 Page D-454 Following are impacts and benefits in - t, e , Longmont associated with the transit • component of both packages (highway Legend component improvements would not be Feeder Bus Route located in Longmont). Impacts listed 23RD AV _ 7_include Segment 1 (from Fort Collins to _ 21STAV 11��5 Miles Longmont) and Segment 2 (from 1-- 1 MHO Longmont to North Metro Denver); ,' \ 1 however, the majority of impacts listed c would occur in Longmont. I 17TH AV l I 15TH AV i }} ' Package A co It Longmont °C MTN VIEW AV o w J H 0 w 8 Impacts „rHAv o w a Lu • Displacement of 16 residential o 0 properties in Longmont along 9TH AV ST VRAIN RD the Burlington Northern Santa a Fe railroad (BNSF). LONGS PEAK AV g cc w N • Displacement of 16 businesses. g a 5TH AV • Potential degradation of o community cohesion due to 3RDAV right-of-way fencing. 2ND AV Roo GE-Rs/it • Travel time delays and out-of- 4 direction travel at at-grade 1 SUGARMILL RD ' crossings of city streets. _ a — • Removal of on-street parking on Atwood Street between 3`d Ave. and 8th Ave. to accommodate additional commuter rail track. All homes would retain access from driveways and/or alleys. • Commuter rail would facilitate infill and redevelopment in Longmont. III • After mitigation, one receiver impacted by noise and none impacted by vibration. • Localized increase in air emissions affecting minority/low-income populations at the two proposed station sites in Longmont; emissions would not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). • Localized increase in air emissions affecting non-minority/non-low-income populations at two proposed station sites; emissions would not exceed the NAAQS. • Visual impacts from retaining walls at 21 residential areas, from sound walls at 16 locations, and from commuter rail stations. • Temporary construction-related noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, travel-time delays, and access revisions. Benefits • Improved access to Longmont residents, community facilities, and services. • Improved mobility, safety, and emergency response. • Improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Package B Impacts • One business displacement. • Increased noise impacts to residents near bus routes and bus stations. • Temporary construction-related noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, travel-time delays, and access revisions. Benefits • Improved access to regional communities and community facilities. • Overall improvements in safety, mobility, and emergency response, but no improvements in emergency response where toll lanes are barrier-separated. • Moderate improvements in mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. J:\ Transportation\071609.400\manage\pubinv\Handouts\Longmont Flier_handout\Longmont Flier - Rev 4 111008.doc III Page D-455 NORTH 1-25 IIIIII EIS information. cooperation transportation. Listado de los impactos y beneficios en Longmont 0 El Proyecto de la I-25 Norte este actualmente en la etapa de la Declaration Initial de Impacto Ambiental (DEIS, en ingles). Sobre la base de los resultados del Nivel 3 de evaluacidn, se desarrollaron y analizaron en detalle dos paquetes de alternativas para DEIS, asi como la Alternativa de No Accidn. Esta es la descripcidn de esas alternativas: La Alternativa de No Accion incluye mejoras en la seguridad y el mantenimiento necesario si no se construye una alternativa. Los elementos de esta alternativa dentro de Longmont son: • Remplazar el pavimento en la I-25 al norte de la SH 66 antes del 2030. • Mejorar el pavimento de la I-25 entre la SH 52 y la SH 66. • Rehabilitar la estructura de la I-25 a la altura de la CR 34 antes del 2030. • Instalar las set-tales de trafico en las rampas terminales de la CR 34. • Ampliar las rampas de salida de la I-25 a la altura de Prospect Road. • Construir el Corredor Ferroviario del Noroeste de FasTracks junto a la SH 119 desde Boulder y terminando en el Twin Peaks Mall. El Paquete A incluye ampliar la I-25 Componentes del Paquete A de Transporte PublicoIn para que contenga mas carriles de use general a la vez que se proveeria Legend servicio adicional de tren de pasajeros junto a las Was de Burlington Northern _ 23RD AV Q Estacien del hen de pasajeros Santa Fe (BNSF). Los elementos de esta .= Paso a nivel con mejoras altemativa dentro de Longmont son: _ 21ST AV■ Corredor del tren de pasajeros • Habra una via ferroviaria adicional pars tren de pasajeros c o zs o.s n -I Miles _ al este de de las vias que ahora 25, "°"" III ■ ■i 17TH AV existen de BNSF y del Ferrocarril Great Western 15rHAv (GWRR), desde la Calle 3 al Longmont sureste de Sugar Mill, luefo al > w MTN VIEW AV sur de la SH 119 hasta la CR 7, ' "' ch g doblando al sur alli junto a la CR 11TH AV a 7 hasta las vias de Union Pacific o railroad (UPRR), y siguiendo v 9TH AV ST VRAIN RD estas vias hasta el este de la I-25. esJ • Hay un section de Longmont LONGS PEAK AV re mew- 5 que no tendra estas vias anadidas u y es frente a 122 8 Avenida. ea.§ 51-1-1 AV • Mejoras en los cruces de trenes y �. 3RD AV no pasos a nivel de BNSF y de 2ND AV a Ra1)°FRSRo GWRR en SH 119, donde ahora a■ • • ■ ■ ■ no existen. Q■ �SUGARMILt RD s +` cr • Dos estaciones de trenes de 1) a pasajeros, una en las vias de BNSF y de SH 66 con lugar para 30 carros y la otra en Sugar Mill al norte de las vias y al sur de Rogers Road con lugar para 150 carros. • Mejoras en las intersecciones de I-25/CR 34 y de I-25/SH 119 (no aparecen en los graficos). • Se modificaran las rutas de buses locales para proveer acceso de los buses a las estaciones. El Paquete B incluye ampliar la I-25 pars que tenga carriles con peaje y carriles para buses rapidos (BRT, en ingles). Los elementos de esta alternativa dentro de Longmont son: • Buses locales a lo largo de las SH 56, US 287 y SH 119 para conectar a Berthoud y a Longmont con el servicio BRT de la I- 25. • Mejoras en las intersecciones de I-25/CR 34 y de I-25/SH 119 (no aparecen en los graficos). • Estacion Firestone del BRT (la mas cercana a Longmont) que estara localizada en la medianera de la I-25/SH 119 y conIII capacidad para 450 (no aparece en los graficos). Page D-456 A continuaciOn se detallan los impactos IOMIIIIMIIIIIIMIIIIIMIIMIEIIPIMIMIMI y beneficios en Longmont asociados con 0 los componentes del transporte publico pffi Legend de los dos paquetes (las mejoras a la carretera no estan localizadas dentro de 23RD AV Ruth de buses conectores Longmont). Los impactos que a 21STAV o 025 0.5 Ill continuaciOn se detallan incluyen el �- Mles North Segmento 1 (desde Fort Collins hasta Longmont) y el Segmento 2 (desde Longmont hasta el norte de Denver). Sin 17TH AV embargo, la mayorfa de estos impactos estan ubicados dentro de Longmont. 15TH AV Longmont Paquete A w MTNVIEWAV o 5 N So w 11THAV E Impactos 0w • Desplazamiento de 10 o 9TH AV I; ST VRAIN RD propiedades residencials en W G J Longmont junto a Burlington LONGS PEAKAV z Northern Santa Fe railroad N Z (BNSF). a s 5TH AV Z ._ g o 0 • Displazamiento de 16 negocios. 3RD AV 4 • Potencial separacibn de la 2ND AV R-JO%RD cohesion comunitaria debido a Q it ' las cercas junto a las vfas. SUGARMILL RD 19 • Aumento del tiempo de viaje y — desvios en el viaje en los pasos a nivel dentro de la ciudad. • EliminaciOn del estacionamiento callejero en la calle Atwood entre las Avenidas 3 y 8 para acomodar las vias del tren de pasajeros. Las viviendas mantendran sus lugares de acceso o callejones. III • El tren de pasajeros facilitaria el relleno y redesarrollo en Longmont. • Luego de las medidas de mitigacibn, un receptor impactado por el ruido y ninguno impactado por la vibraciOn. • Aumento localizado en las emisiones del aire afectando a poblaciones minoritarias y de bajos recursos en dos sectores de Longmont. Las emisiones no excederan las normas del National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). • Aumento localizado en las emisiones del aire afectando a poblaciones no minoritarias ni de bajos recursos en dos sectores de Longmont. Las emisiones no excederan las normas del National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). • Impactos visuales debido a las paredes de los terraplenes en 21 areas residenciales, a paredes anti-ruido en 16 lugares y a las estaciones del tren de pasajeros. • Ruido temporal relacionado con la construcciOn, polvo y desvios, aumento en el tiempo de viaje y revisiones de los puntos de acceso. Beneficios • Mejora en los acceso para los residentes de Longmont, asi como instalaciones y servicios. • Mejoras en la movilidad, seguridad y respuesta de servicios de emergencia. • Mejora en la movilidad para el transporte de personas en desventaja. Paquete B Impactos • Desplazamiento de un negocio. • Aumento del impacto del ruido en los residentes cerca de las rutas de buses o las estaciones de buses. • Ruido temporal relacionado con la construcciOn, polvo y desvios, aumento en el tiempo de viaje y revisiones de los puntos de acceso. Beneficios • Mejora en los acceso pan los residentes de Longmont, asi como instalaciones y servicios. • Mejoras generales en seguridad, movilidad y respuesta de los servicios de emergencia, pero no mejorara la respuesta de los III servicios de emergencia en los carriles con peaje o separados por barreras. • Mejoras moderadas en el transporte de personas en desventaja. 3:\ Transportation\071609.400\manage\pubinv\Handouts\Longmont flier_handout\Longmont Flier - Spanish version 111308.doc Page D-457 _ . _ _ . _ _. _____ _ ._ North 25 I • E . Statement tlImpact r How impact Longmont ? Longmont Public Library Public Meeting0 Longmont , CO October 26 , 2010 6 : 00 p . m . to 8 : 00 p . m . TakInger,m Get lb0Then�• ** * **OT *4- FTA x* iW‘ ►Y+ MINIMM__ Federal Transit Administration DEPARTL ENTOFsibTRANSPORTATION U.S. Deportment of Transportat on rel, Federal Highway Administration Imo' , . Ill .. - _ . �� _ NORTH 125 r --- 11111: EIS _„_,;..�„ -Y _= Page D-458 information. cooperation. transportation. • Project Background The Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA ) and the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA ) , in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation ( CDOT ) , initiated an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) to identify and evaluate multi - modal � transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1 -25 corridor from the Fort Collins -Wellington area to Denver . r . , EIS Page D-459 -°•� _ Cr information. cooperation. transportation. Purpose and Need • Purpose Meet long -term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1 -25 corridor north to the Fort Collins - Wellington area . Need • • Safety Concerns • Aging Infrastructure • Mobility and Accessibility • Modal Alternatives . - r. , • • - ;UMW. - f _- - NORTH 12S ems '= EIS Pa D-460 �&' information. cooperation. transportge ation. • Preferred Alternative ( PA ) The PA includes : • Construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1 - 25 • Implementation of commuter rail • Improvements to express bus • service along 1 -25 • Addition of a commuter bus service from Denver to Greeley • Construction of associated bus and commuter rail stations , and maintenance facilities • 7/7r.- Tar. ;11.l. -72 S � ._ •. • _- NORTH 1-25 ,. _ } �w r EIS Page D-461 mmano . ooe,aim . n: pomno . Recommended Preferred Alternative 25 ILEGEND Tolled Express Lanes O Express Bus Transit Station Reconstruct mainline "'a"'"' to correct geometric General Purpose Lanes O Commuter Bus Transit Station 1111 deficiencies and Express Bus Commuter Rail Transit Station replace aging a; Mounts- . %d infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 Commuter Rail CR1 • Commuter Rail Operational 14 Ault & Maintenance Facility Passing Track Fort • CR2 6/2 II Commuter Bus Operational cOll s as Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance FacilityEE CR a r ,•N • . 0 Interchange Upgrades FasTracks Rail Line ••'* S.w.,nc. Eaten r5 e Number of Lanes O FasTracks / RTD Transit Stationi • 94 Lucerne General Purpose/ • Tolled Express w1Mw. 1 Loy :. - nil w,S..4Ci,C,,_ *Ili B1 is CR4 • EE • 6/2 r • °M _ ..... 34 A Greeley • a TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS / , i Garden City 5 Iran 4 Commuter Rail Express Bus LARIMER R I M E R so CR R 50 CB3 Ca nstown© La Salle GE, Fort Collins Uovmtav r► . EC ' South Fort Collins Transit - Transit Center - BNSF and I Center - US 287 and I Maple St. Harmony Rd I yaEB9 mum. CH CSU - BNSF between E82 Timberline - Harmony Rd 1• 4 • , LINT University Ave and W. R and Timberline sr EB3 East Fort Collins - I.25 and CR;i South Fort Collins Transit Harmony Rd 6/2 1111 Center - US 287 and E& 36 Harmony Rd Windsor - t 25 and SH 392 = R 31 WELD CI. North Loveland BNSF EB`-' Crossroads - Loveland lrrattwlt 29th St7 and US 3 Crossroads Blvd. C 7 • • C84 OF Downtown Loveland ER West Greeley US 34 : Longmont :1 1 BNSF and apprw4gt3tety 61h St SH 257 i • -� : *E R 111 CRE Berthoud - BNB' EB7 Greeley US 34 and 83rd 38 I S1156 Ave. IBOULDER _ 85 CR7 North Longmont BNSF Eel. Greeley Downtown Transfer 119 strsten. and SH 66 Center - 8th Ave. and 2d I noh 8th St . swot CO , 1 1 :-E311 CB5 CR Longmo sMlll, EBf : Berthoud I.25 and Sit 56 • EB1G Firestone I-25 and • t DI12 ® p on CR9 Erie - 1-25 and CR 8 C o,eono SH 119 Ens • 6/2 o FasTracks Rail Stations to EB11 Frederick/Dacono - I.25 Downtown Denver - Ould@r • end SH 52 � 9 ✓ _ 76 EB12 Erie - I-25 and CR 8 ` L• ytt•( 7 • s I — -- - _ Commuter Bus • .. EB13 Broomfield - 1-25 and SH 7 s,t as{Low..n CB 1 Greeley l.,,�7 US BS , O DW 1r ° CB2 th Greeley - 81h Ave.and' Northwest ,�f°'�"' ` St. Rail Corridor s•vr%' sroo,�n•rdA. a• ` Right-of-Way it ae• Preservation ' - - . CB3 • US 85 and 42nd St - • ' "" An Corn pr CM die - US85and I 1y,. A • . .r Na t 72 lea 470 Denver CBS ; Lupton US R5 and 6/2 International y1aN01triT0ior • Au9e O ton - US85 and SH7 O me City 72nd and 121 ` • -- rwwuu��JEFFERS ra - ,', . Q 7D ow iiii.L nt PrIsa 2 4 6 8 10 a ■' en er MN 70 tiles North / • r v: 25 • ., . .,, ., ..!....T. . „..: , . - ...•_, , . . . . „., . ...! _ _ . .. : .. - ni.r.,,_. _ . , . .._ _ _, NORTH - 5 . F inc r_-r ' Page D-462 -r im - .. . - information. cooperation. transportation. • What amenities does th e PA i nt rod uce to Longmont ? Commuter Rail Service Train Stations • Feeder Bus routes • NORTH 1-25 . — . l�" . EIS Page D-463 ��m�mai�o� �wc:rauon. transportation. .r Rail Corridor - Map1 0 t . _ [j' * I, ; t 2 - r I al , 4 5 6 f7 8 „g j V • FA lb . t A.a , � .- a = Mt -- .� - _ r� c _�_ _ ...,, * et 1, ii-.... t r t MVelre -Y w�.1.^�-s ;) ..i MUMFORD AV 4„:il,� - . it,Et; w 4 ,o , . .� i€t:. ,:al:I► 4 f f Ill r V . Cle tr it . . et_ AI _ r. ,t , . . f, 4"*". _ - t . ..,.. , . 4-_,-ii iii j, l 5tj1ti Ji , legendfroject Anment r; e t i`•. Si ") A • Full Acquisition I 23RD AV L IiiiH !—r gli } ' 1 .•rO Orset zone —�r Existing rail t f ,.-� �, * Maintenance Road CL ' om . _I ; �• r ... • 4 i • • Proposed Rail 4 4- t rie ,•- * ~, . , le • • `2i Proposed Bridge ftt Iirk1 t *r ; ,7 Proposed Siding i f` , 4 RetWall Frontface t' c ID' . i• 3 F A r �` Commuter Rail Footprint ROW t +r, ! � t Water Duality Ponds • ••1' `•i :I 1 traced Feeder Bus Swine titr N .� , s . . . . ProvidedasPartofthePreferred Alternativec4rr4. • - ttalk fir in, I Existing RTD Bus Routes i . . - 21 ST AV �'' " Regional Route 1 !la M a _ ' „Fr 1 '�r- 1 r , . ',y�..;r.a+''�''-I local Route-Nat , I 1 rt �� e •z 0 NORTH I-25 _ . ;7- 4e- _ irr-t _ • whower nom- - �= EIS � _ Page D-464 -"' a .. information. cooperation. transportation, Rail Corridor Alignment - Map2 ill i I I 1 0 - - • EIZ*kV *kilt 7 iillit . ..4 N i . , . . , , eh . a: 4, ii I I fitor eibt --Pt 't ..4a14:\Il }{ � ~ v ) l `' lit ife%illi • •. s 1' k A - �- 44 4it t 6f7t8 .. : •is te . •, -�t . I 19TH AV ;Sr ' f ill r Os '�! . a= i. ! • 4 F-8- Vt ` AEI 4m ., - r y° . i` �a"'� 4 •lkr: ei 4% 41.1,- "is . I's. 40 . Ilk Pith' . . .,. . ./ A:4 • . .... . . , A - w• • • •r _AP ♦ 111\\\ ► • • !. 1 • t 1. v.-by-. es ...41/4i ,,,,, A' ir. ' . ire al . 2, a. . ilt , t'., 1.,,,,R ); prit - " • -: ir, - id ie l - doff • %.144414t, nt • tjt • a I �• • 42 • � �N. _ ' •a:s 144_ . , .,., ,... 11TH AV Iii6 • l• 0 • - - Jta ! 7326 • . ,f41 • ns 1 t i . = r e a•R ti , a it - 4 � . mak F. AVERlikv-t4 ge i!' II )fit.1/404:. * ,� GARDNERtDR ,► # m e : . r ft. r • : II 2 1 o' ,1 ..• ''„�. • ,� ( `� ,`•z (_.3 ' tc ` ,1 s • • • 1� Legend eptia z• �. �'� "' a r Cti Project Alignment I yam, ` 1M to -'� Partial Acquisition L•OMALlNDAELEMENTARY.SCHOOL �til r^ - � �"- � ,-�• •-M .} 3� •,- — •E'O, � • • Full Acgwsrtron 4.,. • 'd , . . 4 � ' ,N tilk • tii O Duro Zone ii • + _ .- hrsunq rail !• � � '• t ( • r• 4latailki Maintenance Road CL * ''15TH AV 4 - .. "# • boot t a ---it tr r{ _ '': '•' :' t4 1 I .it 2 i _ is+ +.+!�`1% . . �- Proposed Rail � � r ,�. � • e • SPANGLER.ELEMENT Y SCHOOL ��' • " • ,x f•"l'r� ��rl Proposed Bridge j.Lc I �� t4 ``.-I . it! •,,�+�'` ,tom of. - Proposed Siding ` t ( �I t 'Jilt ►r ' ;_ ~ j ROW ,-s 1St, • '• - " r E � ' I. _ MI ,• ,� - , �1 , ! I Feeder Bus Sernce 3 r a.« Sr 1 `t ' I . . s- am- . Provided as Part of the lit' __ 1- fl1( •� I �' � >7�; • { Preferred Alternative s 4• v �.a _ ! . Illill • . Existing RID Bus Routes r v 1:01 It \ Regional Route s J 4N' ! •� , e local Route *I 3,t � .4`-� _ ink. ! ° mow+ '' r --_ -- —y' NORTH 1-25 it_ vie - "' - ., __,w . a „� EIS Page D-465 o information. cooperation. transportation. Rail Corridor Al - Map 5 . - - I - . Irt -...r - r., lAmesivp r• •"►. • _L ea,. tI - - re - P . •y � t ritgetrHi. , 't i -.r., # i . '... ,., 441 t Ne ill ma. lb 46( — 011:- - ° iri4 . ' , Ft F� I . • © 4,, 4 5 6t7t8 1" • , I IL t r y e• 8 ti— j/ i - tom• �.t L•f a og * - eit -...._ . - gen ant.:Tilk _ a_va -Arts ttrart-ivAiatli - 4.E 3RD AV . -.linnN tE 1ST AV _ , Pt . , i __ M _ . I� V. r z Y J , , ^". rill n - 1 _ _ .a%• II ..2..---_-:.# . -� �. -- A -Ft '''.4 • �ll"•Q•!� •a it-. _ SALUD FAMILY HEALTH dy �• r .: SP' t " s • - e w,' w? ri a 47•9- ' r k V `• +I •a lit a ` i ;, 4.ii �` •T : ,r E RODGERS RD "�" • •.�.~ �• L_a__a •' i. Legend Project Alignment _ O Partial Acquisition } " �'� ..16.7' • Full Acquisition y err �� t + _ . • - O Curet Zane a" • • - • ` Existing rail- '' .f i . - - ,4 • • 1d, Maintenance Road Cl : . A • s - •" ''_. Proposed Rail • a'•;It ?' ��-�`• y . - b .. ' Proposed Bridge '. ' � d t4. Proposed Siding teli{ * 'v ,lki s +t •' ' 1 RetWall FrontFace • • •� f _ Commuter RadFootpnnt ROW f� 4. _.. Ni• 1v r bid Water t)UaLty Ponds _ _ • �. 4_ �; Feeder Bus Senvice y' tI re ' 0- • < �, .r' L-1� 1.4`c . . . . Provided as Part ti the • Preferred Alternative '' `` - Existing RTD Bus Routes Y • " fi • llak :."+.g, Regional Route • tiy. ‘-. ._. ...ia._.......,:i.: h . • we t '�1 =r- r +� local Route Ilt tf} 1 1. �~� L• NORTH 1-25 .� ._r..= lia 4 ' �•' - '.^ii i 1 . - . irk �.� - • EIS �1 -. ` �' Page D-468 1a- -''' ' " a information. cooperation. transportation. Rail CorridorAlignment - Map 6 0f 411 WV — elk-.4 rr•- 4 -% ler "rnir tit S i� • '� , i;J as . ft . .-* st:.t..1._ 1 49'4 , . , . . a I•-..en.......-..--..-4 e4) .ti: ,446 a 4.. _ *Ark- i a % e r .,4 • It ' me �. • - r r ,`._"' t •., C to ,. • tw • • *r` r + IS d ti tY• rp {C -� 4 5 6 7 8 „t/ -r �� . ' �. . ;fie 0 I: eiliX ti>.... dr. 4o• C. ,, of lb. r' cf • ite- F 3RD R0GERS o ' �� r • r r ♦`iiii.t r� � I � � • SUGAR MILL RD a• j - elk- IA `' • s •illir___ -coo Ir 0 I s f• —' I r s . Z • 4 1 •so 1 ' y en s � ' • y r f • -1 S" rr ' I 1 • . •�� '. I IliAl • , T •,• • Legend • * _ Project Alignment 1. • •.' " O Partial Acquisition �,' _ 0 Full Acquisition • �+ - _ ., •.' -----41 O Quiet Zone s ir • • x 4 • 4 busting rail s •a `.. ~ .ans.--`�,.,•'"1-' — Maintenance Road Cl L It •w • . Prop osed Rail - ikt %sr. •., se, �• Proposed Bridg-tae ,r��+'. i s ,,`^•.�y� y' Proposed Siding 4 ,> RetWall FrontFace Lx •¢ '`'... - ' a r ; '�• �t stn Commuter Rail Footprint ROW �i • Ths= . Water Ruabty Ponds �! - t,"'�,Pt�<:i ,( Feeder Bus Senvce r ' ... . Provided as Part of the x �` ► • 1 + i _ ...IA'. — Preferred Alternative ' • o' '41 • "' Existing RID Bus Routes t � •• s ' •, • " •• �. ' / Regional Route i t .. . ` `� local Route :- r 0 iii •- — __ NORTH 125 • ... EIS •� - ..-�:. _ �% Page D-469 b,:e-s a -, -. < information. cooperation. transportation. _.,.............................__,..........._ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ Rail Corridor Aflgnment - Map 7 _ . III .. ..., # '4---2,i ;0- : ',viers r 2- , . ... : it, AI I I. IffI .._ 1 2 m (` O 3 - •z i L±15t6t7t8 � m v f , N• • .,, .• • r - - - . f. •, •• I t• rt v ••.....•••• •KEN.RRATT.BLVD , •• ass a jt: t r t l t t t t +4 IRONHORSEDR �. ill • � _ V•q -I • r h - t . . KYLIE DR 'a..g-._• •r ---tv r-r r- - --r.. r-r •'T'S Fr rt • •' - r a i,. Mirk ill - dalr F; �. Legend Pr Is r_ . *- -' )'• • r 4 • I • ' . = rt ' T 1, • Project Alignment _ 0 Partial Acquisitor "is'15-10,4r,itst GREAT WESTERN DR' • Full Acquisition r 0 in Owet lone t �_ • J i Existing rail riige$ r r-- 1�- 1 W,t • • kMaintenance Road CL Y r1 ,�- 40. L ifilin � — Proposed Rail 're.*'re.* ►�, Proposed Badge , " • yf C; r Proposed Siding« e C . s t A -.. r r. rni r� � ReiWallFrontFace L �' c ic~ 4 Commuter Rod Footprint ROW • n ' at �: . 0 •"i' ifr• - Water Ouality Ponds : r • j,. r . • • • Feeder Bus Service • -. eeee Provided as Part ofthe M Preferred Alte native � . -�. + I� .r Q i 4. Existing RT { e g D Bus Routes • Regional Route Mar r L ' R• ♦ -4 local Route -,, _ , 0-h'-�: .! •w Xi - NORTH I-25 �., EIS Page D-470 --- , - r information. cooperation. transportation. Rail CorridorAlignment - pMa 8 •= isii , " - i. e . r� r NYC ON•• _ 1 0000,t. _ . . ... 2 1 M• t 4 5 •6 7 8 " • � I. • y 1 �� .. - - CA L *v' ally tL it • - ' S ;.L1. , Y, •i•.4 .•,m• c Y t ry i II bilk k '.S + • Sri„ Y • .. �. r f ' .. A ' 14 _ �"_" - KEN•PRATT•BL•VD 119 - - -- -C ' t- 1 --Atr 4 •L A ki • .. ftY 'a� t 1 - _ . • • t E , •;. . , , r ... / e .5 - • .• • 1 i . tii I it; ',I*. It• *"-.' c. • ., _ j ` ..i... �r ft! '40 .. .. r S44.. ... . . . . . ;‘, , . .��ir ,:.: _ Legend xfr. .. : 1.,,,, / ./ Project Alignment ` ' / , . , „. • 0 Partial Acquisition • \ J O Fug Acquisition • ' • O fluter tone • r { a•• .t0 l . �I Existing rail Maintenance Road Cl e•" _ = l — Proposed Rail • Proposed Bridge - . . - . - •- _ Proposed Siding a RetWall FrontFace Commuter Rail Footprint ROW •• Water Quality Ponds _a Feeder Bus Service - • c r. - - di. Provided as Part of the N Preferred Alternative !• • {k., . Existing RTD Bus Routes . . Regional Route • t • ' r • 4 w ` local Route / r \ ` J all . - - ..^.__. - i r _ V-----Z . NORTH 1-25 - EIS Page D-471 - . .Y information. cooperation. transportation. When will the project • be implemented ? • Construction of the commuter rail and associated features throughout Longmont would not begin before 2035 . • From now until 2035 ( Phase I of the project ) CDOT would • acquire needed commuter rail right- of-way . • Given current funding constraints , construction may not begin promptly in 2035 . • A an- NORTH I-25 a . . - _ . EIS vase oa7z - _ mommm . 000Aa . iasPouio • How will the project impact Longmont ? • Relocations/ Displacements • Retaining walls along the back of properties • Noise and vibration impacts during construction • • Visual impacts during construction • Travel -time delays , traffic impacts and access changes during construction • r , 1101114011• -• � NORTH ]-25 � �. 1,1 EIS Page o-a7a - -^T • . _ 4 nnmmaiion. [wperaum. vanspmaion. How will the project • benefit Longmont ? • Improved access and mobility for residents and emergency response services • Greater connectivity • Improved access for • transportation -disadvantaged populations • Connection to FasTracks Northwest Rail alignment .e IP / • x - NORTH I-25 fi � _ EIS Page D-4]d ij=L- —r _ moma4on. [oopeaion. Iian5p0lalion. • Mitigation Measures • With the implementation of Quiet Zones , there will be no noise impacts in Longmont . • Re- location of the alignment along Atwood to reduce property impacts • Re - location of maintenance road between 21St Ave and SH 66 , and • between 11 'h Ave and Mountain View Ave to reduce impacts • Compensation to affected property owners in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 , as amended . Nor !Pr ; - - - NORTH 125 ..1f5 _.S .a EIStFt Pa D 015 information. cooperation. an pgeo �a�on. • Questions • Would you use the proposed improvements ? • Do any of the possible impacts affect you ? • Is there any mitigation you would like to see ? • Are there other impacts that • you think may occur? • Do you have any concerns , questions , or comments about the project ? • Please provide your answers on a comment sheet • 1 t 4 • ' • • +14 . y r NORTH I-25 is Page D-476 . _ —' Imomalion. mopnadn. vanspouuon • Thank You ! Your Participation is Appreciated ! How to stay involved : • www . cdot . info/ northi25eisl Carol Parr ( CDOT ) : 970 - 350 -2170 Francisco Miraval ( Proyecto Vision 21 ) : 720 - 936 - 1769 • wit: - r: A /41 . T4 '" :t.pax NORTH 1-25 � P EIS Page D-477 -SST' - information. cooperation. transportation. w^ 1 OT News From • The Colorado Department • of Transportation �aii DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.dot.siate.co.us January 4, 2010 Contact: Mindy Crane—(303) 757-9469 Cell- (303) 880-2136 AGREEMENT REACHED ON NORTH I-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GREELEY—Following 11 months of workshops and collaboration, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and leaders from local agencies and transportation agencies in Northern Colorado have reached an agreement on a preferred alternative for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The multi-modal alternative will be carried through and studied in more detail in the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS). "Through workshops, meetings and public comments on the Draft EIS, all of the communities within the study area were able to work together to develop a multi-modal preferred alternative that will meet the needs of this growing corridor," said Regional Transportation Director Bob Garcia. "Without their hard work • and dedication to this corridor, we would not be able to move forward to the final stage of the study, and for that, CDOT thanks all of the participants and the public for their input." The preferred alternative includes the following elements: • General Purpose Lanes: One new general purpose lane in each direction of 1-25 between State Highway 66 and State Highway 14. • Tolled Express Lanes (TEL): One buffer-separated TEL in each direction of I-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle/toll lanes at 84`11 Avenue to SH 14. • Interchange Improvements: 16 interchanges along the corridor will be upgraded. • Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and from Fort Collins to DIA. • Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service with 9 stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and Thornton using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, generally paralleling US 287 and tying into FasTracks North metro rail in Thornton which will connect to Downtown Denver. Passengers may also connect to the FasTracks northwest rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. • • Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with 8 stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. Page D-478 • Congestion Management: Some of the improvements include accommodations for ridesharing, carpools, and vanpools, along with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on I-25 and signage could also be improved. With a preferred alternative identified, CDOT can move forward with drafting the FEIS. This stage of the FEIS includes extensive study of the alternative in terms of complete environmental impacts, funding opportunities, construction phasing and much more. "Throughout the study, we have analyzed a variety of transportation packages, but now that we have a preferred alternative it is time we get into the hard details of the package," added Garcia. "Once this thorough analysis is complete, the FEIS will be released to the public for our final public hearings and comment period." CDOT anticipates that the FEIS will be released in the fall of 2010, which will be followed by public hearings and a comment period. Once the public comment period is over, the record of decision (ROD) will be completed. The ROD for Phase 1 is expected in the spring of 2011. Funding has been identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan for the first phase of the ROD. At what point in time the funds will be available is currently unknown, so it is impossible to predict when construction along this corridor will begin. In the meantime, please visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/for additional information. As the process proceeds, CDOT encourages public comments, which can be provided by calling the project hotline at 970- 352-5455 and 303-779-3384 or by submitting a comment through the Web site. The North I-25 EIS began in November 2003 to identify transportation improvements that will address mobility, accessibility, safety and the aging infrastructure along I-25 while providing more transportation choices. The study area extends from Wellington to Denver Union Station on I-25 as well as US 85 and US 287. ### • Page D-479 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation. North 1-25: Wetland Mitigation MEETING DATE: March 31, 2011 LOCATION: Fort Collins City of Fort Collins: Rick Bachand (Natural Areas) ATTENDEES: CDOT: Carol Parr Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Diane Yates PREPARER: JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Jacobs File MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Carol described the project and status, including the Preferred Alternative. The ROD will be just for Phase 1. We need a Section 404 Permit for the entire corridor. 2. Carol described the intent which is to collaborate with another agency. CDOT would pay for construction. 3. Rick said they do have wetland creation plans, but they are not willing to take on responsibility to do post construction monitoring. Carol assured him that CDOT will do this. 4. Rick asked what type of wetlands we are planning to create? 5. Diane described the wetlands we are planning to create: Shrub/scrub, Sandbar Willow, along the river banks. 6. Diane indicated that for the whole corridor we are impacting 7.3 acres. In the general area, we are impacting 1.2 acres. The value per acreage could range from $20,000 to $80,000. 7. Carol described the MOA that is needed. 8. Rick needs to do FEMA mapping right out of the gate at $80,000, if the projects were done in the Cache La Poudre River floodplain. One project outside of the floodplain is costed at $250,000. 9. They don't use volunteers, because they don't do follow-up. • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration /Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-480 NORTH 1-25 N EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. North 1-25: Wetland Mitigation March 31, 2011 2 of 2 10. Rick described the projects. One is the McMurray Natural Area just east of Shields Street, or along the river up to Shields Street. 11. One option could be that CDOT could reimburse the City of Fort Collins for a specific project that has already been designed and is ready for construction this spring 2011. The second phase of this project includes stream bank improvements along the Poudre River and would be designed for construction in 2012. Estimated cost for Phase 2 is $250,000. That will be constructed next year. This may not be all wetland, but might include riparian habitat with scrub shrub wetland. 12. Biohabitats also did a study of a number of different wetland mitigation sites in the City— in 19 different natural areas. One of these is Arapahoe Bend next to 1-25 and Poudre River crossing. 13. Rick said he could give us a couple of possible projects from the Biohabitats Study. These would likely be 70% cottonwood forest. • 14. The City Utilities or City Parks departments may also be interested in wetland restoration projects along rivers. Rick chairs a team of City people who are looking for restoration projects. We might be able to come to their April team meeting to discuss our objectives. He will send this information to us. Action Items • Rick will prepare a short list of potential wetland restoration projects along Poudre River. • Rick will provide information on next City watershed meeting. • Diane will send the Corps requirements for a compensatory wetland mitigation plan. J:\ Transportation\071609.400\ WVXV811 N125 TO11\manage\mtas\minutes\St. Vrain 30March2011\NI25 wetland mitigation mtq 033111yn.doc • Page D-481 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information cooperation. transpertaiior. April 11, 2011 Mr. Marty Heffernan Executive Director Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment Administration PO Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Fossil Creek Drive Trail Dear Mr. Heffernan: The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70- mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The • improvements being considered in this Final EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. Three multi-modal build alternatives(Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative)are being evaluated, as well as the No-Action Alternative, in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening, tolled express lanes, and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit(BRT)on three different alignments. The proposed rail improvements in Package A(Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the proposed Fossil Creek Drive Trail across the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe alignment at Fossil Creek. Improvements under Package A include the extension of the existing culvert at Fossil Creek to accommodate construction of a second track along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way. Should project construction occur before the proposed trail is constructed, extension of the culvert would accommodate the proposed Fossil Creek Drive Trail, resulting in a benefit to the trail. Should construction of the proposed Fossil Creek Drive Trail be completed prior to project • Page D-482 • tvORTx EIS ES Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail CDOT will provide a three-sided trail enclosure to protect frail users or a detour for the duration of the trail closure. The map and narrative description(Attachment B) illustrate the proposed detour route. This detour does not interfere with the activities or purpose of the resource. Condition (Iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the extension of the culvert, the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. The trail will be fully restored. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. • If you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Fossil Creek Drive Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy"as defined by Section 4(f), please sign and date the attached letter and retum to me. Should you, or others in your department, have concems or questions regarding the above information, please contact Carol Parr, CDOT Project Manager, at(970)350-2170, or Carol.ParrCa DOT.STATE.CO.US. Sincerely, Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Project File Robert Quinlan Thor Gjelsteen • Page D-483 NORTH I-25RIR EIS • Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail construction, a temporary closure may be required. Construction impacts may be mitigated in one of the following two ways: 1. A temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic(see (Attachment B for a map and potential detour). 2. A three-sided trail enclosure, which would protect trail users from overhead construction. The specifics regarding the proposed improvements, such as the construction footprint or the location of cut and fill slopes, will not be known until final. CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the proposed Fossil Creek Drive Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f)of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act(23 CFR 774),which protects parks and recreational properties(including trails)and sets out certain requirements if the trail is to be temporarily impacted. To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions, and CDOT's efforts to meet them(in italics), are outlined below: Condition (i) • Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land. The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. The estimated time for this trail closure will be less than the time needed for construction of the highway widening improvements planned in this area. Condition(ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A calls for construction of a second track along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way. To accommodate this construction, the existing culvert must be extended. This will not affect the existing trail alignment. Condition (Ill) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource on either a temporary or permanent basis. • Page D-484 • NORTH I-25 Nil EIS Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail April 11, 2011 Mr. Marty Heffernan Executive Director Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment Administration PO Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ms. Carol Parr CDOT Project Manger CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO. 80631 Re: Letter of Concurrence, North I-25 EIS and the Fossil Creek Drive Trail • Dear Ms. Parr: Based on the provided information,the City of Fort Collins finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus,the City of Fort Collins concurs with the temporary . occupancy designation for the Fossil Creek Drive Trail in regard to the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name:/la_/t f{-«T5tfiw A-^� Date: w✓-c. 7''f, 2o// Signature;�J, .-r -- • Page D-485 NORTH I-2S Nig EIS 0 I Ii ., ,,, •, t r • a , ,.•, Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail • Attachment A: Package A, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND _.. 1 New General Purpose Lane J w. .. (GPL) in Each Direction li- ' wn.w „ C• rr• ct •e•in•tric • ■ • • 1 New General Purpose Lane • detici s nn . r• .I-c: a • in . (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each "' intr3structur Direction FaI Cans Darin Drill Cent•e4SFet e S. p att. Commuter Rail (CR) GSu•rwala-oolaa n ' 't °� uk[rhkis.ISw Aai,a. Fort we_ °'`'`'a 85 Commuter Bus (CB) Service on US 85 Scull Fat Copra brill Cerster ii ` __ NasalSL and W.Fans Lane i I.arr. ....„«. r.•.. •,. Feeder Bus Service • ' •..N.. 4,2— • Interchange Upgrades °7 *►••••• , .�• © Love nd Th...�.vs are a st Number or Lanes (Merle LON1and•BPISF are M A ' Saar S - 0 Commuter Bus Station / Stop rlotirrlwwlLoralard-erF " —�Greele L oppodaeteei win y0. 6+ I Goren 47• o Commuter Rail Station 257 1. Sail ra'r C 57 a FasTracks Rail Line (0 """"'". I "`'"r sw so FasTracks/RTD Transit Station ewe-eMSF 945.6el *Inn • • Potential Commuter Rail • Operational & Maintenance0 - Facility n _ CR x • Potential Commuter Bus erg • °`~ Operational & Maintenance 7:;; LortStpar -Normal Facu moot Facility 9 .aoar,trt smog Ropers Rd �•• ,r, 35 e ai r •••r•••• on • IZ$a„dwcle-NW ': —sr •''iapsMacRusl are WI.25 ono CA! Ott I •n... a Lk isn ` i, � ' older • 23 36 L•rl.Northwest 0 Corridor •r.. M l• • ,Pr•wnatlen 7 N 011 III i I rn • I e m • n t ••N North Metro4 Esm ,2,7,:"..r N ct . n �Pq GrNd•r ar.r•.r ' it ' rnelliU• �� • r.jects 171 1 1 ) �►�is� f' • (Mu,itatnn 40 /III6 Denver / 1 w a • AL : Wr OS refit.. NO r1h • Page D-486 NORTH I--25 0 EIS Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail Attachment B: Package A: Detour Map and Description '- I-- -i St.T t T .• - 7-� e ECt ND 'kt�1 •c1 t. yew- -Il1'' 1 i Iv , .its _ in Pa:kageA Proposed ROW ' 4 ' � a >♦, ' .�,'� A t i r .,,� ,o ._-, O Package B Proposed ROW c : "t,� er• r• . • ;' • ,�i• et cliff 'L Ex15Un Trall ` > f , _ °"".•° Proposed Tral 4 T ' : t e•i• < 1� :- t!� I. .. . { � O Proposed Troll Detour • t:� • t ti ♦� !.. { + t• 6 J s r' Tc-,c)si u •,tomy _ a.a _� .� C [k 'ell. 7. 1••}I i •�: t »Z • ', /�r � 1, r '..' . 1. , t : i d ' / 11;:: 1vtw - ..•.: w y • PA as 1 i r,. •!1 t1 . 1tR pi a, '` yl:'. . .t _ .� :� ti t. Ili +�� 4 • S\ • • iia: -• ' '41" .. y es ` . - Orr _ a nr• '6 1 - "a ! - if-A' , - ffru.itri-044, ,,,,.?_.$4: . ,;0, ?!. . rstkt ,. Cc' It 6-', JtiI41i `, .:. t .. wi .-. , .-.. n,„.,2,L,:,:e.,i-tbi . _ Allekilltit e.4` :t - Fir ` IkrA 1\4 •t��si TS ' s;•�1. '�,' ' _ tea. i - !f 1' i :) a `t ` ` $ I .. sat . - r �` tt �4. _t $ ,...- ---‘-"H. � ' ti/ L.1 ',3/4 : 1 . - Fossil Creek Drive Wall 'V .• 1P•ZS 40: "'► . sa. .. • ,S,e 1 - • �t^t� 7 'l S EICIO 0 North 1'� . % r- 7r1 Feet I - i . t _ -- - _ The detour will require eastbound trail users wishing to cross the rail tracks to follow Shields St north to Harmony Rd east to the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Trail south and then reconnect to the Fossil Creek Drive Trail. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • Page D-487 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ T Region Four re O 1 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80831 =Mega onwxrMe,T R rMw9MrwnQV (970)350-2148 (Fax)350-2198 June 2, 2011 Mr. Marty Heffernan Executive Director Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment City of Fort Collins 215 N. Mason St. Fort Collins,CO 80521 Re: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Effects to Arapaho Bend and Archery Range Natural Areas Dear Mr. Heffernan: • The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods,and services in the I-25 corridor. Two properties administered by the City of Fort Collins have been determined to qualify for Section 4(f)protection as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 and would experience a use by project alternatives under consideration.Arapaho Bend and Archery Range Natural Areas qualify for protection under Section 4(f)because they are publicly-owned recreation areas. By way of this letter,FHWA, FTA,and CDOT are requesting written concurrence from the City of Ft Collins,as the official with jurisdiction over Arapaho Bend and Archery Range Natural Areas,that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify these areas for protection under Section 4(f)(see below). • Page D-488 Mr.Heffernan,Executive Director 6/2/2011 • City of Fort Collins Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment Page 2 Background In 2005,Congress amended Title 49 USC 303, also known as Section 4(f), when it enacted the Safe, Accountable,Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f)resource. 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(1)resource. Section 4W Use Three build alternatives are being analyzed in the Final EIS; Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Although these alternatives may result in different uses of the property in question, for the purposes of receiving de minimis concurrence, the following discussion assumes selection of the alternative with the highest degree of use of each property. Arapaho Bend Natural Area Impacts Section 4(f)use of Arapaho Bend Natural Area would result from the expansion of an existing CDOT carpool lot located in the northwest quadrant of Harmony Road and I-25 and from expansion of the I-25 highway infrastructure adjacent to the natural area.The City of Fort Collins and CDOT had previously negotiated an easement of 4.03 acres anticipating future expansion of the carpool lot,which would remove this area from Section 4(f)use, however; the proposed parking lot expansion would exceed the easement. Other design improvements related to the project include addition of one barrier-separated tolled express lane in each direction, ramp reconfiguration to address existing substandard ramp conditions and reconstruction of the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River. The proposed parking lot expansion, the addition of a new ramp, and improvements to the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River would result in a net use, over and above the area of the easement, of 5.11 acres. In addition, construction of the new bridge over the Cache la Poudre • River would necessitate the closure of the area beneath the bridge. If the proposed Cache la Page D-489 Mr.Heffernan,Executive Director 6/2/2011 City of Fort Collins Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment Page 3 • Poudre River trail is extended in this area prior to this phase of the North I-25 improvements, this trail would require a temporary closure during construction.None of the features or amenities would be used as a result of the project and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. The attributes that qualify the Arapaho Bend Natural Area for Section 4(f) are not adversely affected. Additionally, access off Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. See Attachment A for a figure showing areas of use. Measures to Minimize Harm The proposed ramp improvements are to the minimum standard requirements to minimize right- of-way width and, therefore,minimizing Section 4(f)use of this property. Approximately 2,000 feet of retaining walls would be included along the Harmony Road/I-25 interchange ramps north of Harmony Road to minimize use. The walls would extend up to the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River to minimize uses at the northern extent of the property. Further design modifications proposed under the Preferred Alternative would reduce the use of this property to less than the 5.11 acres as described above. However, if an alternative other than the Preferred Alternative were selected, the impacts described above may be realized. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will reclaim and revegetate in-kind the areas where the existing bridges are removed. • Mitigation required by other federal laws such as Section 404 will be implemented. • CDOT will continue to coordinate with the City of Ft. Collins to reduce and mitigate for • impacts to habitat and proposed recreation features through the design of the new bridge over the Cache la Poudre River. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be employed for erosion control. • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. Archery Range Natural Area Impacts In the area of the Archery Range Natural Area, I-25 is proposed to be widened to the east and the west to accommodate the new barrier-separated tolled express lanes and a new frontage road would be built to tie in to the entrance of the natural area. This would result in a use of 0.14 acre on the eastern edge of the natural area. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. The attributes that qualify the Archery Range Natural Area for Section 4(f)are not adversely affected. Access to the natural area would be improved. See Attachment B for a figure showing areas of use. An additional indirect impact would occur through construction of a 300-foot-long wall, 11 feet to 15 feet in height,proposed to run along the edge of the park. This wall is being constructed to prevent more extensive use of the natural area; however, it has the potential to inhibit the view to the east resulting in indirect visual impacts. Measures to Minimize Harm • Page D-490 Mr.Heffernan,Executive Director 6/2/2011 • City of Fort Collins Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment Page 4 Use of this property has been minimized by shifting the frontage road adjacent to I-25 and by including a barrier separation between the edge of the frontage road and the edge of I-25. Further design modifications proposed under the Preferred Alternative were able to remove all use of this property. However, if an alternative other than the Preferred Alternative were selected, the impacts described above may be realized. Mitigation Measures • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • CDOT will continue to coordinate with the City of Ft. Collins to lessen the impact of the proposed retaining wall adjacent to the Natural Area using extended fill slopes or a combination of slopes and wall to reduce its height and length as much as feasibly possible. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be employed for erosion control. • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. Public Involvement Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis • was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. Request for Concurrence CDOT requests the written concurrence from the City of Fort Collins that effects of the project as described above, and considering the harm minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of Arapaho Bend or Archery Range Natural Areas. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(b)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the signature block at the end of this letter,or by separate letter from the City of Fort Collins to the CDOT at the address shown above. Because impacts to the properties in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final EIS. FHWA and FTA are willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. Intent for De Minimis Finding Pending your concurrence, CDOT believes that the impacts to Arapaho Bend and Archery Range Natural Areas will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the parks. Based on this finding, and taking into consideration the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed and public input received,CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's and FTA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minimis impacts to Arapaho Bend and • Page D-491 Mr.Heffernan,Executive Director 6/2/2011 City of Fort Collins Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment Page 5 • Archery Range Natural Areas, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f)is not required. Sincerely, a. Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Monica Pavlik, FHWA Thor Gjelsteen, FHU Bob Quinlan, Jacobs File • • Page D-492 Mr.Heffernan,Executive Director 6/2/2011 • City of Fort Collins Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment Page 6 Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over Arapaho Bend Natural Area, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance,minimization, and mitigation measures,will not adversely affect the activities,features, and attributes that qualify the properties for protection under Section 4(f). By:Title: EK c c �v°-- `�i(C cAit C'c,.Q-f-c,�e_+i) Po—r_ �,NviR-cn/icw�. A_ I-4 • ocC cL Frtk C0 ( (c. vS t Date: J wv / z ao (( 14" _d-a No Esa- /nl of c- t` v O i` LJitl� S 4 • n Frc�a s ! N r �P� 0/° t a 4y >t ` . • Page D-493 Mr.Heffernan,Executive Director 6/2/2011 City of Fort Collins Culture,Parks,Recreation,and Environment Page 7 • Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over Archery Range Natural Area, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance,minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the properties for protection under Section 4(f). By: ,ic !/ /L—r Title: £ic -a Cc. ' \l ;2RG � ✓� C4 /-lc- p nv ' _ crie Date: c•-"1-1-0- //--F D—e l/ /�� cJ�" e ll�"�✓S 7/ ✓1-�— TAO (-e . �7l'✓ C_ r✓./ 0 4/iV-=--CS '/ 6� /2-7i-g- Co/f,, 4nj ; 1 • Page D-494 Mr. Heffernan, Executive Director 6/2/2011 IIICity of Fort Collins Culture, Parks, Recreation, and Environment Page 8 Attachment A: Use of Arapaho Bend Natural Area so N, j 4 ' r S • G Arapahoe Bend Natural Area Impacts •� 4. :1„4 d!'tra` I • s.0. Itfr,r\c. '� %iLGR 40; . .,,i• w• , p r • 2: I . . er g,• , ' ; *LN. - • ii es'r• • • tf 001 r • ARAPAHO BE NO NATURAL AREA 0 ' ARAPAHOBENU NATURAi. AREA i 6' ., i N. t. I re , i '•,•: ` 7%4 "rar-- - _ -:-- • 44 --.,' , .-.7-1k I. •-;. t _,c, i . .. 1',II - t'' ' t i ge,,,,,,,ws,„. • ....4 .hira 64 1 • Location Map - ---^-�- �.�.. , • ,E HARMONY RD : ,,ftij - . sr 'r ' pa f, -'� 0 800 -, Feet worth ^� Page D-495 Mr. Heffernan, Executive Director 6/2/2011 City of Fort Collins Culture, Parks, Recreation, and Environment Page 9 III Attachment B: Use of Archery Range Natural Area q U) �GSL/a . " .._ Ia..; , _•.erne _ ' Archery Range Natural Area Impacts E0,t.' ≥�, - " 1T" I 4 1.01 11;.. , . ..* i 44, itft. .. i 1 :. , si • ARCHERY RgNCE NA II;RgE gNEA , ,,,L . q tt t r' 1 :,f illitemi III c.. .1..,. \ , it "'� ��, I Impact Area. 0.14 acre • ,. ,?. 4 1 : I', 1. � -... Il ` 1 . 1 , � _ f•�• ,� y , 111 y+ • 1 . 1 I` _. .,�Ill r' I 4 t • Location Map - I - 0 600 f _S . . . - 1 Z ; �mt _ _ _ I Feet Noun — , ;E J:LTransportation\071609.400\_WVXV811_NI25 T011\manage\corr\4(f) deminimis Concurrence Letters\4fdeminimisconcurrence_FtColl ins_122210.doc Page D-496 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation. BOULDER CREEK ESTATES 4(f) ISSUES MEETING DATE: July 27, 2009 LOCATION: City of Longmont FHWA: Monica Pavlik CDOT: Bob Autobee ATTENDEES: City of Longmont: Nick Wolfrum, Dan Wolford (with Parks), Don Bessler (with Parks), Phil Greenwald Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Kevin McDermott, Jennifer Merer PREPARER: Gina McAfee JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Carol Parr, Tom Anzia, Thor Gjelsteen, Craig Gaskill, Jacobs File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina McAfee described the project past history and process. 2. Boulder Creek Estates has not been formally adopted as a park by the City of Longmont, nor have any plans been formally adopted. a. The plans for Boulder Creek Estates are in the very preliminary stages. b. There are no detailed plans for CR 7 area. 3. The City of Longmont will require vehicular access off of CR 7 and wildlife and people movement at St. Vrain Creek. 4. The North 1-25 DEIS plans show single track commuter rail south of SH 119. Commuter rail is proposed to be on structure over St. Vrain Creek and over the pond. Longmont recommended not doing a structure to cross the gravel pit pond, but instead put the commuter rail on fill. When the North 1-25 project moves further Longmont would like to involve their water people to see how to move forward with the pond. 5. In the next five years the City of Longmont will be doing a plan for the Boulder Creek Estates Park. 6. Don said this will be a district park-for low impact fishing, hiking, and trails. They have not done any design work or formalized any planning. They would like vehicular access off CR7. • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration /Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-497 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Boulder Creek Estates 4(t) Issues 7/27/09 2 of 2 7. Rail should be designed as close to the two roads as possible in order to minimize impacts. 8. The existing SH 119 structures over the Greenway will not pass the 100 year flood. Region 4's planning was such to allow for a future bike path. We should look at these recent plans. 9. Monica described that, for joint planning, we would want to see a future transportation corridor designated. We might be able to transfer some of the property along CR 7 to the City for their future trailhead/access. We should also commit to accommodating wildlife movement under SH 119 and a bike path along the greenway. 10. We need to give Longmont a width of swath. We should give them design files after our FEIS design process is finalized. These should incorporate any plans for widening of SH 119. 11. The City Council might want to adopt a resolution in support of this joint planning, but the project team will still need a letter from the official with jurisdiction (the Parks Department). The project team will let Nick know what documentation we need. • J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Boulder Creek Estates 4(f) Meeting_072709_Po.doc • Page D-498 • LL� Colorado Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Suite 180 d importation Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Federal Highway March 9,2010 720-963-3000 MmlSstraMon Fax 720-963-3001 Mr. Daniel Wolford,CPRP City of Longmont Manager of Parks, Open Space and Forestry Community Development Department Parks and Open Space Division 7 South Sunset Street Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Mr. Wolford: The North 1-25 project is including as a part of its proposed Preferred Alternative the construction of a commuter rail track that will proceed south of SH 119 and west of County Road 7. This will require right-of-way from a proposed future City of Longmont park called Boulder Creek Estates. When we met in July 2009 to discuss this,you indicated that the proposed park has not yet been formally adopted as a park nor are there any formal plans for park development. Pursuant to 23 • CFR 774.11(i),the development of this park and the development of the transportation corridor can proceed with joint planning. Enclosed is an aerial photo that includes the proposed corridor for commuter rail in this vicinity. On this aerial photo a future transportation corridor is shown that varies from approximately 110 feet south of the current south edge of SH 119 to approximately 150 feet west of the current western edge of CR 7. Consistent with our discussion in July 2009,the City of Longmont is planning to place this future transportation corridor on future park plans in this area. Please let us know if you have any questions about this and please sign below and return this letter to indicate your concurrence with this joint planning for this future park. Thanks again for your support for the North I-25 project. Sincerely Yours, %WA eWoa p�11- Karla S. Petty,P.E. Division Administrator Enclosure: Map cc: Carol Parr, CDOT [ concur: Signature • IAyt ox Bett c ec 0%044i sat, t o• to Title Date Page D-499 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `�' • Region Four ,e •O+ 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80631aria IMMINENT OF TRANSPORTATION (970)350-2146 (Fax)350-2198 May 2, 2011 Dale Rademacher Director of Public Works and Natural Resources City of Longmont 1100 South Sherman Street Longmont, CO 80501 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Effects to Sandstone Ranch Dear Mr. Rademacher: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of • Transportation (CDOT), are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the I-25 corridor. Two properties administered by the City of Longmont have been determined to qualify for Section 4(f)protection as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 and would experience a use by project alternatives under consideration. Sandstone Ranch qualifies for protection under Section 4(I) because it is a publicly-owned park and the Railroad alignment trail between State Highway 66 and 21st Street qualifies for protection under Section 4(0 because it is a publicly-owned recreation resource. By way of this letter, FHWA and CDOT are requesting written concurrence from the City of Longmont, as the official with jurisdiction over these properties, that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify them for protection under Section 4(t) (see below). • Page D-500 Background In 2005, Congress amended Title 49 USC 303, also known as Section 4(f), when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f) resource. 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. Section 4(f) Use Three build alternatives are being analyzed in the Final EIS; Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Although these alternatives may result in different uses of the properties in question, for the purposes of receiving de minimis concurrence, the following discussion assumes selection of the alternative with the highest degree of use. Sandstone Ranch Impacts Use at this location would result from the new commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line station in Thornton. The commuter rail line track would use 2.17 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. A small portion of the trail in the northwest corner of the park would be impacted but none of the other features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. Following construction the impacted portions of the trail will be realigned to continue to provide access and connectivity within the park and a functioning recreation resource. The attributes that qualify Sandstone Ranch for Section 4(f) protection are not adversely affected. • Page D-501 Measures to Minimize Harm A separate alternative being examined would avoid use of this property entirely by offering no commuter rail improvements and instead concentrating improvements on the I-25 corridor. However, two alternatives being examined would result in impacts similar to those described above. A retaining wall was included on the south side of the proposed tracks to mitigate use of the park. Otherwise, the railway footprint is reduced to the minimum width required to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will reseed disturbed areas with native grasses. • CDOT will add native shrubs as appropriate. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • Property will be acquired consistent with the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Program. Railroad Alignment Trail (21st St. to SH 66) The project would result in direct impacts to approximately 1,510 linear feet of the existing trail. A detour would be provided, before the current trail alignment is demolished. Consequently, no trail closure would be necessary, and there would be no disruption of service to trail users. Because the trail would be permanently altered and rerouted, this cannot be considered a temporary occupancy. However, because there would be no overall adverse affect on the • activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f) CDOT is recommending this for consideration as a de minimis use. Following construction the impacted portions of the trail will be realigned to continue to provide access and connectivity within the park and a functioning recreation resource. The attributes that qualify this trail for Section 4(f)protection are not adversely affected. Measures to Minimize Harm As described previously, CDOT intends to mitigate any harm to the RR Alignment(21st to Hwy 66) Trail by providing a detour before demolishing the current alignment of the trail. Consequently,no trail closure is necessary, and there would be no disruption of service to trail users. While the trail would be permanently changed, the new trail would be constructed to fit aesthetically into the current environment, and it would not alter the current function or purpose of the trail. As the project proceeds through final engineering and design, the measures to minimize harm to the RR Alignment (21st to Hwy 66) Trail will be re-examined and refined with the local officials having jurisdiction over the affected resource. The following table includes other mitigation measures to which CDOT, FHWA, and FTA would adhere. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will provide a detour for the trail prior to demolishing the existing trail. • The new trail will be constructed to fit aesthetically into the current environment, and it would not alter the current function or purpose of the trail. • Page D-502 • • CDOT will continue to work with City of Longmont to ensure advanced notice and signage for rerouting of trail. Public Involvement Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. Request for Concurrence CDOT requests the written concurrence from the City of Longmont that effects of the project as described above, and considering the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of Sandstone Ranch or the RR Alignment(21st to SH66) Trail. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(b)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the signature block at the end of this letter, or by separate letter from the City of Longmont to the CDOT at the address shown above. Because impacts to the properties in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final EIS. FHWA and • FTA are willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. Intent for De Minimis Finding Pending your concurrence, CDOT believes that the impacts to Sandstone Ranch and the RR Alignment(21st to SH66) Trail will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the properties. Based on this finding, and taking into consideration the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed and public input received, CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's and FTA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minimis impacts to the properties, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f) is not required. Sincerely, C uM Carol Pan CDOT Project Manager cc: Monica Pavlik, FHWA Thor Gjelsteen, FHU Bob Quinlan, Jacobs File • Concurrence Page D-503 Mr. Rademacher, Director 5/2//201 I City of Longmont Department of Public Works and Natural Resources Page 5 • As the official with jurisdiction over Sandstone Ranch, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). This concurrence assumes a positive outcome for a public vote that will need to occur before ROW may be obtained from CDOT in the future. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the North 1-25 project will not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes that make the Sandstone Ranch/ eligible for Section 4(f) protection. By: �itLc 1WiSl Title: /17 AAA ) /vedeatteLe k" � Date: ? 3// ZQ Ll • • Page D-504 Mr. Rademacher,Director 5/2//2011 City of Longmont Department of Public Works and Natural Resources Page 6 • Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over the RR Alignment (21st to SH66) Trail, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). This concurrence assumes a positive outcome for a public vote that will need to occur before ROW may be obtained from CDOT in the future. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the North 1-25 project will not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes that make the RR Alignment (21st ttooSH66)Trail eligible for Section 4(f) protection. By: iva Title: hal ittauiv %�Lfi1N e (.(l i /ILL 41.4R'" ` Date: 3/?PE • • Page D-505 • Attachment A: Use of Sandstone Ranch I ' ' = Sandstone Ranch Impacts it • `• sit �- _ gl illre". t . - ........... '�. ,7„... ,.—.. --:=yam .-'- , • _ .. y„,„s. " r �i y- C 7.......44- . .•'“ . . • ----, sa _ __ __ , . . _ 1 N a 1 • • til �r i• I tj C • N.. 0 A.::; SANDSTONE RANCH frr' .... i ' 4 �r.r T .. a. ,.., , •s li: • .re jj • 1 r•Frill Location Map , 0 300 _ Immme===i Feet North 1 , 0 Page D-506 Mr. Rademacher, Director 5/282011 City of Longmont Department of Public Works and Natural Resources Page 8 • Attachment B: Use of the RR Alignment (21St to SH66) Trail LEGEND , • .µms... s /►� w i _ ... -.,.,..._�.......�._ �_' • Railroad Alignment 4(f) Impact ,~ ,r �� '""""' Railroad Alignment Trail (21st to CO 66) t ti. _, -"'4L,.,,- iPackage A Rail Impacts i 1 - :it 1 "'"'• ‘ , x . Ir . s's - \ i1/4 -_,ar,t; . , 1. 4 . _ ... . , . i .„ ,,, ,,,,.. , . . . . t i S1,1t4! Package A ; . .-0/ t 1rirsiA. 1 ,510 linear feet Y P s� , � ii 11/4 - . is i; A a it '� ). i-- • tql! . , AI r Fait e It . :- lira ' * 4-iLer1;:lk wit ti ' t c. 4 i ,, , . . .. • tit V Ap, . • . ' f r is Oa II, . • J es 3) it .44 ,,,-4,. of , .. •• • It i . ••. 16 �. I 1• 4 ? .di.J. 2' t I II ris \, -,.. • ' . i Ai lee 4 ,:fir 51, , t ofI t Ai i , ., --- _, ,4 alistivii ill , . WIC ' 1 I . - 4 I I. • // it 1 ,- )41 --r— Opp tr. t ..- Lii . . ;1, ..i_ i , , _ L j . `''• , , , A• f F : Y_ • „i 'Location ' ; Ili 1 f .., A .w 0 300 r , e ,,.� Zai°4-i, � -Feet ' t i � � North � -r • ilk :` \ r f 4' 3: Transportation\071609.400LWVXV811_NI25 TO11\manage\corr\4(f) deminimis Concurrence 0 Letters\4fdemini misconcurrence_Longmont_121410.doc Page D-507 NORTH 1-25 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. April 11, 2011 Mr. Gary Havener City of Loveland City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Commission 500 East Third Street Loveland, CO 80537 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail Dear Mr. Havener: The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70- mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Final EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the • improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. Three multi-modal build alternatives (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) are being evaluated, as well as the No-Action Alternative, in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening, tolled express lanes, and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package A (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail. These improvements include construction of a second bridge at the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail to accommodate an additional track, necessitating a temporary closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 774), which protects parks and recreational properties (including trails) and sets out certain requirements if • Page D-508 NORTH 1-25 ._ ES • 1'0'1100'1 ma'Ll 'i Uara,cranmi Letter of Concurrence, Big Thompson River Corridor Trail the trail is to be temporarily impacted. To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions, and CDOT's efforts to meet them (in italics), are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land. The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. The estimated time for this trail closure will be less than the time needed for construction of the highway widening improvements planned in this area. Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A calls for construction of an additional track, requiring construction of a second bridge at the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail. This will not affect the existing • trail alignment. Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will provide detours, with signage, for the duration of the trail closure. The map and narrative description (Attachment B) illustrate the proposed detour route. This detour does not interfere with the activities or purpose of the resource. Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the addition of a second bridge, the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. The trail will be fully restored. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. • Page D-509 NORTH 1-25 EIS mlorrnatmn r,¢pcdtoi vanwenaoon Letter of Concurrence, Big Thompson River Corridor Trail The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. If you concur that improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f), please sign and date the attached letter and return to me. Should you, or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information, please contact Carol Parr, CDOT Project Manager, at (970) 350-2170, or Carol.Parr(o�DOT.STATE.CO.US. Sincerely, C�uM Carol Parr • CDOT Project Manager cc: Project File Robert Quinlan Thor Gjelsteen • Page D-510 NORTH 1-25 Ng EIS 411 information, cooperation transportation Letter of Concurrence, Big Thompson River Corridor Trail Attachment A: Package A, North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND gm, 1 New General Purpose Lane ' a (GPL) in Each Direction r ' C • rr • ct • • • m • tric . aray.1, d • fici • nci • s • m - 1 New General Purpose Lane • . n • re • lace a • in • (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each 2e7 infr . structur • Direction Fort Coins 0081801111 Tan Tann Canty -IMF awl Wpb St • N t� ANN Commuter Rail (CR) csu • Amon St.between , WhiteaIty Ave.and W.Ride St • Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort • Ilin - ` as US 85 south Fort Cantu NMI tanw- . M _ason St and W.Fairway Lane I__ •• as.. Feeder Bus Service ' I Lase `— • Interchange Upgrades 87 US 85 '4 """ "'' © Number of Lanes t Love n d i ; asp Uath t iiiind BNSF aril 29th St 1 Q Commuter Bus Station DM US,Dtahhi►lgvetarhd •EIN5Fand) Greele• 2MhSt apprised*OthSt. G..d•`'Clip Ewe-lbifVl O Commuter Rail Station 6+ S an aid 42nd St. tam C `•`~,• FasTracks Rail Line GO © synod-(NSF and SH 56 - oast_ FasTracks / RTD Transit Station � r*R(ea or .•. - - .. III ■ Potential Commuter Rail Operational & Maintenance • Facility 36 mu WELD =NIB BB M"• Mr • Potential Commuter Bus , 7 66 PlONA*-US 85 widen,PAe Operational & Maintenance L I 10�ontelS MN-�^a Facility Longmont • SFS seat el Rows Rd 119 `. 36 85 • Fa•••••• 119 2„ fiat 1---i.,82Ai • • .US e5 ASCII t414-51�_ I-25 and MN8.Pm 5• «, comer d 1-25 and CR . vu t f` Da « art• 119 = oulder . Northwest ' • Right-of-Way I • Preservation a •w Rail Corridor rew • 1 on G i• r • / Im • lement t« North Metro E470 Corridor IM air pni..l N • - • cti . n .1,,.., It • rnativ • / • r•j • cts 121 JEFFER • ON 4I 4i�j Venv 40 thaw +at,p V\li 6 s ,d Den4ver J 1 i b N 10 •� �u6• North 0 Page D-511 NORTH I-25 All EIS k information. cooperation. transportation. III Letter of Concurrence, Big Thompson River Corridor Trail Attachment B : Detour Map and Description Legend • • - ,` ' ..,�� b •044--.,‘._• • t ierk#r h. �i t. .. rt . 4. r sfrQ Package A Rail Impact Footprint '- t• w ,,: #1‘,..0 Big Thompson River Trail ` . i' _ _ • 1„_. d t Big Thompson River Trail Detour j f �� r� �� f� i Park - r• - • ` 4, :4 .:_s• 7 r_. , - ,'. • :! Y •� , ilk a . I. . ►� .. , .�. ;Hil. DI, F ,,.7.1:;,..itjatii N ;44,. a ..w--� :frisseiwbal .c!ltilitihet,s_.):::::44EntataH,...... -a . �jLS/.y,� L -: ..,, 44:44,4;i4c_.: 2 Att. , _lircienli ::•- .r es_ t - • ." e� ' '1�.- :;:. e •- , .- L.r• ..,..• -at i : t _ t.4.0'.''...'.; 4it,it, i :: ..,tttly. 4-4..J plis:—...Abis title or 1 .. le --• 4 ••• t -- — •• ' .i:i •.V 4 �,rty1•.. ra ti't.r L .f•-► v^ - __ 4 V _.S._.)iii ff.s f / ' ,i. �� It. '� • III .,.. ,, , ` w JJ� .. . . It' ,\ • • ,i. .e cal* r . . :r- r 1 . i f f BARNI S t>✓` 4140.14. 4 Ills ~ � /i o 250 500 1 ,000 • , .1 ° Feet North _4 1 The detour will require trail users to follow 1St Street east, then south on Railroad Avenue to reconnect to the existing Big Thompson River Corridor Trail near Barnes Park. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. III Page D-512 NORTH 1-25 " • EIS 1, Letter of Concurrence, Big Thompson River Corridor Trail April 11, 2011 Mr. Gary Havener City of Loveland City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Commission 500 East Third Street Loveland, CO 80537 Ms. Carol Parr CDOT Project Manger CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO. 80631 Re: Letter of Concurrence, North 1-25 EIS and the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail • Dear Ms. Parr: Based on the provided information, the City of Loveland finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Loveland concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Big Thompson River Corridor Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: "Fri AL v6"re Date: 40141L /9 20n Signatur . ne,,,,",2ir • Page D-513 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ 7+ Region Four ,. •O` 1420 2n°Street anappru Greeley,CO 60631 Praia= IMP. -I IM I IIANfPORI A11O` (970)350-2146 (Fax)350-2198 May 13,2011 Ms. Amanda Peterson Director City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department P.O. Box 330061 Northglenn, CO 80233 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Effects to 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass Dear Ms. Peterson: • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 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. The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the I-25 corridor. A resource administered by the City of Northglenn has been determined to qualify for Section 4(f) protection as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 and would experience a use by project alternatives under consideration. The 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) because it is a publicly-owned recreation resource. By way of this letter, FHWA and CDOT are requesting written concurrence from the City of Northglenn, as the official with jurisdiction over the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass, that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f) (see below). • Page D-514 Ms.Peterson,Director 05/13/2011 • City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department Page 2 Background In 2005, Congress amended Title 49 USC 303, also known as Section 4(f), when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f) resource. 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. Section 4(0 Use Three build alternatives are being analyzed in the Final EIS; Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Although these alternatives may result in different uses of the property in question, for the purposes of receiving de minimis concurrence, the following discussion assumes selection of the alternative with the highest degree of use of the property. 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass Impacts Impacts to the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass involve replacing the existing box culvert beneath 1-25 with a new box culvert to accommodate the highway widening. The new box culvert would be approximately 50 feet longer than the existing box culvert. A temporary closure of the trail would be required during the replacement of the box culvert, and the trail tie- in to the new longer culvert would require minor realignment of the trail. Otherwise, construction activities would not modify or affect the trail. A potential detour would require trail users to take Huron Street north to 120th Avenue, then east across 1-25. By taking Community Center Drive south, users would reach the Farmers Highline Canal, to which the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass connects. The addition of 50 feet to this trail undercrossing by replacing it with a new box culvert would modify the visual experience of trail users; however, this slight change would not substantially • Page D-515 Ms. Peterson,Director 05/13/2011 City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department Page 3 • diminish the overall aesthetic quality of the trail. Trail users would continue to be afforded a facility similar in visual quality as exists presently. The function and purpose of the trail would be unchanged. Any other potential long-term disruption of the use and enjoyment of this resource associated with operation-related proximity impacts (i.e., noise, impaired aesthetic quality, restricted access, and/or ecological intrusion) would be avoided or minimized, and would, therefore, not substantially diminish the activities, features,or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). The use would not result in a change of functionality for the trail crossing. Because there would be no overall adverse effect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f), CDOT is recommending this use to be processed as a de minimis use of the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass. Measures to Minimize Harm As the project proceeds through final engineering and design, the measures to minimize harm to the 120th Transit Station Underpass will be re-examined and refined with the local officials having jurisdiction over the affected resource. Temporary uses of the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass would be mitigated by improving lighting. The following table includes other mitigation measures to which CDOT, FHWA, and FTA would adhere. Mitigation Measures • A detour will be in provided and in place prior to closure of the existing trail. • Advanced notice and signage will be in place for closure and detour. • • Trail crossings will be returned to existing or improved condition after construction. • A public safety and security program will be developed and implemented for affected areas with local officials, including access management, signage, and public information. • A traffic management plan will be developed and implemented with local officials for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • Coordinate with City of Northglenn regarding design features and size of opening. • Applicable regional and/or local design criteria will be included for bridges and the box culvert structures in construction specifications. Public Involvement Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. • Page D-516 Ms, Peterson,Director 05/13/201 I • City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department Page 4 Request for Concurrence CDOT requests the written concurrence from the City of Northglenn that effects of the project as described above, and considering the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(6)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the signature block at the end of this letter, or by separate letter from the City of Northglenn to the CDOT at the address shown above. Because impacts to the properties in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final EIS. FHWA and FTA are willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. Intent for De Minimis Finding Pending your concurrence, CDOT believes that the impacts to the I 20th Avenue Transit Station Underpass will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the trail. Based on this finding, and taking into consideration the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed and public input received, CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minimis impacts to the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under • Section 4(f) is not required. Sincerely, ad?CCS)C,t/V\ Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Monica Pavlik, FHWA Thor Gjelsteen, FHU Bob Quinlan, Jacobs File • Page D-517 Ms. Pcterson,Director 05/13/201 I City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department Page 5 • Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over the 120`h Avenue Transit Station Underpass, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(Q. By: Title: Tt1fcctbV of ?CY-KS Cveo 1tM CoStunii SennCes Date: 5124 f tt • • Page D-518 Ms. Peterson,Director 05/13/2011 • City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department Page 6 Attachment A: Use of 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass t4n�s' x 't4 s 7•S 1� —_ Package B&Preferred Altemat ve 1;t4;17:11•:‘ 1%2' d .. i 1----- 120th Station Underpasses ! a" f i ,°v sa 1 v 1, .,,X,‘,...•.,, K 4r xv•_'q • Package B Highway Footprint '.' °' 3 Y T tlt,p iM� Preferred AlternativeBndge 7 ''.4--;4,,,.i. 4 e .�'1. ,.a:, s 4r - i'i'ai s.,.saurAA` .1 � t tf /. t y, ,..j./..,,,,,,, .. r t v 47 Package B 8 a''''''"4 e- c F .'-v ^` ,/,,„' Praferretl Alternative <�- '* , .�s,{,'_'q�j @ 4 t • 790 tlnear feet �. E�..,;ta, to d ; «., {r-,.. { ,erg to ' • •iw •'. S 'R t ' w { ° ( s 4 t r� Yi1m lk 1 . btv4, 'vv .;.y ' �T r Y .,"C'Xc 4 n r �'r. I. rw T 'k� Hi• f / c - fd1 /" I ALA.* / +a G .1 yy ✓ 1,0,7.: ♦ v.hall �{ '� , 1d 1II ye y ,k ry ' YI 3r4-y, q/�k(S RAY f. 1 I 1 4 1Pk t .1,}31 M' .. 5 i, n _may p,. "j W. M•�i t*..r. P • A �L }� j�yyR` y „q i tiLY K 'r ,f .h 4 ' z . 4 d r E • v \, • 4 a rt s x xW� ' 1 / 9 �.. a� + _ Location Map �1;' x , y x4441. ..r x,. 0 300 e__1 it r r +fr I� I Feet North � 1 a-irs, > J:LTransportation\07160g.400LWV%V811_NI25 TO11\manage\corr\4(f)deminimis Concurrence Letters\4fdeminimisconcurrence_Northglenn_043011.dac • Page D-519 �`t City of Ile Thornton www.citvofthornton net February 17, 2011 Carol Parr, Project Manager Region Four Colorado Department of Transportation 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: North 1-25 Environmental Impace Statement— Effects to Civic Center Park Dear Ms. Parr: The City is in receipt of your letter dated January 20, 2011 addressed to Mike Soderberg, Executive Director of Community Services. This letter requests concurrence by the City that the project impacts to the Civic Center Park (to add one buffer-separated lane in each direction intended to be used as a shared bus rapid transit ("BRT")/tolled express lane on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36) were de minimis • in nature. The City believes that the North 1-25 EIS did not fully investigate the transportation needs of 1-25 from State Highway 7 south to US 36. The section of 1-25 from US 36 to 104th Avenue is the most congested (volume per lane) segment in the entire State of Colorado yet this does not appear to have been addressed in the North 1-25 EIS. The North 1-25 EIS focused on providing a BRT/tolled express lane through this area—which provides relief for the communities north of State Highway 7, but little access to communities south of State Highway 7. There is also an apparent lack of coordination between Region Four and Region Six as regards planned transportation improvements to the section of 1-25 from State Highway 7 south to US 36. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) 2035 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) shows widening of 1-25 north from US 36 to Thornton Parkway with the addition of two general purpose lanes but does not show the two BRT/tolled express lanes. The North 1-25 EIS shows the two BRT/tolled express lanes but does not show the two general purpose lanes. This oversight in coordinated planning for the section of 1-25 from State Highway 7 south to US 36 was recognized last year. CDOT Region 6 is currently in the process of hiring a consultant to conduct a Planning and Environmental Linkage ("PEL") Study on this segment of 1-25 to address this gap. It is our understanding that the PEL Study is anticipated to be completed by May 2012. • • Page D-520 Ms. Carol Parr, Project Manager • CDOT Region Four February 17, 2011 Page 2 Until the impacts of both the BRT/tolled express lanes and additional general purpose lanes are known, we cannot sign a letter indicating that the impacts of the North I-25 project is de minimis. The center piece of Civic Center Park is a lake and that lake is also a part of the City's water supply system. Therefore, we are very concerned about impacts to the park from an esthetic standpoint and a water quality standpoint. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me or Gene Putman, Thornton's Transportation Manager. Sincerely, Joyce Hunt Assistant City Manager cc: Mike Soderberg, Executive Director of Community Services Bud Elliot, Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Gene Putman, Tranportation Manager • • Page D-521 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ • Region Four re 1 OT 1420 2"Street Greeley,CO 80631 OIYARTMEN(1F TRANSPORTATION (970)350-2146 (Fax)350-2198 March 18, 2011 Mr. Jack Ethredge Thornton City Manager 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Re: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Effects to Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail Dear Mr. Ethredge: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in • cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. Niver Creek Open Space and the Coronado Parkway Trail, both administered by the City of Thornton, qualify for protection under Section 4(f) as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 because they are publicly-owned recreation resources. These resources would experience a use by project alternatives under consideration. The Coronado Parkway Trail is located within the Niver Creek Open Space however, because the trail also continues outside of the open space boundary and use of the trail would occur both inside and outside of this boundary, these resources are identified separately but discussed together for the purposes of the North I-25 EIS. By way of this letter, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT are requesting written concurrence from the City of Thornton, as the official with jurisdiction over the Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this property for protection under Section 4(f) (see below). • Page D-522 Background In 2005, Congress amended Title 49 USC 303, also known as Section 4(f), when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f) resource. 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. Section 4(1) Use Three build alternatives are being analyzed in the Final EIS; Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Although these alternatives may result in different uses of the property in question, for the purposes of receiving de minimis concurrence, the following discussion assumes selection of the alternative with the highest degree of use of the resource. Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail Impacts Proposed improvements to I-25 between E-470 and US 36 include the addition of one buffer- separated lane in each direction, for a total of six-general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. Express bus service would share the tolled express lanes. A Section 4(f) use would result from the replacement of the 88th Ave. bridge and the widened highway profile to accommodate the addition of the buffer-separated tolled lane. The combined improvements would use the southeastern edge of the open space and trail as it leaves the open space property, passes beneath 88th Ave. and then through an underpass which carries it to the east side of I-25. Total area of use within the open space would be approximately 2 acres. Total length of the trail that would be impacted would be approximately 940 linear feet. Although the Coronado Parkway Trail will be temporarily impacted during construction and rerouted onto an overpass none of the features or amenities would be impacted following the • temporary closure of the trail. A minor detour may be required that would send users of the Page D-523 Coronado Parkway Trail onto another trail located within the open space that would then allow the users to reach 88th Avenue. From here users could cross I-25 on 88`h Avenue or enter the Thornton park-n-Ride. The remainder of the open space would not be diminished in utility. The attributes that qualify Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail for Section 4(f) protection would not be adversely affected. Measures to Minimize Harm A separate alternative being examined would avoid use of this property entirely by offering no improvements in this segment of 1-25 and instead concentrating improvements on other transportation corridors located east or west of I-25. However, two alternatives being examined would result in impacts similar to those described above. The highway adjacent to Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail is in a physically constrained location with homes and businesses adjacent to northbound lanes. The median has been reduced as much as possible with a concrete barrier and minimum width shoulders. Because the area is tightly constrained, no measures to minimize harm could be identified at this location. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • • A detour will be in provided and in place prior to closure of the existing trail (see map). • Advanced notice and signage will be in place for closure and detour. • Trail crossings will be returned to existing or improved condition after construction. • CDOT will work with Adams County and City of Thornton to ensure advanced notice and signage for rerouting of trail. • Noise mitigation recommendations will be consistent with the commitments made in the Final EIS noise barrier analysis. • CDOT will reseed disturbed areas with native grasses. • CDOT will add native shrubs as appropriate. • Best Management Practices will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. Public Involvement Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. • Page D-524 • Request for Concurrence CDOT requests the written concurrence from the City of Thornton that effects of the project as described above, and considering the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(b)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the signature block at the end of this letter, or by separate letter from the City of Thornton to the CDOT at the address shown above. Because impacts to the park in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final ES. FHWA and FTA are willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. Intent for De Minimis Finding Pending your concurrence, CDOT believes that the impacts to Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the property. Based on this finding, and taking into consideration the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed and public input received, CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's and FTA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minimis impacts to Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail, and that an analysis of feasible • and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f) is not required. Sincerely, C uM Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Gene Putman Monica Pavlik, FHWA Thor Gjelsteen, FHU Bob Quinlan, Jacobs File • Page D-525 Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). By: Title: Date: • • Page D-526 Mr. Ethredge, City Manager 3/18/2011 City of Thornton Page 6 • Attachment A: Use of Niver Creek Open Space/Coronado Parkway Trail l Ft,END Potential Trail De9ots - am Trail Impacts • - r Coronado Parkway Trail - /Nit t' Mver Creels Open Space 4(f} impactsiMyer Creek Open Space ,'`' w ' w Q -,.... Package B Highway Footpr r -, 4 wt Me* Preferred Alternative Bridge • , , Me* • � T • ,. -- 06 t. - fir t 0. f mil. �.wu:IP I S A * t__:.. s •_ P. ��, i ! M ar ye^Ja, `_ . `n • _ •- ..*,, MPM • 1 A •r • • :- il, t a , _. _t Mt, oh ,IF v 1.in 4, 4 I., \ A `Ii : i j III S ' �'L . 4 r-1 I ' _t , , -, 1 ND ‘q* .a 1 - i � - li Coronado Pkwy Trail:, ,i4 " f-,,, 1 Package B & Preferred E -.3,,)\ I Alternative 94O linear feet , .,0,t. t ! • 1' kiTi: 41440 ii 'ii i Ina } • ta . .�ai iiiter: .. .. +��- �i 1 . , , t -i ... • . ,,,...„ . .. . ..., . . . . .. . F ti. li ' . . i ' - t . . - 01 lt i Niver Creek Open Space: . - ••_ . . a • - _ Package B & Preferred _ 1 i • i ;� • } Altematir e: 2 acres . , • ,• * , - _ - � , _ - t. } _• se r�,r f : f if, r - y2, : x }, ,--- , • .. . r.• t a 1 -t *A"' = ', -. - Location Map ►, h : . 1�11a _ �- II l< ,1 44 ; s ' I 0 600 I ( - - 11_____I Feet Y • 7----- --Av . . _ . t North . J:\_Transportation\071609.400LWVXV811_NI25 T011\manage\corr\4(f) deminimis Concurrence 0 Letters\4fdeminimisconcurrence Thornton 121410.doc Page D-527 �`� City of Ale Thornton www.citvof th ornton,og April 28, 2011 Carol Parr, Project Manager Region Four Colorado Department of Transportation 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement, Effects to Niver Creek Open Space/ Niver Creek Trail. Dear Ms. Parr: I received your letter requesting concurrence that the North 1-25 Improvements identified in the Final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will not adversely affect the Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail. The Niver Creek Trail would be temporarily rerouted during construction of the highway improvements and • replacement of the 88th Avenue bridge but would be restored after construction. Please note that your document refers to the trail in Thornton as the "Coronado Parkway Trail". The Coronado Parkway Trail is located in unincorporated Adams County east of Washington Street. Please make this correction in the EIS document. The City has reviewed the information you provided and has determined that the impacts to the Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail resulting from the transportation improvements shown in the preferred alternatives for the North 1-25 EIS are minor. The City concurs with the finding of De Minimis for the Niver Creek Open Space and Niver Creek Trail. If you have any questions, please contact Gene Putman, City of Thornton's Transportation Manager at 303-538-7333. cer %, ' ack Ethredge City Manager cc: Joyce Hunt, Assistant City Manager • • Gene Putman, Transportation Manager Mike Soderberg, Community Services Director Page D-528 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Westminster Wetland Mitigation Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: March 14, 2011 LOCATION: City of Westminster Office, Westminster, Colorado COOT: Carol Parr, Patrick Hickey ATTENDEES: Jacobs: Diane Yates, Jennifer Merer City of Westminster: Richard Dahl, Sarah Washburn PREPARER: JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Gina McAfee, Thor Gjelsteen, Bob Quinlan, Robert Rutherford, File • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Introductions were made and the agenda was reviewed. 2. Summary of the North 1-25 EIS Project Status. 3. Description of wetland impacts in or close to Westminster and potential wetland mitigation opportunities. ► Mapping of the North 1-25 EIS proposed wetland impacts and mitigation areas were shown. It was discussed that the opportunities for mitigation within CDOT ROW are limited and that the North 1-25 project would like to team with the City of Westminster to do a mitigation project that would benefit both the North 1-25 project and the City of Westminster. ► The proposed North 1-25 Project would impact 0.1 acre (approximately 5,000 sf)of wetlands at I- 25's crossing of Big Dry Creek. ► Potential mitigation areas need to be in the Big and Little Dry Creek water shed. ► The timing of the mitigation needs to occur before construction or at the time of construction. The Corps and EPA like doing mitigation early. 4. City of Westminster identified potential mitigation sites. Sarah is just starting to work on an open space Master Plan. Although it is not complete she said that she had a few sites in mind that could work for a joint mitigation project. Potential mitigation sites are: ► Big Dry Creek within the southwest quadrant of the Federal Blvd. (US 287) and West 120th Ave. (US 287 or SR 128 intersection). Big Dry Creek crosses under Federal Blvd and 120th • Ave by way of existing culverts (see Figure 1). Westminster would like to replace the culverts with one wider structure that would cross over the creek and recreation trail. This is a roadway Federal Highway Administration /Federal Transit Athninistration /Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-529 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Westminster Wetland Mitigation Coordination Meeting March 14, 2011 2 of 6 project being done by Community Development. This project will disturb wetlands providing an opportunity for wetland mitigation. ► Ranch Creek in the northeast quadrant of Federal Blvd. (US 287)and West 120th Ave. (US 287 or SR 128) intersection (see Figure 1). The City of Westminster has classified Ranch Creek to be in need of channel improvements, erosion control and trail improvements. This is a roadway project being done with a culvert by Community Development. This project will disturb wetlands providing an opportunity for wetland mitigation. ► Airport Creek at about 110`h. Westminster is planning on wetland improvements here. ► Lower Church Lake. The City of Westminster would like to improve the viability of the lake as an ecosystem. It is currently only 4'deep. The City of Westminster just recently purchased all undeveloped land surrounding the lake. The City of Westminster would like to dredge the lake to make it deeper and decrease the lake surface area thus improving wetland habitat quality. There have been discussions with CDOT to use the removed dirt as fill on the US 36 project. If federal money is involved this provides additional opportunity. Church Lake is connected to Big Dry Creek by way of Lower Church Lake Tributary and Walnut Creek. Church Lake is a regional detention facility that does not drain. The time line for this project is 2015 (see Figure 2). ► South Branch Highland Creek. Community Development is doing work in this area. Looking • at the plans it appears this waterway contributes to an irrigation canal and could have water rights issues. ► Quail Creek Trail. Public Works is planning storage for reclaimed water from a new water treatment plant south of Quail Creek(see Figure 3). South of Big Dry Creek a trail is proposed. This project is proposed for 2013. This site is closest to the North 1-25 impacted site. Mitigation would depend on the stability of the water source. ► Tanglewood Creek connection to Big Dry Creek. Community Development is planning to do channel capacity improvements. This project is south or Big dry Creek and immediately east and parallel to 1-25. The City of Westminster is not sure on timing for this project. It is#10 on a list of capital improvement projects. ► Little Dry Creek. A RTD commuter rail and TOD station is proposed at this location and provides an opportunity for wetland development south of the station (see Figure 4). 5. Next Steps ► Rich asked how CDOT envisions the maintenance of this project. Westminster has had a past experience where they were responsible for establishing the wetland. This became a very expensive endeavor for the City. Carol Parr used St. Vrain State Park as an example where CDOT was responsible for funding the wetland mitigation project. For this project Carol could envision CDOT monitoring their portion for performance standards. Once established the wetlands will become Westminster's property and would be under Section 404 jurisdiction. • Page D-530 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Westminster Wetland Mitigation Coordination Meeting March 14, 2011 3 of 6 A letter of intent or memorandum of agreement (MOA)would be required to show that CDOT and the City of Westminster intend to work together sometime in the future to construct wetland mitigation for North 1-25 impacts. Carol stated that FHWA is now requiring an MOA and that a letter of intent is no longer acceptable. Jacobs requested that the City of Westminster provide a description for each project listed above with a description of the city's project with new wetland area, time line for project design and construction, and whether they are locally or federally funded. Rich and Sarah will provide the North 1-25 design team with a contact for each project not under the parks Dept.jurisdiction. MEETING FOLLOW-UP Sara Washburn sent a email on March 15, 2011 to report that Westminster's public works, community development and parks departments met and discussed the potential mitigation projects presented at this meeting. It was the consensus of the three departments to offer the following three projects for CDOT's participation to provide wetland mitigation for North 1-25 impacts along Big Dry Creek: 1. Lower Church lake • 2. 120th & Federal, SW corner 3. 120`" & Federal, E of Federal at Ranch Creek. The contact for all three projects for the purpose of moving this discussion forward will be Dave Loseman, Senior Projects Engineer, Department of Community Development. NOTE: Figures 1-4 show the project locates on excerpts of City of Westminster 2007 Storm Drainage Study Erosion Impacts map. • Page D-531 NORTH 1-25a; EIS0 MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. R9vre 40k III 111 10 4 V911 wn, r. y! I, afr • , ' .t T • O.• rr • i L , .Thl lb . 1. 6 � la " Tee , 1 �ZE�-,��t As: e_ ' , ... . 4111 .. 11 / " M • - 74 s • 1 : wa ' • � M 40. Cs Atno- - - . . f Q _ . , . - rep/et a ca /vr• -f 5 Itihia. ant sai i ell sm./ c "u- t_ ill Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-532 NORTH 125 0 EIS will- - MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Westminster Wetland Mitigation Coordination Meeting March 14, 2011 5of6 eee I :iii to.: i *.‘ript - ^Zeck. • e iff 061� � � • 't� 1':;♦ , i 3i jp • .4 ita.� T I • L__ fir ' It �, .,ir 4 . , ..... . . i _ esact..vaiss. .0k r le ii f. • • . iid- • ••1 i SO . 01 • di . 1 •, -[SSA+ 4.. • .,! .. . ill •'T,ti� p Oillie IIIII".III A il 14 • • • • • • • • • • ails . . .��ya, saw . „3/4, • • • • • • • • • • ••• • •• Lower =. . •••10 . . • _ • •0 ... . . • :: Church • . , . . . . -. .• _ Labe43/4 ;' IP • : Ai • •-1 t`• • • ♦ a. T • \ 41006,, isli .4 k Am se awl, S.• 44 4144aa •Daaie .. --rom--- rebvta. . . ... ..... ! 4' . ..' :1.., •I-4."•iMI•71••••• _. , I• • .., • t 111 -4 .- . • • • kit • e.:-,,a7 .,. s.,;. . + A, .... . 4,4 ..\: ,. . srt . •., • ...., a• • t :leipl , t. • •.Y of .r, i ' • . • r• ! •• . •- .y • . ;.� 1 tP • 40, 40 • • 41/ •:•::' I • r 4 \\T .-50.14,11, _ - -• tK-•• r ' •1 11_ • ♦ •`• • • • •'•.•• gillb • ♦ • •• • •••• C! 27. ‘i •• • • •, • • • . c �_sy.• - • �1t • . . • . • • •1 .. -d 1 .. .. •-' ••.••••• •-••• • tallf I II .L , • Page D-533 inal. .. NORTH 1-25 EIS0 MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Westminster Wetland Mitigation Coordination Meeting March 14. 2011 6of6 Four , 77 s_Ah' " .400 ta .3 pri-"VV41; ir * " -= ereede 1414 kgAafr �' 4 r s it. 17 . )11005.1"4 V A�ts, 11 OA rtirtEE heLk) walY r 1 0 it t ilit. '• 4, I sN It $ • . AL Fil to) are 'f i R ~ u- •.1 ` . r' -Y : jr 4 :1 . rue 'I Ii• i 4 1s - - . r i. '• III r i � ..„ '„`,:D, : ,- -_ ` l /nip rd vent,r19-5 C� ' ` Ni.' _IN.i 0 - w w/ ll VL 4. jxt r1--- o-7 /VW 46chbvi a 7 -4 • I • • d •1�.�.... a _ • . e - , . . y Niel-s06ljobsl_Transportation1071609.400'L_WVXV811_N125 TO11\managelmtgslminutes\Westminster Wetland MTG 031411.doc0 Page D-534 • NORTH 1-25 EIS rornrat'cn coope tion. +rdnspc—tat Jn. April 15, 2011 Mr. Richard Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 West 92nd Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80013 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement: Big Dry Creek Trail & Farmers Highline Canal Trail Dear Mr. Dahl: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of • Transportation (CDOT), are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 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. The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. A Preferred Alternative has been identified for this project that includes highway improvements consisting of highway widening, tolled express lanes, and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements include commuter rail and commuter bus. See Attachment A for a figure displaying the Preferred Alternative. Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)Act of 1966, as amended, and codified in 49 United States Code (USC) § 303, declares that"(I)t is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites." On April 11, 2008, the USDOT put in effect a final rule for FHWA and FTA that established procedures under Section 4(f) for determining when use has a de minimis impact, updated the regulations to recognize exceptions to use, and moved the regulation to 24 CFR 774. Two trails administered by the City of Westminster have been determined to qualify for Section 4(f) protection and would experience a use, or impact, by project alternatives under consideration. The Farmers Highline Canal Trail and the Big Dry Creek Trail both qualify for protection under Section 4(f) because they are publicly-owned recreation resources. • Page D-535 NORTH EIS • ES Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail As you may recall, you received a letter dated February 20, 2008 regarding this project and impacts to the Big Dry Creek Trail. This letter serves as a follow-up to that one in order to satisfy two separate requirements: 1. This is an amendment to the February 20, 2008 letter seeking concurrence for a "temporary occupancy" exception under Section 4(f) for the impacts to the Big Dry Creek Trail that would occur under the Preferred Alternative. 2. CDOT would also like to request your concurrence that the project will not adversely affect activities, features, and attributes that qualify Farmers Highline Canal for protection under Section 4(f) and therefore would qualify as a de minimis use under Section 4(f). Big Dry Creek Temporary Occupancy Concurrence The February 2008 letter requested your concurrence that the improvements associated with Package B would not adversely affect the Big Dry Creek Trail, and, therefore, could be classified as a "temporary occupancy"(see below). You provided concurrence dated February 29, 2008 (see Attachment B). A Preferred Alternative has been identified for this project that would impact the Big Dry Creek Trail in a similar manner as Package B as described below: Improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpass to accommodate additional • traffic lanes on I-25. Construction impacts may be mitigated in one of the following two ways: 1. A temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 2. A three-sided trail enclosure, which would protect trail users from overhead construction. CDOT is asking that you concur that the improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect the Big Dry Creek Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy". To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions and CDOT's plan to meet them (in italics), are outlined below: Condition (i) - Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land. The trail closure and/or enclosure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. The estimated time for this trail closure will be less than the time needed for construction of the highway widening improvements planned in this area. Condition (ii) - Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. • Page D-536 • NORTH 1-25 EIS Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail The Preferred Alternative calls for the construction of additional lanes on 1-25. To accommodate this construction, the existing underpass at Big Dry Creek Trail requires lengthening. This will not affect the existing trail alignment. Condition (iii) - There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will either provide an enclosure, or in the case of a trail closure, detours with signage, for the duration of the trail closure. The map and narrative description in Attachment C provide the proposed detour route. This detour does not interfere with the activities or purpose of the resource Condition (iv) -The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthening of the • underpasses, the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. The trail will be fully restored. Condition (v) - There must be documented agreement of the appropriate federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. CDOT requests the written concurrence from the City of Westminster that improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect the Big Dry Creek Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined above. Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the attached letter regarding the Big Dry Creek Trail, or by separate letter from the City of Westminster to the CDOT at the address shown above. Farmers Hiqhline Canal Trail De Minimis Concurrence In addition, CDOT is requesting written concurrence from the City of Westminster that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the Farmers Highline Canal Trail for protection under Section 4(f) and can therefore be recommended as a de minimis use as defined below. In 2005, Congress amended Section 4(f), adding a new subsection which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of • Page D-537 • NORTH 1-25 S • EIS Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f) resource. 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 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. Impacts to the Farmers Highline Canal Trail would result from the addition of the general- purpose lane and auxiliary lanes on the west side of 1-25. This widened highway profile would require an extension of the underpass that currently carries the trail beneath 1-25. A small right- • of-way acquisition (0.16 acre on west side and 0.47 acre on east side) would be required for the bridge that would accommodate the wider highway template over the Farmers Highline Canal and Trail. The extended underpass would be approximately 87 feet longer than the existing underpass. During construction the Farmers Highline Canal Trail would need to be closed temporarily. A detour has been identified that would require users to take Community Center Drive which crosses 1-25 on an overpass with wide sidewalks suitable for bicycles (see Attachment C). Following construction the trail would be reopened. The attributes that qualify the Farmers Highline Canal Trail for Section 4(f) protection would not be adversely affected. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will identify the alternate route and adequately sign the detour prior to closing the underpass. • CDOT will work with the City of Westminster on appropriate landscaping in disturbed areas surrounding the trail. • Applicable regional and/or local design criteria will be included for the proposed structure. Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of • Page D-538 • NORTH 1-25 EIS • Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. CDOT requests the written concurrence from the City of Westminster that effects of the project as described above, and considering the mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(b)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the attached letter, or by separate letter from the City of Westminster to the CDOT at the address on the concurrence letter. Because impacts to the properties in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final EIS. FHWA is willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. Pending your concurrence, CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minimis impacts to the Farmers Highline Canal Trail, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f) is not required. • Should you, or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information or impacts to either of the identified resources, please contact Carol Parr, CDOT Project Manager, at (970) 350-2170, or Carol.ParrADOT.STATE.CO.US. Sincerely, Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Project File Robert Quinlan Thor Gjelsteen • Page D-539 Noah l EI1-25 • S Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment A: Preferred Alternative, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND Tnl ]C.v-cs Lanus Exres:Cr.Tr:o;SID, ,1 I w•a. '6Gn51NCI maIRl10. t•c•rrect go•m..trio - 4.m-.•ll P.-p.•n L'nes C.m-''• Bus Transit Sl n;n / J • and Ex:- +e-. I I replac ayin• C.mm no,.air.rant.tart ,er 1 inB structure eat Ccmmol.•Bt: * Carr‘t. Lois Y 0 Cx1 er als R-n ; C2 Iv i..,RaoOpe.m-n • _ , — - - us am Tracn 8 Ma 'wan a Fac.;y n i ° ..0 -- FortC r$ &Ma ten au,nce opc.al la Coll IS _ p I M es Feeder GusS ,.rte 8Ab.9enence tat 'y MM 4Sr Q ii it, tree;,: ,sl.. r..i F...'ack.R10Lne , �" •.,.,n.. uun� kw Numb:it IL -n FasTa ks/RIO Trunse CM ' • _ * .. w.•.••� To al E), s "4I CD-;.f— Y-- Greeley 'r,_. TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS _ -)t _ _ o.re:Las Commuter Rail Express Bus n - TxaMfri BKi YA I • �Tc'9 1 11 . .nn."W war,I a,>..rahw�l n.., 041.1. 'SNa.ta°Ua"a Pay I , •. • 19•19i¢a , u. a0 i i rn.Yw,nwaur I Longmont 1 51. �um na°sYm.ran i (0n i saam,ex I wee. .r:u a.'�'':I /e jL� �t ...r... es vw I N woventlaY (^ble SS I}')e•�..n a -•, c° S ' . B+.;tl YappaPin I`see ereYV J .,.n„ r:r., Boulder .w T.,$) .: ,, t', Commuter Bus `44'4^441 ' Y _ r °I0Ya1q•us ass O St 1 •s a ...4.,./. Cr? Pitint MWe-Mem rat �,j"A On',"r,�tla',I ! #, �'p ry u�'Cesm•Men 42,4 St`-•a at-as aalalai , f • �,✓ `" Cr..., Fat? aeS eel sts Na...,\.. y ••rte ce rite 01115 �'„}C�SL$ I Con MaW suNwr f L.. '�rlllal r. .a .��a.�, I 1 ae. flat.- la w I L tan' i 1 �'�,.`--' • Page D-540 • NORTH 1-25 [IS Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment B: 2008 Letter of Concurrence NORTI 1 I-25 FL :.r 2,2J„el f L,h"l,:hl P- k. R ;.,.":on.,,rJ L.br_:e. 18e'' Cd.£2i 1 A inu.. e.1r. , :r.:O BCO'1 fy?Ja..;h nic Pr. ..:t:Arn 4_0's C.•,..r Burin - .0, 17"'flr..:',S..':: 00 Derv,r,CO 80"2 • Re':Le.,,'r o.`Cm.;w'.n : t-mt:.J_, IS r_!.:_.P:, Dry Crv,T. A D .r Ms. A.,IL n,h, .'r.U on'h>e¢.:IJeo'ti:r l.0.Clv of cr stm',she .1s",it IP•r 1.-a f Irmlttsry ay.Jr mil •c be en s. :'.d,•J.T.1_s,the Cty f'X. :1r nn'.r concurs v:Ith the I,,..�-�nry on nude t::', ,na'on for A'-L,_i Dry Creen T; in n JeN la the N eI.I.:5 Dr...rl r.vin m,nt Imp'ict Sl.L.m,.nl. - mote:: • Page D-541 NORTH ES • ES Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment C: Big Dry Creek Trail Detour Map and Description fi Leaend . . , F i Bey Dry Geek Trall De{our s ;. - e&g Dry Geek Trail $ ''Z o Package 6&PA Footprint 4 i 311. :. > ,.'. -,,13.th Ave t 1 r n• A' h' V r1; 1 j fi.A` : ltd ►i ( , . `6,. . ..-,,,,h, : N 7i � y fix „a J.tl♦ ( . - �,, 4 V iiAtlr ,. • ( c..,1/414 r 1 r x 7•,• w f � d t Vs 1- ft,t� c ,ir c�"� rt 1 i „i# ' ./." t > N.,,*.t. c K,..r > r'. 7w. 'c E4 f{�: { �' A. x; � � 1' jry 1 '.7.''.d. t. Aan a e ' " ' ,,.» 1, y :rvN 'r 1 i •r I2N 1I. 0 375 750 1500 / d. , h. Feet Norm . 1 , IQd 4. . ' The detour will require trail users to follow Huron St north to 136th Ave which crosses 1-25 on an overpass and meets the Big Dry Creek Trail near Washington St. Both Huron and 136th Ave have wide sidewalks suitable for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • Page D-542 Ill NORTH 1-25 EIS Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment D: Farmers Highline Canal Trail Impacts and Detour .... ,. .v..¢:rww B.k.', $.1,,fa. •,c_. Ail .4.1 si at,,..t c•-:• Legend rrr rmCz J J I3��syr% f-. +�' --,. f ) FarageadPAFuutpnm Pte." b a \A �14t: R 041* A1ditionaI RONRegdirerl ".4�(�. • 1i Farmers Highline Cana Trail (I, t ! ' . ..Farmers Higrllne Canal Trail Detour ly1 T"'.'r I ' ;,'af+,/ -rx, . it{ppi {lea I ( : 1-'4 's IJ' l6,11,-.:11"::::-.061•1111,• , t n"�" 4 °t.�/ ♦�x t , ___ 1 % � Malleypr ..Lt i f'I 0 -rr y . � Y at '.j t r r '"' '_ { S ' � 1.- .�, k 1 rr y ''k 3 ,..o >t • j • • 4 L �" �w) ''" ::14;.., � r t iy. L ' • -nisi .• i t-'r, .,h e:t. ar 7 C 1 4^ 441 ... el ' t ant,,,.. .',-ya« NW ' '.V Yr �"� , tiro s .- -, '' �' Y t•. r� -'.14 .' t `Y y r f . e` r 1 i r !52. ''./ 't r^' b 1,/..\1 e I ' . • A 0; H{. N N �Vsa L=am 0 250 5➢0 1.000 ♦. 3 4�l >r 1 '' Feet North i r ♦ p .a.g The detour will require trail users to follow Melody Dr north to Community Center Dr which crosses I-25 on an overpass. Users would then take Malley Dr to meet back up with the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. Community Center Dr. has wide sidewalks suitable for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • Page D-543 NORTH 1-25 • EIS Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail April 15, 2011 Richard Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 West 92nd Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80031 Ms. Carol Parr CDOT Project Manger CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO. 80631 Re: Letter of Concurrence, North I-25 EIS: Farmers Highline Canal Trail Dear Ms. Parr • As the official with jurisdiction over the Farmers Highline Canal Trail, I hereby concur with the recommendations of CDOT that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features,/ and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f).s,Printed Name: t... lC6tn-IN ,N, -K 1-- Date: S- ^ .d (I Signature(' a_„ CIL - 4 Title: 10- _ jT, • Page D-544 NORTH I-25 • EIS Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail, Farmers Highline Canal Trail April 15, 2011 Richard Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 West 92nd Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80031 Ms. Carol Parr CDOT Project Manger CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO. 80631 • Re: Letter of Concurrence, North 1-25 EIS: Big Dry Creek Trail Dear Ms. Parr Based on the provided information, the City of Westminster finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy for the Preferred Alternative have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Westminster concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Big Dry Creek Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: 'CFFH IE AAH Date: O-- c " 2 0 (I Signature: _p� ` GJIJ Title: e (�, �UL i -¢-•- At. • Page D-545 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ • Region Four ribI OT 1420 2o°Street Greeley,CO 80631 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (970)350-2146 (Fax)350-2198 January 20, 2011 Mr. Jeremy Olinger Director Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department 100 10th St. Berthoud, CO 80513 Re: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Effects to Little Thompson Corridor Open Space Dear Mr. Olinger: • The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. A property administered by the Town of Berthoud has been determined to qualify for Section 4(f)protection as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 and would experience a use by project alternatives under consideration. The Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space qualifies for protection under Section 4(f)because it is a publicly-owned recreation area. By way of this letter, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT are requesting written concurrence from the Town of Berthoud, as the official with jurisdiction over The Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space, that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this property for protection under Section 4(f) (see below). • Page D-546 Mr. Olinger, Director 1/20/2011 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department Page 2 • Background In 2005, Congress amended Title 49 USC 303, also known as Section 4(f), when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f) resource. 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 41 project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource. Section 4(t) Use Three build alternatives are being analyzed in the Final EIS; Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Although these alternatives may result in different uses of the property in question, for the purposes of receiving de minimis concurrence, the following discussion assumes selection of the alternative with the highest degree of use of the property. Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space Impacts Uses at this location would result from the addition of the general-purpose lane and auxiliary lane on the west side of I-25, as well as the transition of the southbound ramp at the newly configured SH 56 interchange. A portion of the trail along Little Thompson River would be located under the new bridge; however, trail access would be maintained. Current access to the recreation area would be removed and replaced with a new access from the south, ending at a cul-de-sac at the recreation area. The new right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp, and the new access would require 2.04 acres of land from the open space property adjacent to the west side of the highway. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the recreation area would not be diminished in utility. The attributes that qualify the Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space for Section 4(f) protection are not adversely affected. • Page D-547 Mr. Olinger, Director 1/20/2011 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department Page 3 • West side property access would be maintained, except for the northwest park road connection to the service road. This connection would be severed, but access would still be available to the south. East side property access would be modified so that recreationists would use the new service road. The result of these changes would be a minor indirect impact to access to the property. Measures to Minimize Harm Design modifications proposed under the Preferred Alternative would reduce the acreage of use to this property by a small amount but could not avoid it entirely. However, if an alternative other than the Preferred Alternative were selected, the impacts described may be realized. The trail following the Little Thompson River extends for several miles perpendicular to the highway at this location. There are also several wetlands located on either side of I-25. Shifting to the east to avoid impacts to wetlands and the trail on the west would also have impacted wetlands and trails; therefore, no additional measures to minimize harm could be identified. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will develop the new access before the existing access is closed. Alternate routes will be identified and adequate detour signing will be provided. • CDOT will work with Berthoud to reseed disturbed with native grasses. • CDOT will add native shrubs as appropriate. Public Involvement • Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. Request for Concurrence CDOT requests the written concurrence from the Town of Berthoud that effects of the project as described above, and considering the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(b)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the signature block at the end of this letter, or by separate letter from the Town of Berthoud to the CDOT at the address shown above. Because impacts to the properties in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final EIS. FHWA and FTA are willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. • Page D-548 Mr.Olinger,Director 1/20'2011 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department Page 4 • Intent for De Minimis Finding Pending your concurrence, CDOT believes that the impacts to the Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the opcn space. Based on this finding, and taking into consideration the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed and public input received, CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's and FTA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minim's impacts to the Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f) is not required. Sincerely, C Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Monica Pavlik,FHWA Thor Gjelstecn, FHU Bob Quinlan, Jacobs File • • Page D-549 Mr.Olinger,Director 1/20/2011 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department Page 5 • Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over the Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). By: Title: —� .,,._ �. _:• +r �Ta.f Date: 3/O • • Page D-550 Mr. Olinger, Director 1/20/2011 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department Page 6 111 Attachment A: Use of Little Thompson River Corridor Open Space M Little Thompson River Corridor Impacts I -r - lib- _ - vii +areqe` 11 .v; i fk f K., l .. -ifizto ,,. a , r-- l ,�^ Al y . p UT7LE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR ,1 , o 'this(' c ! II , _ 1, , , _ ak as .-it „c.c. ,1 iii ' Not UTYLE THOMPSON RIVER RR1OO1 ' New , . , Access 1, .may 11 • - l w t' r." I Y ' 4. tr: t Sr-, , Y � , E - ifLocation Map 1 *, . I. = ‘i ir -- tabs 0 ?00 � tk •,,,, t _dia. . 6s=1 Feet North of J:LTransportation\071609.400\_WVXV811_ NI25 TO11\manage\corr\4(f) deminimis Concurrence 0 Letters\4fdeminimisconcurrence_Berthoud_-121310.doc Page D-551 NORTH 1-25 ` EIS • information cooperation transportation. April 11, 2011 Mr. Bill Bodkins Public Works Director Town of Wellington P.O. Box 127 Wellington, Colorado 80549 Re: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Box Elder Creek Trail Dear Mr. Bodkins: As you may recall, you received a letter dated January 31, 2008 (see Attachment A) notifying you that the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation • improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. That letter outlined the improvements being considered, the purpose and need for the project, a description of the two multi-modal build alternatives being evaluated (Package A and Package B), and anticipated impacts to the Box Elder Creek Trail as a result of Package A and Package B. The letter requested your concurrence that the improvements associated with Package A and Package B would not adversely affect the Box Elder Creek Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965. You provided concurrence dated February 1, 2008. This letter serves as an amendment to the January 31, 2008 letter. A Preferred Alternative has been identified for this project that contains elements of both Package A and Package B. The Preferred Alternative includes highway improvements consisting of highway widening, tolled express lanes, and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements include commuter rail and commuter bus (see Attachment B). Impacts to Box Elder Creek Trail as a result of the Preferred Alternative are the same as those for Package B, and are described below: • Page D-552 1.^r x ` NORTH 1-25 ) ," US Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpass as part of the effort to replace aging infrastructure along Interstate 25, necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that the improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect the Box Elder Creek Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 774), which protects parks and recreational properties (including trails) and sets out certain requirements if the trail is to be temporarily impacted. To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions and CDOT's efforts to meet them (in italics), are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land. The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. The estimated time for this trail closure • will be less than the time needed for construction of the highway widening improvements planned in this area. Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. The Preferred Alternative calls for safety improvements, including the lengthening of the Interstate underpass of Box Elder Creek Trail. This will not affect the existing trail alignment. Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will provide detours, with signage, for the duration of the trail closure. The map and narrative description in Attachment C provide the proposed detour route. This detour does not interfere with the activities or purpose of the resource. Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a • condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. Page D-553 NORTH 1-25 EIS mires CUl7Jealtb Ira ns)crt3lIDn Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthening of the underpass, the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. The trail will be fully restored. Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. If you concur that improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect the Box Elder Creek Trail, and, therefore, can be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f), please sign and date the attached letter and return to me. Should you, or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information, please contact Carol Parr, CDOT Project Manager, at (970) 350-2170, or Carol.ParrDOT.STATE.CO.US. • Sincerely, CSuM Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Project File Robert Quinlan Thor Gjelsteen • Page D-554 NORTH 1-25 gig EIS IIIinformation cooperation transportation Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment B : Preferred Alternative, North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement r LEGEND • Reconstruct mainline a Toiled Express Lanes Express Bus Transit Station 111•"i^• to correct geometric General Purpose Lanes Commuter Bus Transit Station 0 deficiencies and replace aging Express Bus � Commuter Rail Transit Station •uk ,. ,: infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 CRt Commuter Rail ® Commuter Rail Operational • to • x°" 8 Maintenance Facility - Passing Track Fort • CR2 6/2 • Commuter Bus Operational Coll s 85 Feeder Bus Service 8 Maintenance Facility ti CR r• „Ale, •1 OS� 0 Interchange Reconstruction .. , -- FasTracks Rail Line 351 ••1• ee. Number of Lanes O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station •t 'i I t General Purpose/ Tolled Express • Lov •_ �"' FR Rt CR4 • • 6; 2 ) me i CR5 • • K .•• - Greeley ca TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS ♦ •"""CityGo Ran Express Bus LARtMER 2a ra twos • ♦ - CR 50 C83 La tarifa Cal Coes Dolt _ c : South Eon Cdkns Transit • Qsit t - BNSF artd Center tb 28l and •1? le St. Harmony Rd u riwttr.. � Cr' Mg- BNSF between f Timberline Harmony Rd. I . on o fn Untsersity Ave.and W.II and Ti nbertine St I i East Fort Coins - 1-25 and 0 South Fort Collins Transit Marmon,/Rd 612 Caner •US 287 and E Windsor - l-25 and SH 3g2 xHomy Rd. R u WELD CR4 North Lobes",Lobes",rLobes",-NSF t Crour0ldt Mtd. 7 •• $6 + CBI and -C P17 IIS 9/ CR�. OeMaAswn Loiiwria Longmont F, West Wt rid approximately SH 257 Gray• US 31 and • • 1.9 si CF Bernioite BNSF and E Greek, - US 34 and Bard 3i RB SH56 Ave. BOULDER __ /orn ate C i tl.unman -W [` C e Center Downtown Tandy t t9 7 Oct Center- 8th Pat and mg 1.-- 52 - t:.. U Longman n• �MS. [' Berthoud - 1.25 and l ,2 12 • Fr Freon - 1.25 and e:' • Dana C1it Erie - 1.25atdCR8 sH t,9 an. ""' O - flacks844SUM9.nim , EP Fredendi/Dacnno • 1.25 = oulder 6/2 F and Sri 52 119 •' Er* 1 25 and CR 8 �• Commuter Bus Broomfield • t•25 and Ski 7 ` 7 _ir• ` CSI GLelia tr oiMey• US 85 and 0 SrSt py� �� gut Aw �i CFi7 South Greeley - 8m Ave and Corridor 24t St • Corridor Au 4 wnowrMN �• r �� • L • > Preservation CB'+ Evans - US 85 and 42nd St • ' ..» CR4 Ptattevle•US 85 and Grand 117 • . Ave. /72 lot Mast CBS Felt taglon•US 85 and •' • North pastcorridor - Manep.,t t CR t4.S 12Crridor A�°`t`� • si t2t v�•_ / < Camases ar • 72nd and • cabrado Aull •��V JEFFERE %SIMI . ":111 11.1 V 70 o 2 4 e a ■I i en er ei-- _bat North f .t r v. . - Th\ 0 Page D-555 Noin'i-1 1-25 "I EIS information cooperation. transportation III Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment C : Detour Map and Description LEGEND i • . 1 Package A Proposed Row 1 i CD Package B Pro _ . : I L I XC a_ Posed RdW i i I . (4 `,fit 'N.. Existing Trail • r '"G,. Proposed Trail - ��Proposed Trail Detourii ►}' ` • . Box Elder Creek Trail _ ;.mot mil.- c a. • . I b a. 'j -Ti^ \ice• 'l7! wi'. �.4:5 sk:, Olt I. tot 'i t.< ) . 17 . . / ►. la } I y , . . , III A 1 I. pI • 1 tiiti t riqtit I1 If II -I - 1 0 Pi r'^ E00 1.600 ` lit i I � I Feet ,, a. . �_. I . This detour will require trail users to take GW Bush Avenue west, then proceed south on the eastern frontage road to CR 58, west on CR 58 to the western frontage road , and then proceed north to Box Elder Creek Trail. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. III Page D-556 NORTH 1-25 .' • EIS Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail April 11, 2011 Mr. Bill Bodkins Public Works Director Town of Wellington 3735 Cleveland Avenue Wellington, Colorado 80549 Ms. Carol Parr CDOT Project Manger CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO. 80631 Re: Letter of Concurrence, North 1-25 EIS and the Box Elder Creek Trail • Dear Ms. Parr Based on the provided information, the Town of Wellington finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy for the Preferred Alternative have been satisfied. Thus, the Town of Wellington concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Box Elder Creek Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: � BOCPKt vS Date: y^l3 —i( Signatuf • Page D-557 MPo AecuO1) —t-F Pe) NORTH 1-25 ' a EIS `ry • MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE: April 30, 2009 LOCATION: North Front Range MPO CDOT: Carol Parr,Ayman Salloum ATTENDEES: NFRMPO: Suzette Mallette Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Chris Primus FHU: Holly Buck PREPARER: JACOBS Gina McAfee Attendees, Gayl Harrison, Tom Anzia, Monica Pavlik, C&B File COPIES: #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Gina described what we will be needing from the NFRMPO: a conformity run of Phase 1 plus a conformity run of the entire Preferred Alternative. 2. Suzette indicated that the conformity that is done now is joint between NFRMPO and DRCOG. 3. DRCOG does amendments twice a year—and redoes conformity at the same time. 4. APCD does the model runs. 5. NFRMPO and DRCOG will need to both do model runs. This August is the next run. 6. September would be when we need to provide the network data to the NFRMPO and DRCOG: for the final conformity decision to be made in January. 7. If the Preferred Alternative includes a transit component, it will be tricky because neither the NFRMPO model nor the DRCOG model will handle external transit trips. 8. The biggest question is how will a conformity run for post 2035, with no additional population and employment past 2035, paint a true picture of conformity? Will a specific out year be assumed? • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-558 NORTH I--2S • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. NFRMPO Conformity Needs April 30, 2009 2 of 2 9. Suzette suggests that Erik Sabina, Chris, and she get together. She also thinks it makes sense to alert the AQCC that this is coming. There is also a technical group with APCD and EPA that discusses issues like this. 10. Suzette will talk to Erik to also find out how the Valley Highway EIS addressed the conformity runs for the entire Preferred Alternative. 11. Travel patterns that Boulder County is identifying shows a growing origin from Weld and Larimer Counties to Boulder County. The NFRMPO is planning with Boulder County to look at regional transit plans. 12. As it relates to the TAC and RCC process, Suzette feels that each table should have an appointed facilitator. The voting could be used just to see how the group is feeling. It might be interesting also to hear from each jurisdiction. We also can set a fiscal constraint target. 13. Carol has asked Myron to help predict what could reasonably be expected for a fiscal • constraint past 2035. Holly will check with Myron on this and suggest he check in with Lizzie, too. 1'.` Mansnortatior-0' D 1:1r, r�.=v o �.. Ny �i,n.FRt1PO F lS Co�r� y Ne=n=04.Ors, • Page D-559 Mfg E _ , AonEa,Nnnta riS PLAci NORTH 1-.4,5 • �45; EIS MEETING MINUTES informalien cooperation transportation PLAN AMENDMENTS AND CONFORMITY MEETING MEETING DATE: October 22,2009 LOCATION: DRCOG offices ATTENDEES: DRCOG: Shahida Mirza,Steve Cook,Fred Sandal,Steve Rudy, Erik Sabina CDOT: Carol Parr,Long Nguyen,Ayman Salloum,Angie Drumm, Lizzie Kemp,Jill Shlaefer,Gail Hoffman,Jordan Ruedel, Karen Schneiders Jacobs: Chris Primus, Gina McAfee FRU: Holly Buck NFRMPO: Suzette Mallette PREPARER: Gina McAfee JACOBS COPIES: Attendees,Monica Pavlik,Brad Beckham, Myron Hora,Tom Anzia,Jacobs • File#WVXV8110 PURPOSE: Discuss plan amendments and conformity for the North I-25 EIS. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Provide design details for the 84th interchange to DRCOG. (Tom Anzia) 2. Contact High Performance Toll Group. (Holly Buck) 3. Contact Steve Cook regarding funding and cost details for SH 66 to CR 34. (Myron Hora) 4. Provide guidance related to SB1. (Gail Hoffman) 5. Provide park-n-ride details to Steve Cook. (Holly Buck) 6. Confirm approach to timing of Plan Amendment plus use of joint model with FHWA. (Carol Parr) DISCUSSION: I. Steve Cook introduced the meeting—to discuss what the preferred alternative is and when the plan amendment is needed,and what is needed for a conformity determination for Phase I and the emissions analysis for the entire Preferred Alternative. 2. Lizzie confirmed this will be a phased ROD. 3. Holly described Phase I and the Preferred Alternative. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-560 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES cooperation. transpor?ation_ Plan Amendments And Conformity Meeting October 22, 2009 2 of 2 4. We need to provide design details to DRCOG for the 84i° Avenue interchange as currently identified in Phase I. 5. There is no money in the 2035 plan for the three miles of tolled express lanes to 120th. At the next amendment cycle, there will be even less money than now. If this cannot be amended in, it cannot be in Phase I of the North 1-25 EIS. Steve Rudy is pessimistic about its chances of being added. 6. Lizzie suggests we get together with the High Performance Toll Group to see if there is any revenue that could be available. 7. The four miles from SH66 to CR-34 was in the Upper Front Range Vision Plan, This cost would have been in the Region 4 allocation. DRCOG will need to get details on funding and cost assumptions from Myron Hora before this can be assumed. 8. Service assumptions for the express bus will not need to be modeled by DRCOG and not included in an amendment. FREX set a precedent for this type of service. • 9. The allocation of the 10 percent transit from Senate Bill One has been not allowed by CDOT. Maybe DTD (Gail Hoffman)needs to give us some guidance on allocating this 10 percent. 10. DRCOG will need detail on our park-n-rides to include in an amendment, in coordination with RTD. 11. DRCOG's schedule is to do one 2035 plan update between April and December 2010/January 2011. Another option is August, for an amendment to the 2035 plan. 12. The Preferred Alternative analysis will need to be done by fall 2010. 13. A December 2010 deadline for a Plan Amendment would work as long as FHWA and FTA are ok with a Phase I conformity determination not being done until the ROD. (Assuming the FEIS release date occurs before December 2010). 14. Steve Rudy doesn't think that changing the designation of GP lanes to HOT lanes, as long as the Adams County contingent is supportive,is necessarily a political issue. The County hearing process in the summer is a good time for the Adams County,Thornton and Broomfield representatives to push for this. 15. Since we need to do the Preferred Alternative model process first,we should set up the protocol soon. It is the opinion of this group that for the FEIS analysis of the Preferred Alternative,an emissions analysis using the joint models should be sufficient for the conformity"demonstration", rather than using the DRCOG and the NFRMPO separate models and the full air quality conformity determination modeling. We should check with FHWA to make sure this is okay, as well as Dale Wells from APCD. • Page D-561 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES , , ,; ; . cooperator „tdr p,la. on. MEETING DATE: November 11, 2009 LOCATION: DRCOG COOT: Myron Flora ATTENDEES: DRCOG: Steve Cook, Fred Sandal FHU: Holly Buck Jacobs: Gina McAfee PREPARER: JACOBS Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Carol Parr, Long Nguyen, Monica Pavlik, Suzette Mallette, Lizzie Kemp, Chris Primus, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Jacobs File MEETING SUMMARY 4111 1. This meeting is a follow-up to the DRCOG meeting where there were questions about Myron's funding assumptions. 2. Myron described how he came up with his assumptions for projected funding—all the way out to 2075 (see attached). The CDOT Region 4 resource allocation was maintained. A Plan Amendment is planned for$50M (from NFR resource allocation to be spent in the NFR area). 3. Steve Cook asked about the Region 4 total: $593M. NFR would get $162M and DRCOG would get$188M. 4. Steve went over Steve Rudy's assumptions. Myron needs to clarify what Steve Rudy assumed for post 7th Pot. He and Steve will work together to finalize the assumptions. 5. Gina clarified that we need to have this information sooner rather than later so we can model Phase 1 for the FEIS. Steve thought we just needed to model the Preferred Alternative. Gina described the Phase 1 analysis we need to have in the Phasing Chapter of the FEIS. 6. The 50/50 split for 1-25 and 1-76 seems reasonable. 7. Steve said there is some language restricting funds available for park-in-rides. Myron thinks the $3.9M (< 1%) is reasonable to expect that it could be available. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-562 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES • i'matic l c ope adan 1r nspir,atior:. North 1-25 EIS Funding November 11, 2009 2 of 2 8. The next cycle is an update cycle. The costs will need to be updated. Some may go up, although recent bid information has been dramatically lower. Each Region will be asked to update costs (January to March). No noticeable changes in revenue forecasting are anticipated, although there may be increases in YOE. DRCOG will be taking a more rigorous look at maintenance dollars. 9. The FHWA cost validation process requires YOE estimates, so we need to have a good idea of what year we will be building. The assumption in the RTP now for widening to Thornton is 2035. 10. Gina asked about the CMAQ "rapid transit"funding. Steve indicated that for the portions of our corridor where we have express bus in HOT lanes plus queue jumps or other physical improvements to support the express bus, we might be able to assume CMAQ "rapid transit"funding. 11. Holly indicated that the design team is looking at the $164M to see if we can get that to stretch beyond Thornton Parkway(maybe to 104th Avenue). We should make sure we • don't have the signs and equipment in the cost estimate because the toll revenue will cover that. We will also look at assumptions for contingencies, etc. used for US 36 because they went dramatically down after the CDOT/FHWA cost validation process. 12. It might make sense to also recognize "system quality" credit. J:LTransportation\071609.400LWvxV8110_NI25 TOI0\manage\mtgs\minutes\DRCOG_EIS funding mt mins_I11109.doc • Page D-563 1'i Po Cooab.ua ,o,4 * NORTH 1-25 t 1. �'"EIS 4 •' REVISED MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. 2035 Plan Discussion MEETING DATE: August 18, 2010 LOCATION: DRCOG, Wolf Creek Pass Conference Room DRCOG: Fred Sandal, Steve Cook ATTENDEES: CDOT: Lizzie Kemp Herrera, Myron Hora, Carol Parr, Karen Schneider Jacobs: Gina McAfee FHU: Holly Buck PREPARER: JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Tom Anzia, Chris Primus, Jacobs File MEETING SUMMARY • 1. Fred kicked the meeting off. We need to discuss the North 1-25 phasing information for the DRCOG RTP. 2. The fiscally constrained networks went before the DRCOG Board in June. 3. Fred wonders if it is okay to use what the Board approved even though the project description doesn't include TELs. DRCOG can't put TELs in the fiscally constrained plan until we submit the 1148 report. 4. The Vision table can reflect what we have in the EIS. 5. The next amendment cycle is the early part of 2011—in January. We could submit the 1148 report at the same time. We should submit an adjustment to what is in Appendix 4 of the FC RTP. Fred suggests that any adjustments to the costs—per the CER—be submitted at this time also. 6. This plan (for submitting an amendment) should be okay from a NEPA standpoint. 7. In the Vision Plan language, what would be more accurate is to change the limits of"adding two tolled express lanes"from SH 7 to WCR 38. We should then remove the final line. (See attached mark-up.) • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-564 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. 2035 Plan Discussion August 18, 2010 2 of 2 8. The current 2035 plan budgets $183 million to projects in the 1-25 corridor north of US 36. North 1-25 has estimated a cost of approximately $140 million to implement TELs to 120th Avenue and $18 million to a transit station at SH 7. Lizzie stated that the EIS cannot allocate the $43 million, beyond the improvements on 1-25, to other projects in the corridor. This money will be prioritized by Region 6, possibly through the upcoming 1-25 PEL study or to other projects in the region. 9. The amendment will have to address both the change from general purpose lanes to TELs and the extension from Thornton Parkway to 120th as directed by the Executive Oversight Committee. 10. A park-and-ride is included in DRCOG's fiscally constrained plan at SH 7 but the plan does not explicitly identify funding for park-and-ride projects. Steve Cook was unsure if this was accurate or not. Either way, it cannot be included in the Region 6 allocation. The team agreed that they needed to look at other possible revenue sources for the SH 7 Express Bus station. This could be future FASTER money, or FTA funds. Myron will look again at available funds. • 11. Lizzie wonders how this fits with Thornton's recent request to Region 6 for some short-term park-in-Ride needs along 1-25. 12. Another option could be assuming FTA grants funding for a SH 7 park-n Ride. This could be done as a part of a SH 7 interchange reconstruction. 13. Fred is going to look into the history of a SH 7 RTD park-in-Ride. 14. We should plan to get in front of the HPTE in October. 15. Holly will put together a schedule for all of these deliverables. J:\_Transportation\071609.400' W XV811_NI25 TO11\manage\mtgs\minutes\2035 plan discussion mins 081810_rev083010.doc • Page D-565 • Daft August E.2313 North (-25 Roadway Elements in 2035-S MVRTP Update Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP Roadway Capital Improvements(Appendix 4) Project Location/Neme Descn trop Total RTP Cost l -t^ r F (FY OW Compielion Stage .L✓1 TC..- 1-25: US-36 to Thornton Nary Add two 1�pue) tgene '� $183,500.000 2025-2035 purpos1-75 SH 66 to WCR 38 Add two through 5e)lanes lganetal 585,000,000 2025-2035 1-25:5E1 7 Interchange Reconstruction Interchange Reconstruction 3 '�'000 2015-201g (local foods) 2035 MVRTP'Vision"Roadway Improvements(DRCOG database entry) • Project Location/Name Description Vision Cost Est (FY 08$) I-25. Thornton Pkwy 1c SH-7 Add two tolled express lanes 8699.281,000 % 1')". I-25 SH 7 to cif 00 Add two tolled express lanes 373.000,000 S ` 1.25: US-36 lo Thornton Pkwy Convert two general purpose lanes to toiled express lanes I-25 SH 66 to WCR 38 Convert two general purpose lanes to tolled express lanes t- (' `obi' 'May be proposed as future amendments to the Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP:requires DRCOG (mac 1 U i review of feasibility study,per HB 05-1148 -c-ce/V' S (p(p - L C n 3 E, d,,5701n IV UMwre Orr TM115 Opeolol Yr • Page D-566 Colorado Tolling Enterprise (CTE) Additional Information Requirements for Amendment Submittals for the DRCOG Fscally Constrained RTP CTE amendment submittals will include all the items currently required to be provided to support roadway amendment requests for the Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP. C.R.S. 43-4-805.5 (pursuant to RB05-1148) requires that five categories be addressed in CTE Plan submittals to Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Those items are: operation, technology, project feasibility, project financing and any other federally required information. The additional information that would be submitted by ffitgiCDOT to DRCOG to address these categories is as follows: 1. Operation - all items listed under information requested and process to support roadway amendment requests for the Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP will be addressed. 2. Technology - DRCOG will assume that the system will require no stopping to pay cash (using transponders and/or tag readers) and will be interoperable with E-470, 1-25 and NW Parkway unless stated otherwise in the plan amendment submittal. • 3. Project Feasibility - • Summarize technical feasibility including the context for the project and the implementation opportunities and constraints at a planning level of information • Provide planning level information for facility usage 4. Project Financing - the following will be provided: • Capital costs for the project with major components and key assumptions including inflation and contingencies • Operation and maintenance add-ons- costs that are in addition to normal CDOT O&M - and inflation assumptions • Financial assumptions including non-traditional financing sources and innovative financing • Relationship to a system. if applicable • Identification of public sector financial responsibility if revenue is not sufficient to meet annual costs after toll facility is built and operating • i Page D-567 Colorado Tolling Enterprise (CTE) Additional Information Requirements for Amendment Submittals for the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained RIP 5. Any other federally required information • None at the plan amendment submittal O CDOT will also provide the following: 6. Other Information — • A summary of the environmental examinations and other studies completed to date and those anticipated in the future with key milestones and timeline. • A commitment to follow CDOT environmental stewardship guide during project development including the identification of impacts and mitigation measures. • A summary of consu Cation with local governments and other MPOs/TPRs completed to date, with issues and resolution; a plan for • future additional consultation with local governments and other MPOs/TPRs during project development; and the relationship of the project lo local transportation plans. • Assistance to DRCOG staff with response to public comment as needed. • 3 Page D-568 NORTH I-25 EIS AGENDAinformation cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group November 9, 2010 1. Welcome and Introductions • Status of Project • Meeting Purpose 2. Project Background • Overview of Combined Model • Description of Preferred Alternative • Preferred Alternative 2035 Ridership Results • 3. Updates to DRCOG/RTD Regional Model 4. Task Accomplishment Process 5. Potential Effect on Preferred Alternative Ridership • Effect of Land Use • Effect of Model Parameter Changes 6. Additional Information Needed 7. Next Meeting November 23, 3:00 J:\_Transportation\071609.400\_WVXV811_NI25 TO11\manage\mtgs\agenda\TFWG mtg agenda_November 9 2010.doc • Page D-569 NORTH I--2S • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting MEETING DATE: November 9, 2010 LOCATION: Jacobs Office Mt. Evans A& B conference rooms CDOT: Carol Parr, Long Nguyen, Juan Robles Clarion Associates: Darcie White DRCOG: Erik Sabina, Suzanne Childress ATTENDEES: FHWA : Eric Pihl FHU: Holly Buck, Elliot Sulsky Jacobs: Chris Primus, Keith Borsheim Northern Range MPO: Arvilla Kirchhoff RTD: Jeet Desai, Lee Cryer PREPARER: JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Tom Anzia, Thor Gjelsteen, Bob Quinlan, File • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Chris Primus did the welcome, background and purpose of meeting. ► Introductions. ► The EIS project is in the first stages of completing the FEIS document. ► This group's task is to identify a range of likely ridership numbers for the Preferred Alternative based on recent changes made by DRCOG to the model. 2. Project Background ► Chris described the structure of the combined model. ► Keith described the elements of the Preferred Alternative, transit service plan and 2035 ridership estimates made for FEIS. Service at SH 7 is very good. Frequency is at about 10 minutes during the peak. ► RTD plans to extend 120 and 120X north to SH 7 to a new park and ride. This is in addition to the North Metro service. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-570 • NORTH 1-25 �# EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November 09, 2010 2 of 5 ► Jeet did a previous analysis that showed that the north metro rail and express bus do not compete with each other. They serve different markets. ► A previous stop was included at Wagon Road but found that this did not meet the projects purpose and need. ► FHWA asked where there is direct competition? Chris said overlapping market in south area primarily. ► SH 7 has highest activity. ► This project assumes tolled express lanes all the way. RTD's estimates do not include this project therefore ridership is not as high. 3. Updates to DRCOG/RTD Regional Model • ► Jeet presented updates to the model and impacts to FasTracks lines. ► Model was recently updated from compass 3 to compass 4. This could result in 20 percent increases on rail corridor ridership. Compass 4 reflects latest work by DRCOG and new survey data. ► Jeet showed previous model results and new model results. North Metro 2035 ridership changed from 13,000 to 24, 000. Northwest went from 8,400 to 17,400 per day. ► Key factors for change include: i) Land Use ii) Model Code iii) Horizon Year iv) Highway Network ► Land use—the urban area became more dense than normal area. Urban area has more employment and households. Control total the same— less in rural area. ► Model —these changes included recalibration of VMT, trip generation rates, value of time and other key factors. Many changes were based on a recent transit on-board study conducted by RTD. This model results in higher rail ridership. • ► Horizon Year and Highway Network— updated from 2030 to 2035. Page D-571 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November 09, 2010 3 of 5 ► Sensitivity analysis—changed one parameter at a time to determine how much of the change is attributable to each parameter. i) Land use —changes resulted in 9 percent increase in transit ridership. 7 percent increase in vehicle hours of delayed and person hours of delay. Erik provided insights about changes to land use. A lot of shifts and changes to urban centers. These have been included now to reflect the communities' latest plans. Urban centers tend to be around rail lines. No increases in size of urban area. This resulted in higher density. Southwest Weld County was not previously in model. Previously, regional economists decided the allocation of growth to Southwest Weld. Now it competes with other zones in the DRCOG land use allocation model. This has resulted in somewhat less employment growth in the Southwest Weld area. ii) Highway Changes —2 percent increases in freeway miles and 9 percent in toll lanes. Hi) Compass 3 versus Compass 4— more trips occurring in region. 9 percent increase • in rail boarding's. On-board survey indicated that a higher portion of trips are not work trips but school trips, and other trips. This has resulted in less CBD activity on the Mall Shuttle. iv) Horizon year— increased population 9 to 11 percent. 60 percent increase in vehicle hours of delay and person hours delay. This resulted in 16 percent increase in transit trips. ► Overall story—these various factors compound changes in model results. It is important to understand models are always changing due to incorporation of new information and other improvements. But periodically the numbers need to be 'locked' in to enable planning processes to move forward. ► FHWA asked Jeet what his take was on the change in horizon year. Lane miles do not grow adequately to support growth. This results in high increases in delay and shifts to rail transit. 4. Process ► Arvilla said the new bus route between Fort Collins and Longmont has good initial ridership numbers; but she didn't know if these are mostly long trips or short trips. ► Recent NFR household survey had similar results to previous survey. • Page D-572 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November 09, 2010 4 of 5 ► No real comparisons have been made between NFR & DRCOG survey results. Land use policy has changed in DRCOG. Has NFR policy changed as well? No but, Arvilla will compare new land use model to previous model ► How much was walk versus drive access at US 34 and SH 257? ► DRCOG has noted that some of their northern communities have recently become more proactive in TOD at urban center planning, as opposed to the southern communities where TOD supportive policies have already been established. It is possible that the NFR area will also "catch up" in this regard. ► However, Arvilla and Darcie agreed that the land use changes would be muted in northern Colorado. They have more area to work with and are less constrained than metro area. ► Elliot suggested that this same logic could be applied to beyond the 2035 planning • horizon. 5. Data needs ► Specific rail ridership increases would be useful —ask Jeet for Northwest Rail statistics. ► FTA developed ARRF — independent forecasting. Sketch model for commuter rail. Chris will check into this to see the level of effect required. ► Peer systems and their ridership characteristics. — Have these been examined? Chris said an earlier review had been conducted but it could be updated to include Commuter Rail in Salt Lake and New Mexico. ► Data from HH surveys could verify number of people traveling between northern Colorado and Denver. DRCOG will see if a simple analysis is possible. ► DRCOG also conducting supplemental long-distance travel survey, but is not yet available. Erik will look and see what might be available for next meeting. 6. Process ► Chris described the Delphi technique that could be used for this process. ► After some discussion, it was agreed a modified approach would be appropriate. ► Chris will work with consultant team to develop a range for each of the modes, for • presentation and review and evaluation by the group at the next meeting. Page D-573 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November 09, 2010 5 of 5 7. Next Meeting ► Chris reminded the group that the next meeting is November 23, 2010 at 3:00. SLTransportation\071609.400Lw ws11_N125 TO11\manage\mtgs\minutes\TFWG_MTG_110910.doc • • Page D-574 NORTH 1-25 EIS AGENDAinformation cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group November 23, 2010 1. Welcome • Meeting Purpose 2. New Information 3. Potential Effect on Preferred Alternative Ridership • Effect of Land Use • Effect of Model Parameter Changes 4. Conclusions • J:\ \ Transportation TO11\managemtgs\agenda\TFWG mtg agenda_November 23 20_10.doc • Page D-575 w .de.t NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting MEETING DATE: November 23, 2010 LOCATION: Jacobs Office Mt. Evans B conference room Clarion Associates: Darcie White DRCOG: Suzanne Childress FHWA : Eric Pihl ATTENDEES: FHU: Elliot Sulsky FTA Larry Squires Jacobs: Chris Primus, Keith Borsheim RTD: Lee Cryer PREPARER: JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Tom Anzia, Thor Gjelsteen, Carol Parr, Long Nguyen, Bob Quinlan, File • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Chris Primus did the welcome and purpose of meeting. ► Introductions. ► Chris reminded the group that the task at hand is to identify a range of likely ridership numbers for the Preferred Alternative based on recent changes made by DRCOG to the model. Today, based on the plan outlined at the prior meeting, an estimate will be developed. 2. New Information ► At the prior meeting, there were some calls to gather additional information; these were presented and discussed: ► Keith reported that RTD had supplied more detailed corridor and route sensitivity model run results, as had been requested. These will be presented during the next agenda item of this meeting. ► Darcie reported that she had conferred with Arvilla Kirchhoff of NFRMPO. Arvilla could not make it to today's meeting. But as promised at the last meeting, Arvilla did • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-576 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November 23, 2010 2 of 4 investigate the NFRMPO new land use model that they will be using to develop an updated 2035 socio-economic dataset. In contrast to the description of future land use patterns in the NFRMPO area suggested at the last meeting, Arvilla found that their new model allocates development more towards city centers than the current model. The rural non-platted areas are not as attractive as they had been. This is based on interviews with their member communities. This will have the overall effect of slightly denser city centers, and slightly less development near 1-25, than the prior 2035 projections. This is more in-kind with the overall urbanization and densification modifications that DRCOG made to its 2035 socio-economic dataset. ► Jacobs investigated the FTA ARRF model. It is a sketch planning tool. It requires data analysis using GIS of population and employment analysis, and analysis of CTPP data. The model itself is a spreadsheet model. It was initially developed in 2006, which is after the North 1-25 EIS had begun its analysis. The ARRF was updated in 2009. Application for this project at this point in time is not possible due to the project resources and schedule that are available. However, it was pointed out that it was • developed for areas without a locally calibrated mode choice model that have brand new proposed commuter rail lines. A full local model, such as has been used for the North 1-25 EIS, is a superior planning tool. The ARRF would have been useful at the earliest stages of this project. ► Suzanne reported that new DRCOG survey data is not ready at this time. The new roadside survey has not yet been conducted. The household survey results are still being processed to develop weighting factors and finalized analysis, and so are not ready at this time. Chris said that these data are not necessary; but it would have been nice to have a new data source of trips between the regions to supplement and confirm the survey results that were used for the North 1-25 Combined model (the 1997 DRCOG roadside survey, the 2000 NFRMPO household survey, and the 2000 CTPP). ► Keith distributed a table showing peer commuter rail systems. There are many commuter rail systems across the country, but those that serve western cities are summarized for comparison to this project's commuter rail system. Jacobs and Clarion had compiled a detailed report of commuter rail systems at an earlier stage of this project. Keith updated the reported ridership numbers from APTA for the systems, and added two brand new systems. Only some summary statistics are presented today. It was noted that there are many differences between commuter rail systems, including service levels, the presence of competing bus service, build —out of the service area, extension versus complete line, and many others. However despite these dissimilarities, after review by the group, it was agreed that the general magnitude of projected ridership results for the North 1-25 commuter rail line seemed to fall in the same line as the peer commuter rail systems in the western states. • Page D-577 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November23, 2010 3 of 4 3. Potential Effect on Ridership ► Keith distributed and described a worksheet that the consultant team developed for review by the working group. The sensitivity results of RTD's on these changes are provided as a reference in the worksheet. The current results by station are factored up by percentages to reflect changes to 1) land use, and 2) by station. ► It was requested that the key factors for change be described again: i) Land Use (1) The urban area became more dense than normal area. Urban area has more employment and households. Control totals the same— less in rural area. ii) Model Code (Compass 3 revised to Compass 4) (1) These changes included recalibration of VMT to 2007 traffic counts, trip • generation rates, value of time, trip length adjustments, k-factors, and other factors. Many changes were based on a recent transit on-board study conducted by RTD that found more non-CBD non-work trips on transit than before. ► The group reviewed and discussed each category of percentage change, by change type, by mode, and by geographic area. The consultant team populated the worksheet with initial proposed percent increases by category. It was clarified that the percents are assumed percentages, not revealed. It was noted that these are soft averages of the information from RTD. After discussion, it was agreed that soft averages convey the imprecision of the data and process. i) It was suggested that a 25% increase due to the model code for commuter rail in the northern area would be more appropriate, to not exaggerate the observed effect of Northwest Rail. ii) The 15% percent change due to land use changes for express bus at South Transit Center were discussed at length; but agreement came to that 15% is appropriate. Hi) It was suggested that the average effect on the Regional transit mode observed in the RTD sensitivity model runs would be more appropriate than the regional transit averages, which were suggested as defaults. Lee said this would be easy to obtain and would send to be used. iv) The suggested percent change for other categories were reviewed and accepted. • Page D-578 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Forecast Working Group Meeting November 23, 2010 4 of 4 ► Chris said that this process and result would be documented in a white paper, which would become an appendix to a technical report in the FEIS. A short summary paragraph would be prepared and placed into the appropriate section(s) of the FEIS. It was suggested that the paragraph and report clarify that there are other uncertainties associated with the ridership forecasts, besides those which have been focused on for this process. It was agreed that the write-up would include language to this effect. ► It was agreed that the group's effort should be termed an expert panel, as opposed to a Delphi method. • J:\.Transportation\071609.400LWVXV811_NI25 TO11\manage\mtgs\minutes\TFWG_MTG_112310.doc • Page D-579 NORTH I-25 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Weld County Commissioner Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008 1. How the stimulus package will affect this project? 2. What are the available funds for the construction of the 1-25 EIS improvements? How is the I-25/SH 392 interchange project fit in with this project? What are the funding sources for this project? 3. The Board questioned on the time frame of the construction. • • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-580 NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Larimer County Work Session December 8, 2008 1. I provided a summary of what FHWA/FTA and CDOT were looking for in the way of comments to the commissioners and Larimer County Natural Resource committee. 2. The commissioners asked what type of comments we had received thus far. 3. Additionally, how much had the study cost so far and how much more funding did we need. 4. The Larimer County natural resource committee had read the document and would be spending the next two hours going over recommendations to the commissioners. 5. Sometime after this a resolution or recommendation would be provided to • CDOT. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-581 NORTH 1-25 ` • EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Greeley Citizen Transportation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008 1. Majority of staff supports most of the components in Package A, specifically commuter rail on US 85. 2. Has the 1-25 EIS project team considered the commuter rail along US 85? 3. How many proposed commuter bus stations in Greeley and the locations? 4. The Board has concerns on the operation of the commuter bus due to increasing in traffic volume and traffic signals on US 85? Queue jump and transit signal enhancement that are included on US 85 was explained to the Board. • 5. The Board questioned on the time frame of the construction for the 1-25 EIS improvements. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-582 4 . NORTH 1-25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Loveland City Council Meeting December 9, 2008 1. Discussions took place that Package A seemed to be the City's preferred. However, the City would probably support both packages. 2. If we did not have rail down 125 then how would that support the development around Centerra. • • Federal Highway Administration a Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-583 NORTH I--25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Town of Frederick Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2008 1. The Board had a question on the commuter rail alignment between Longmont and North Metro Corridor. Why does the alignment on the west side of 1-25 (alignment S)? 2. The Board mentioned that SH 119 between l-25/SH 119 interchange and County line Road needs to be improved due to increasing in traffic volume. 3. Dick Leffler, Town Engineer, asked for the transit travel time comparison. 4. The Board had a question on the Level-of-Service for the TEL vs. GPL • • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-584 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information cooperation. transportation. Town of Berthoud Council Meeting Minutes January 6, 2009 1. The Council has provided a resolution to CDOT and would like to have an updated presentation. 2. The Council again expressed their preference and comments on Package A. 3. The Board questioned on the time frame of the construction for the 1-25 EIS improvements. 4. How the stimulus package will affect this project? • 5. What are the numbers for transit ridership (both commuter rail and bus)? • Federal Highway Administration II Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-585 NORTH 1-25 Tuesday, February 10, 2009 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Fort Collins City Hall MEETING LOCATION: 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 PREPARED BY: Tom Anzia (FHU) and Kathleen Brack (Fort Collins) ATTENDEES: Tom Anzia Mark Jackson Kathleen Bracke SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Mark Jackson introduced the attendees to the Mayor and City Council. Kathleen Bracke provided a brief project summary complimenting the packet of information that was previously provided by CDOT and submitted to the council members prior to the work session. A copy of the slides used by Kathleen is attached. She did not use all of the slides in her presentation in the interests of time. The following is a summary of City Council comments received by staff and the CDOT's consultant project manager for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Mayor Doug Hutchinson • Good information to discuss and North 1-25 EIS process should address social, environmental, economic needs in addition to transportation needs. • • Transportation needs to include moving people and commerce—goods & services. • Need to consider how the findings in the North I-25 EIS tie to the High Speed Rail Study Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson • Natural Resources staff comments are very important and need to be addressed in Final EIS document, in particular: o Commuter Rail fence disruptive to wildlife movement. o Mapping needs to be improved to be more accurate for locations of natural areas, water features, drainage ways, and floodplain areas. o Concern regarding impacts to wildlife habitat areas, large cottonwood trees, and Threatened & Endangered species. o McKee Farm land may be restricted from impacts due to GoCo agreement and/or other agreements with funding partners. o Concerns regarding water quality and stormwater contaminants. • Question: What assurance in any alternatives that these comments are addressed? and How serious does CDOT take Fort Collins comments? o Tom A. response: The CDOT 1-25 EIS project team are responding to all comments received on the draft document and take these comments very seriously. They will be doing more detailed analysis as part of the current work effort as well as during the preparation for the Final EIS document. • Need to view data regarding the number of commuters that leave Fort Collins daily in context, compare our numbers to the numbers leaving our neighboring communities. Fort Collins' numbers are much lower. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page D-586 MEETING MINUTES NORTH 1-25 Agency Small Group—City of Fort Collins 1;�; Tuesday, February 10, 2009 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Councilmember Ben Manvel • Described process and discussions from recent CDOT workshops. • Requested input from fellow Councilmembers so that he and staff can best represent the City Council at the upcoming CDOT workshops. • Described various workshop discussions about alternatives. • Hearing a lot of enthusiasm for Package A Commuter Rail service from many communities because it serves the existing, largest population centers and people like the idea of using rail service. • Starting to hear conflicts arise between communities east of 1-25 vs. west of I-25. • Concerns about current land use patterns and population centers compared with future growth areas. • The average trip length on 1-25 is less than three miles, so the highway is being used for local trips, rather than the regional and inter-regional trips that it is intended for. Cities need to address future improvements to other local north/south arterials to serve the shorter distance trips to provide alternative routes to 1-25. • More insight on rail alternatives needs to be examined and EIS needs to coordinate with other rail studies. Councilmember Lisa Poppaw • Support Councilmember Manvel's comments. Councilmember David Roy • Why does the North I-25 EIS not show Commuter Rail service between Greeley and Denver? o Tom A. response: Frequency of freight train traffic is very high; Potential ridership • projections didn't warrant rail service and the proposed Commuter Bus service is able to handle future ridership projections for less cost. • Core to Core connection is very important to serve population centers. • Move away from status quo highway planning. We need to plan for sustainable, long-term solutions to connect our communities in the future. Not like the T-Rex example that only provided 46 seconds of travel time savings after millions of dollars in investment. • Consider environmental impacts, social mobility for all people, and growth impacts. Councilmember Wade Troxell • How does Commuter Rail alternative handle existing freight rail traffic? o Tom A: Collaborative work with BNSF. Can cohabitate with freight rail with the passenger rail service. • Commuter rail could potentially change nature of Fort Collins to become a bedroom community to Denver. Need to consider the number of people commuting out of Fort Collins to other parts of the region. Staff will continue to work with CDOT as the North I-25 EIS process continues this year and will provide additional updates to Council at key milestones. Staff will also continue outreach efforts to City Boards & Commissions and with the community. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation 2 Page D-587 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Page D-588 Hello