The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112399.tiff NORTH I-25 EIS iiiik. „.„ orth _ information • cooperation . transportati . 25 III 8 Envronent & 4 i li 8 Ci . .. __ • Statefflent . A.... .leftNtr . _Wir .. '- a t� • ,1 r, r:• __ - ax / t _ } •AIL- -. iy, i I . • .. 1.•,,sap, al's • - 1 , lam. _'4 a_ . . 1; -- • r f Y, - f ' ' 1 N ' •y .off' • .. �. � . 4.._,. 1 it - �' ,rii .i p.-___,......� ,+ • • ' U.'s" f.? - .. - .. Ift, \el l _ A.. 4_ r• 1� I I I + . �`. 11•„;N:40 f, S _ r I I + 4 • h _ . ' . wd 4),Irmisi•. `4., •41P- a A I r" .-:1 1.w... S .a' r eA.a.•.' a' '•- ' 4�_ t!..+Svi-. ALTERNATIVES •• �S_-_. . 'a.tii' i. „_J_• ,If y o! _ =l"+i'r� . t !S'_aT .,� dh t ' vaJ'y'7 :Atlt j w�:_r '_w!� :1>��„.,r, +• - i " , :, i��r, r.t,,... . , .., .a...A --•1 J- . j i S DEVELOPMENT ,„,:. . . . ....... ..,, .._ „ se. .. and SCREENING . r..,�„ter. DOT ..... REPORT U.S. Deportment of Tron:portat;on 2011 -2399 Highway ëbFederal Administration Auqust • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Alternatives Development and Screening Report Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 Prepared by: • Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 In association with Jacobs August 2011 FHU Reference No. 03-225/04-120 /05-071 /07-190 / 09-124 • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS • information cooperation transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Alternatives Development 1-1 1.2 Alternatives Screening 1-3 2.0 LEVEL ONE 2-1 2.1 Level One Alternatives Development 2-1 2.1.1 No-Action 2-3 2.1.2 Highway 2-3 2.1.3 Modifying Existing Facilities 2-3 2.1.4 Transit 2-5 2.1.5 Congestion Management 2-6 2.2 Level One Screening 2-8 2.2.1 Highway 2-14 2.2.2 Transit 2-14 2.2.3 Congestion Management 2-15 2.3 Level One Lessons Learned 2-15 2.3.1 Highway 2-15 • 2.3.2 Transit 2-15 2.3.3 Congestion Management 2-15 3.0 LEVEL TWO 3-1 3.1 Level Two Alternatives Development 3-1 3.1.1 No-Action 3-1 3.1.2 Build Alternatives - Highway 3-1 3.1.3 Build Alternatives—Transit 3-9 3.1.4 Build Alternatives - Congestion Management 3-15 3.2 Level 2A Screening — Build Alternatives 3-16 3.2.1 Highway Criteria 3-16 3.2.2 Highway Screening 3-19 3.2.3 Transit Criteria 3-27 3.2.4 Transit Screening 3-27 3.2.5 Congestion Management Criteria 3-34 3.3 Level 2B Alternatives Development 3-38 3.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3-38 3.3.2 Build Alternatives— Highway 3-39 3.3.3 Build Alternatives —Transit 3-41 3.4 Level 26 Screening 3-43 3.4.1 Highway 3-43 3.4.2 Transit 3-47 • Table of Contents Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 3.5 Level Two Lessons Learned 3-48 3.5.1 Highway Lessons Learned 3-62 3.5.2 Transit Lessons Learned 3-62 3.5.3 Congestion Management 3-63 4.0 LEVEL THREE 4-1 4.1 Alternatives Development 4-1 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative Assumptions 4-1 4.1.2 Highway Assumptions 4-1 4.1.3 Interchange Assumptions 4-1 4.1.4 Transit Assumptions 4-2 4.1.5 Station Assumptions 4-2 4.1.6 Maintenance and Storage Facility Assumptions 4-3 4.1.7 Congestion Management Assumptions 4-3 4.1.8 Packaging Assumptions 4-3 4.2 Alternatives Screening 4-21 4.2.1 Evaluation Criteria 4-21 4.2.2 Purpose and Need Criteria 4-21 4.2.3 Practicability Criteria 4-23 4.2.4 Environmental Criteria 4-25 4.2.5 Package Evaluation 4-26 • 4.3 Screening Results 4-31 4.4 Level Three Lessons Learned 4-33 4.4.1 Highway Lessons Learned 4-33 4.4.2 Transit Lessons Learned 4-34 4.5 Summary of Screening 4-34 5.0 PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT AND REFINEMENT 5-1 5.1 Package Development 5-1 5.1.1 Highway Assumptions 5-1 5.1.2 Transit Assumptions 5-1 5.1.3 Congestion Management Assumptions 5-2 5.1.4 Packaging 5-4 5.2 Package Refinement 5-5 5.2.1 Interchange Configurations 5-5 5.2.2 Bus and Rail Transit Station Locations 5-13 5.2.3 Maintenance Facility Sites 5-47 6.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE EIS 6-1 6.1 No-Action Alternative 6-1 6.1.1 Maintenance of Structures 6-2 6.1.2 Maintenance of Pavement 6-7 6.1.3 Safety Considerations 6-7 6.2 Package A 6-11 • 6.2.1 Package A New General Purpose Lanes 6-11 6.2.2 Package A Interchanges 6-14 Table of Contents Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 6.2.3 Package A Commuter Rail 6-19 6.2.4 Package A Commuter Bus 6-29 6.2.5 Package A Feeder Bus 6-32 6.2.6 Package A Bus Maintenance Facility 6-32 6.2.7 Package A Congestion Management 6-32 6.2.8 Other Package A Features 6-34 6.3 Package B 6-35 6.3.1 Package B New Tolled Express Lanes 6-35 6.3.2 Package B Interchanges 6-42 6.3.3 Package B Bus Rapid Transit 6-43 6.3.4 Package B Bus Rapid Transit Stations 6-44 6.3.5 Package B Feeder Bus 6-47 6.3.6 Package B Bus Maintenance Facility 6-47 6.3.7 Package B Congestion Management 6-47 6.3.8 Package B Parking 6-49 6.3.9 Other Package B Features 6-49 6.4 Preferred Alternative 6-50 6.4.1 Preferred Alternative 1-25 Improvements 6-50 6.4.2 Preferred Alternative Carpool Lots 6-62 • 6.4.3 Preferred Alternative Express Bus 6-62 6.4.4 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus 6-66 6.4.5 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail 6-68 6.4.6 Preferred Alternative Maintenance Facilities 6-73 6.4.7 Preferred Alternative Feeder Bus 6-73 6.4.8 Preferred Alternative Congestion Management 6-73 6.4.9 Other Preferred Alternative Features 6-75 7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 7-1 7.1 Purpose and Need Elements 7-1 7.1.1 Need to Address the Increased Frequency and Severity of Crashes 7-2 7.1.2 Need to Address the Increasing Traffic Congestion on 1-25, Leading to Mobility and Accessibility Problems 7-2 7.1.3 Need to Replace Aging and Functionally Obsolete Infrastructure 7-3 7.1.4 Need to Provide Modal Alternatives 7-3 7.2 Other Supporting Factors 7-4 7.2.1 Land Use 7-4 7.2.2 System Benefits 7-4 7.2.3 Regional Connectivity 7-5 7.2.4 Regional Safety 7-5 7.2.5 Travel Reliability 7-5 7.2.6 Livability 7-5 • 7.2.7 Cost 7-6 Table of Contents iii Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS information cooperation transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1-1 Study Area 1-2 Figure 1-2 Alternatives Screening Process 1-4 Figure 3-1 Level Two Alternatives—Additional Lanes 3-3 Figure 3-2 Level Two Alternatives— Upgrade Highway Classification 3-4 Figure 3-3 Level Two Alternatives — Express Lane 3-5 Figure 3-4 Level Two Alternatives — Limited Access Lanes 3-6 Figure 3-5 Level Two Alternatives— New Highway 3-7 Figure 3-6 Level Two Alternatives— New Arterial Road 3-8 Figure 3-7 Level Two Alternatives— Bus Rapid Transit 3-11 Figure 3-8 Level Two Alternatives —Commuter Rail 3-12 Figure 3-9 Level Two Alternatives — Light Rail 3-13 Figure 3-10 Level Two Alternatives— High Speed Rail 3-14 Figure 3-11 Purpose and Need — Safety and Mobility 3-17 Figure 3-12 Purpose and Need Evaluation —Aging Infrastructure 3-18 Figure 3-13 Measurements Used for Environmental Screening in Level Two 3-19 Figure 3-14 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results —Additional Lanes 3-21 Figure 3-15 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— Upgrade Highway • Classification 3-22 Figure 3-16 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— Express Lanes on 1-25 3-23 Figure 3-17 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— Limited Access Lanes on 1-25 3-24 Figure 3-18 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— New Highway 3-25 Figure 3-19 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— New Arterial Road\ 3-26 Figure 3-20 Measurements Used for Environmental Screening 3-28 Figure 3-21 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— Bus Rapid Transit 3-30 Figure 3-22 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results —Commuter Rail 3-31 Figure 3-23 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results— High Speed 3-32 Figure 3-24 Level 2A Preliminary Screening Results—Light Rail 3-33 Figure 3-25 Level 28 Highway Modeling Approach 3-40 Figure 3-26 Level 2B Screening —Transit Model Runs 3-42 Figure 3-27 Purpose and Need Evaluation — Highway Mobility 3-44 Figure 3-28 Purpose and Need Evaluation —Transit Mobility 3-45 Figure 3-29 Cost Chart for Highway 3-46 Figure 3-30 Practicability Evaluation —Average Capital Cost Per Mile 3-46 Figure 3-31 Level Two Grading Results—Additional Lanes 3-49 Figure 3-32 Level Two Grading Results— Upgrade Highway Classification 3-50 Figure 3-33 Level Two Grading Results— Express Lanes 3-51 Figure 3-34 Level Two Grading Results— Express Lanes 3-52 • Figure 3-35 Level Two Grading Results— Limited Access Lanes 3-53 Figure 3-36 Level Two Grading Results— New Highway 3-54 List of Figures iv Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3-37 Level Two Grading Results— New Arterial 3-55 Figure 3-38 Level Two Grading Results — Bus Rapid Transit— Result 1 3-56 Figure 3-39 Level Two Grading Results— Bus Rapid Transit— Result 2 3-57 Figure 3-40 Level Two Grading Results —Commuter Rail — Result 1 3-58 Figure 3-41 Level Two Grading Results—Commuter Rail — Result 2 3-59 Figure 3-42 Level Two Grading Results— High Speed 3-60 Figure 3-43 Level Two Grading Results— Light Rail 3-61 Figure 4-1 Package 1: 8 General Purpose Lanes with Commuter Bus 4-6 Figure 4-2 Package Toll Lanes with Commuter Bus 4-8 Figure 4-3 Package 3: High-Occupancy/Toll Lanes with Bus Rapid Transit 4-10 Figure 4-4 Package 4: Limited-Access Lanes with Commuter Bus 4-12 Figure 4-5 Package 5: 6 General Purpose Lanes, 2 Express Lanes with Bus Rapid Transit 4-14 Figure 4-6 Package 6: 6 General Purpose Lanes + Central Commuter Rail 4-16 Figure 4-7 Package 7: 6 General Purpose Lanes with West Commuter Rail 4-18 Figure 4-8 Package 8: West Commuter Rail, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes with Bus Rapid Transit 4-20 Figure 5-1 Interchange Configurations Considered 5-7 Figure 5-2 Maintenance Facility Locations Being Evaluated 5-48 Figure 6-1 No-Action Alternative 6-9 • Figure 6-2 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section— SH 1 to SH 66 6-10 Figure 6-3 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 66 to SH 7 6-10 Figure 6-4 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section — South of SH 7 6-10 Figure 6-5 Package A 6-12 Figure 6-6 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 1 to SH 14 6-13 Figure 6-7 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 14 to Crossroads Boulevard 6-13 Figure 6-8 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —Crossroads Boulevard to SH 60 6-13 Figure 6-9 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 60 to SH 66 6-13 Figure 6-10 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section (same as No-Action)— SH 66 to SH 52 6-14 Figure 6-11 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 52 to SH 7 6-14 Figure 6-12 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 7 to E-470 6-14 Figure 6-13 SH 14 Interchange 6-16 Figure 6-14 US 34 Interchange 6-16 Figure 6-15 SH 402 Interchange 6-17 Figure 6-16 LCR 16 Interchange B-17 Figure 6-17 SH 56 Interchange 6-18 Figure 6-18 SH 7 Interchange 6-18 Figure 6-19 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Design 6-27 • Figure 6-20 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Cross Section 6-28 Figure 6-21 Commuter Bus (and Express Bus) Downtown Denver Circulation 6-31 List of Figures V Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Figure 6-22 Package B 6-36 Figure 6-23 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 1 to SH 14 6-37 Figure 6-24 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 14 to Harmony Rd. 6-37 Figure 6-25 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section— Harmony Rd. to SH 60 6-37 Figure 6-26 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 60 to SH 66 6-38 Figure 6-27 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 66 to SH 7 6-38 Figure 6-28 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 7 to US 36 6-38 Figure 6-29 Tolled Express Lanes Access and Egress Locations 6-40 Figure 6-30 Slip-Ramp Design Concept 6-41 Figure 6-31 BRT Station Layout at Windsor (Northbound Lanes with Barrier Separation) 6-45 Figure 6-32 Package B Typical BRT Station Cross Sections 6-45 Figure 6-33 Preferred Alternative 6-52 • • List of Figures vi Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS • information cooperation transportation. LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2-1 Level One Improvement Alternatives and Corridors 2-2 Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results 2-9 Table 3-1 Congestion Management Strategies Measures of Effectiveness 3-34 Table 3-2 2030 North 1-25 AM and PM Volume/Capacity Ratios 3-35 Table 3-3 2030 North 1-25 AM and PM Volume/Capacity Ratios with Maximum Congestion Management 3-36 Table 3-4 Trip Reduction Due to Combined Congestion Management Methods 3-37 Table 3-5 Recommended Congestion Management Strategies as Complementary Improvements 3-38 Table 4-1 Environmental Evaluation Criteria 4-25 Table 4-2 Level Three Package Evaluation 4-28 Table 4-3 Level Three Environmental Evaluation - Main Differentiators 4-29 Table 4-4 Level Three Environmental Evaluation - Other Analysis Areas 4-30 Table 4-5 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered 4-35 Table 5-1 Congestion Management Elements Considered in EIS Development 5-2 Table 5-2 Interchange Screening 5-8 Table 5-3 Package A and the Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation • Commuter Rail 5-15 Table 5-4 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 5-19 Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on 1-25 5-24 Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative —Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on 1-25 5-35 Table 6-1 No-Action Structure Replacement/Rehabilitation 6-3 Table 6-2 No-Action Pavement Replacement/Rehab 6-7 Table 6-3 No-Action Safety Upgrades 6-8 Table 6-4 Package A Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action 6-15 Table 6-5 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments 6-24 Table 6-6 Package A Commuter Rail Stations 6-27 Table 6-7 Package A Commuter Bus Stations and Stops 6-30 Table 6-8 Package A- Congestion Management Measures 6-33 Table 6-9 Initial Tolled Express Lane Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle Toll Rates (2009 dollars) 6-39 Table 6-10 Package B Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action 6-42 Table 6-11 Package B BRT Stations 6-46 Table 6-12 Package B Congestion Management Measures 6-48 Table 6-13 Package B Parking Summary 6-49 Table 6-14 Tolled Express Lanes Toll Rates, Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle (2009 dollars) 6-53 • Table 6-15 Preferred Alternative 1-25 Interchange Configuration 6-54 Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations 6-55 Table 6-17 Preferred Alternative Carpool Parking 6-62 List of Tables and Appendices vii Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I 25 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 6-18 Preferred Alternative Express Bus Stations 6-63 Table 6-19 Preferred Alternative Queue Jumps 6-65 Table 6-20 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations and Stops 6-66 Table 6-21 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations 6-70 Table 6-22 Preferred Alternative Congestion Management Measures 6-74 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Termini Memoranda Appendix B: Congestion Management Alternative Appendix C: Station Design Strategy Appendix D: Operations and Maintenance Facility Siting Appendix E: Access Planning Memorandum Appendix F: Longmont— North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation • Appendix G: Travel Demand Forecasting Memoranda Appendix H: Transit Operating Statistics Reports Appendix I: Minimal Rail Alternative Request • List of Tables and Appendices viii Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is a detailed compilation of the alternatives development and evaluation effort that took place as part of the North 1-25 EIS study process. The North 1-25 EIS study area is illustrated in Figure 1-1. 1.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT The North 1-25 EIS project purpose is defined as "...meeting 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." The need for action identifies concerns about highway safety, mobility and accessibility, aging highway infrastructure, the lack of alternative interregional travel modes and the need to address economic growth demands. The complete Purpose and Need Statement is included in the North 1-25 EIS. The purpose and need for the project and stakeholder input provided the framework for alternatives development. The alternatives evaluation and screening process was conducted by defining a broad range of alternatives, and then conducting increasingly detailed evaluations of them as they were refined and narrowed down to the most promising solutions. A wide range of alternatives was developed: multiple transit technologies, on various feasible alignments, and highway improvements on both existing and new alignments. • Alternatives analysis was completed in three separate levels of screening. While highway and transit alternatives were evaluated separately in Levels One and Two, a combination of highway and transit improvements are necessary to fully address the project's purpose and need. In Level Three, transit and highway alternatives were combined to create packages of improvements that comprehensively address the project's purpose and need. After all three levels of screening were complete, alternatives were refined and presented for analysis in the Draft EIS; the Draft EIS evaluation led to the development of a Preferred Alternative that is presented in the Final EIS. After comments were received on the Draft EIS and CDOT and FHWA worked through a collaborative decision making process with stakeholders, elements from Package A and Package B were combined to form the Preferred Alternative. • Introduction 1-1 Final EIS NORTH I--2S August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation0 Figure 1-1 Study Area G 40 tJ A ce.\\ t - r11•IOn't•n ‘ C eb / 87, en--N4 2_5 ti i i / �4 Ault , ,, o ` °C Fort lhollin � 0 85 Trai ! Mad Eaton j! / 25 •� ;. ;287 Windsor _ 7_ _i s4 Greele raretterrsitisni.\(34 el rip _ , , I Garden City ~:jam- ' % I �• „. . " �} Evans 7 -\-......_ a LARIMER • 1; :eto JObni;•�r, l �� laSall• o ' a° _ __ i Asov / Milllker►' • Be9-i hood I • �p / 0 crest V. Ill%a o I M , Its W L O ;/Plattevli0 a• r. Longmont t, / ° ' � / ' 36 S 85 LI Nlwot 287 . 52 anti 52 1 Fir,---- --\ , r ton Boulder E". . 11 •7 6 ins _1 I 1. Lotto 7 �� 93 36 Louisville Sri • orb-L j I Superb Sroomflold " , ` ^ Thornton I i Co C wee 72 y Non nglony t victor E470 Denver International \ Airport I 1 il i2 I JEFFERSON _ 78 I - .I • t r 7r Ifir , Unto Station 40 �' De ver VN . vim ,\ Ill Introduction 1-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 1.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING The alternatives evaluation and screening process consisted of qualitative and then progressively detailed and quantitative analyses of alternatives relative to evaluation criteria. The criteria at every level of analysis described below were based on three areas of analysis: the purpose and need of the project, the alternatives' practicability, and the alternatives' potential effect on human and natural environmental resources. As the study progressed, the criteria became more specific, but still related to the three areas of analysis. The alternatives screening process is depicted in Figure 1-2. The three levels of screening prior to evaluation in the Draft EIS were: Level One screening was primarily a qualitative "fatal flaw" assessment. It eliminated alternatives that were not practicable for implementation based on substantial faults related to cost, logistics, technology reliability or other characteristics that made them unreasonable in the study area and therefore unnecessary to study further. Level Two screening separated alternatives into categories by improvement type (e.g. highway expansion-general purpose lanes, light rail, etc.) and, after some additional data collection and quantification, screened out those within each category that did not compare as well with others in meeting purpose and need, addressing practicability issues, or avoiding impacts to environmental resources. Evaluation used readily available information at this level to identify differences between alternatives within each category. • Level 2A screening used existing data to assess the practicability of the remaining alternatives, and their potential to serve corridor travel patterns and markets. Level 2B screening used the initial results from Leve 2A screening and supplemented them with analysis from the travel demand model to comparatively analyze the remaining alternatives. The alternatives that performed best not only within categories, but overall were advanced to Level 3. Level Three alternatives were packaged with the components advanced from Level 28. The Level 2B components were refined and packaged in such a way as to measure discernable differences between a smaller number of alternatives. Elements from Package A and Package B that were presented in the Draft EIS were combined to form the Preferred Alternative. All of these alternatives are now evaluated in the Final EIS. The levels 1, 2, 3, and Draft EIS analysis were conducted using 2030 travel demand. For the Final EIS, the 2035 horizon year growth projections became available and therefore the Final EIS analysis was updated to 2035. The 2030 screening results remain valid as the level of travel demand is greater for 2035 than 2030. At each of these levels, input was actively sought from the general public, the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC elected officials), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and state and federal resource agencies. • Introduction 1.3 C O ._ cviii L.a O -0 a) a) .7,- Q) L c w w _ - (U '> Q) o co O ku O C `_ co , co c Z U N — m a N = in (./) C _ -p U CU a) •— O C (U N 1-1 (U = C a) (U - -0 L E (II a) L h l W p L a w t- +-. 4-0 •- c_, Cl. CT cA (1) (U N (1) Q Q) +' a) C `x O C (A > w > L Q °O L a) 0 Th. - U (A > cU a) O N u) Z F — O as L -sr,: Q) 0 O c U O O �•_ — a) — (U N 0_,_ C C C ' . '.�_ (o (U "a) _ _ N E O L w m N O L 0 oLUopL z .c - o (o Q ,-, i_ a) _ . > — z c c E C i coa� Z 73 cc Q _ �C C Ci (no — c ° W ^ E TO a) D vW CO p c '> • WA, Q .— V) a ,= > > Q 'W a3 RI a) c co >. co 'O m Et' -_. 4-- E o .c w — _o L_CD O a) •` co Cl.) CO c _ a c EE0a� o a •� Q] •5-- — U (U CD U) U N O N O V -O CO CM ., C •0 -D >? ? co a (nLL CO Csi C D , L- CD "O cn L . N EN O p O W L C L 0 cu co L L C w P Q U a D = `z,r Ill J (U .. , . O J (U ..- v) O O .- J (U N C r- 2 c CA w N v 0 C1=1 CoC c > L N j _ � _ co L ,� co CD cc~ Z C C 43 z C W CO .� L . Q 0 L. cnV Z0 Q Q Q -J (n W CU .� o t , 3, CIJ 4e CI cc c.> cc — C G) _ — `� -- a co a �'_ a r c C = c A� _ co �_ r/ C ¢ C d7 �, N N CD a) � � _ Nom = M W +0 Il f` J � '' a C = bA it ' '.. wall Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 2.0 LEVEL ONE 2.1 LEVEL ONE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT The North 1-25 EIS project team developed a wide range of potential transportation alternatives to address the project's Purpose and Need Statement using the following information: • Existing and planned road network • State and federal requirements • Section 404 of the Clean Water Act • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 • Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act • Existing and future land uses • Existing environmental resources • Existing and future travel patterns • • Previous studies conducted in the area • Mason Transportation Corridor • Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (TAFS) • Interstate 25, SH 7 to SH 66 Environmental Assessment • US 85 Access Control Plan • DRCOG Metro Vision • RTD FasTracks • Rail "Loop" Plan • Front Range Rail • Prairie Falcon Parkway • Information provided by advisory committees • Public input received during the scoping process A total of 50 transportation technologies were identified that could have been implemented along 1-25, US 287, US 85 or on a new travel corridor. These alternatives represented a reasonable range of alternatives. If an improvement type was not included in Level One, it was • considered outside the reasonable range of alternatives. Level One 2-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation • Table 2-1 lists the transportation technologies considered and the corridors where they were considered. Descriptions of each of the alternatives are included after the table. Table 2-1 Level One Improvement Alternatives and Corridors Alternative Location No-Action 01. No-Action I Corridor Wide Highway 02. Additional General Purpose Lanes Existing Highway Corridors 03. Interchange ReplacemenUUpgrade Existing Highway Corridors 04. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Improvements 1-25 05. Intersection Upgrades Corridor Wide 06. Frontage Road Revisions I-25 07. Lane Width Reconfiguration 1-25 08. Double Deck Freeway 1-25 09. Express Lanes Existing Highway Corridors 10. Climbing Lanes Existing Highway Corridors 11. Truck Lanes I-25 12. Limited Access Lanes Existing Highway Corridors 13. New Highway Corridor Wide 14. New Local Road Corridor Wide • 15. New Interchange Existing Highway Corridors Transit 16. Bus Rapid Transit Existing Highway Corridors in General Purpose Lanes 17. Bus Rapid Transit Existing Highway Corridors in Exclusive or Semi Exclusive Lanes 18. Bus Rapid Transit Freight Rail Corridors in Exclusive lanes 19. Bus Rapid Transit New Alignment in Exclusive lanes 20. Express Bus Existing Highway Corridors 21. Regional Bus Existing Highway Corridors 22. Local Bus Corridor Wide 23. Demand Responsive Bus Corridor Wide 24. Jitney Service Existing Highway Corridors 25. Commuter Rail Existing Highway Corridors 26. Commuter Rail Freight Rail Corridors 27. Commuter Rail New Alignment 28. Personal Rapid Transit Existing Highway Corridors 29. Personal Rapid Transit Freight Rail Corridors 30. Personal Rapid Transit New Alignment 31. Heavy Rail Subway or Below Grade 32. Heavy Rail Elevated 33. Heavy Rail Existing Highway Corridors • 34. Heavy Rail Freight Rail Corridors Level One 2.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-1 Level One Improvement Alternatives and Corridors (cont'd) Alternative Location 35. Heavy Rail New Alignment 36. Light Rail Existing Highway Corridors 37. Light Rail Freight Rail Corridors 38. Light Rail New Alignment 39.Automated Guideway Transit(Including Monorail) Existing Highway Corridors 40. Automated Guideway Transit(Including Monorail) Freight Rail Corridors 41. Automated Guideway Transit(Including Monorail) New Alignment 42. High Speed Rail 79-125 mph Existing Highway Corridors 43. High Speed Rail 79-125 mph Freight Rail Corridors 44. High Speed Rail 79-125 mph New Alignment 45. Super High Speed Rail >125 mph Existing Highway Corridors 46. Super High Speed Rail >125 mph Freight Rail Corridors 47. Super High Speed Rail >125 mph New Alignment 48. Mag-Lev New Exclusive Corridors 49. Rail Transport Cars Light Rail Corridors Congestion Management 50a. Travel Demand Management Corridor Wide 50b. Intelligent Transportation Systems Corridor Wide • 50c. Transportation System Management Corridor Wide 50d. Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Corridor Wide 2.1.1 No-Action The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process requires analysis of a "No-Action Alternative". This alternative is fully assessed in the NEPA documentation and used as a baseline against which build alternatives are evaluated. The No-Action Alternative addresses acute safety and maintenance concerns that would need to be addressed if a build alternative is not selected. This alternative is required to be retained for comparative purposes throughout the screening process. 2.1.2 Highway Highway improvements considered in Level One fell into three categories: modifying existing facilities, special purpose lanes, and new facilities. Each is described below. 2.1.3 Modifying Existing Facilities Additional Lanes— Lanes added to any existing road in the study area. This is the most common method of adding travel capacity along a corridor. Interchange Replacement/Upgrade— Includes improving or reconstructing existing • interchanges that currently operate inefficiently or are expected to have operating deficiencies in the future. Level One 2.3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Horizontal and Vertical Alignment— Improvements that address specific stretches of a road that have been identified as having inadequate or unsafe geometric configurations. This includes, but is not limited to, sight distance considerations and super elevation. Intersection Upgrades— Upgrades that address lane configurations and safety issues at existing intersections and access points. This could include, but is not limited to, adding turn lanes, signalizing or restricting movements at an intersection. Frontage Road Revisions— Improve the capacity and layout of the frontage roads along 1-25. Lane Width Reconfiguration— Restripe I-25 to provide additional lanes within the existing cross section. This improvement would create narrower lanes and shoulders. Double Deck 1-25—Create additional lanes using the existing right-of-way by adding an elevated, limited access expressway on a viaduct over the existing lanes. 2.1.3.1 SPECIAL PURPOSE LANES Tolled Express Lanes/Managed Lanes— Lanes whose demand is managed to maintain reliable, fast operation even during peak periods. The lanes are managed by allowing use only by single-occupant vehicle drivers willing to pay a toll or by high-occupant vehicles. The lanes are separated from general purpose lanes by a striped buffer or a raised median barrier. Climbing Lanes— Lanes added to the upgrade direction of a road where high traffic volumes • and heavy truck traffic combine to cause delays and platooning along the facility. This type of improvement could be applied to any highway facility throughout the corridor. Truck Lanes—Truck lanes would provide a new, exclusive lane in each direction reserved for large trucks to improve safety and capacity in the general traffic lanes. They could be separated from or adjacent to general purpose lanes and could provide only limited access to local intersections or interchanges. This type of improvement was considered along existing highway corridors. Limited Access Lanes— Grade-separated lanes that carry motorists through an intersection or interchange without the ability to get on or off the facility at that location. 2.1.3.2 NEW FACILITIES New Highway— Construction of a new, high-capacity highway alignment anywhere within the study area. New Local Road— Construction of a new road with less capacity and more access than a "New Highway" anywhere within the study area. New Interchanges— Grade separated access points between a highway and a local street or between two highways. New interchanges could be built along any of the existing highway corridors. • Level One 2.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 2.1.4 Transit Transit alternatives considered in Level One fell into two categories: non-fixed guideway and fixed guideway. For this initial screening phase, no specific station areas were assigned to any of the transit modes. Rather characteristic station spacing and ridership capacity were assumed. The range of transit alternatives is described below. 2.1.4.1 NON-FIXED GUIDEWAY Bus Rapid Transit— Powered by diesel fuel, natural gas, or hybrid power sources. Bus Rapid Transit operates in semi-exclusive (HOV, HOT, Toll) or exclusive roadway lanes (bus lanes) for at least 50% of its route (though it is physically capable of operating within shared lanes.) On freeway-based applications, it stops every 5 to 10 miles to function as a collector or distributor service at its ends-of-line. Local road applications have more frequent stops, half mile to 2 mile spacing. The average capacity is 20 to 100 seated passengers per bus. Traditional Bus—The most common type of public transit, due largely to its flexibility, relatively low capital costs, and ability to serve a wide-range of travel markets. Buses typically operate in mixed traffic along roadways. Power is provided by a variety of sources including diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, and electricity along with hybrid combinations of power sources. Traditional buses can operate as express bus, regional bus, local bus and demand responsive bus service. • • Local Service— Provides the most access to riders as it can operate on large arterials or neighborhood-scale streets and stops the most frequently. • Express Service— Runs in large arterial streets or freeways and stops infrequently, providing a travel time advantage over local bus service. With the addition of park-and-ride facilities, it can expand the capture area of transit service from within a quarter mile up to anywhere within five miles of the service route. • Regional and/or Commuter Bus service—A commuter-oriented long distance transit service operating between regions with limited stops in order to operate faster than other bus services. This type of transit service usually operates on roads designated as arterials or higher and has park and-ride facilities located at its stops. • Demand Response and Jitney services— Operate within a city or town but do not connect to other cities. Demand-responsive services provide curb-to-curb service within a specific geographic area for special needs population groups or for the general public as applicable. Jitneys typically involve passenger cars or shuttle vans operating on fixed routes (sometimes with minor deviations) as demand warrants without fixed schedules or fixed stops. 2.1.4.2 FIXED GUIDEWAY Commuter Rail— Fueled by either diesel or electricity, commuter rail typically operates in freight rail corridors at speeds up to 90 mph with stops every 2 to 10 miles. Average capacity of a rail car is 75 to 250 seated passengers, and service is typically provided in corridors between 5 and 100 miles in length. • Level One 2.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Personal Rapid Transit—These systems are designed to provide personalized service between specific origin and destination stations. PRT is an automated system of small vehicles that travel on elevated guideways and operate on demand. Heavy Rail— Powered by electricity, heavy rail operates at a maximum speed of approximately 70 mph in exclusive underground or elevated corridors. Stops are typically located every half-mile to mile in dense urban areas, and approximately five miles in more suburban parts of the service area. The average capacity is 60 to 80 seated passengers per rail car. Light Rail— Fueled by either diesel or electricity, light rail can operate in rail corridors or on city streets at speeds of up to 70 mph, with stops every half-mile to two miles. Average capacity of a rail car is 32 to 90 passengers seated, and service is typically provided in corridors 5 to 20 miles in length. Automated Guideway Transit(AGT)— Powered by electricity, AGT operates at slower speeds (8 to 30 mph on average) on elevated guideways in dense urban areas with many stops. The average capacity is 30 to 100 seated passengers per car. AGT includes monorail technologies. High Speed Rail—Typically powered by electricity, high-speed rail can operate at over 100 mph in an exclusive right-of-way. Stops are typically located in each major city along a corridor of 50 to 500 or more miles in length. The average capacity is 100 to 150 seated passengers per rail car. • Super High Speed Rail— Powered by electricity, super high-speed rail operates at speeds in excess of 150 mph in an exclusive right of way. There are typically few (if any) mid-line stops, and the service operates as a high-speed service between destinations and/or cities more than 50 miles apart. The average capacity is 100 to 150 seated passengers per rail car. Magnetic Levitation— Powered by electric magnets, Mag-Lev operates at speeds in excess of 250 mph in an exclusive and sealed right-of-way. There are typically few (if any) mid-line stops, and the service operates as a "bullet train" from one destination to another. The average capacity is 150-300 seated passengers per rail car. This technology is not in common use today. Rail Transport Cars— Involves train service that carries drivers in their vehicles on flat bed railroad cars that are each loaded for specific destination stations. It would operate with similar characteristics to a passenger rail line, but with reduced total travel times due to savings along trip segments between the car-accessible stations and driver origins and destinations. This technology is not in common use today. 2.1.5 Congestion Management In Level One Screening congestion management strategies were researched and grouped together into four main categories: Transportation Demand Management (strategies that will reduce the number of peak hour trips), Intelligent Transportation Systems (technology-based strategies that provide information to transportation system managers and users), • Transportation System Management (strategies that will maximize the effectiveness of the Level One 2.6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. existing system facilities) and Bicycle and Pedestrian strategies. Each of the strategies is listed below by category. 2.1.5.1 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) Ridesharing— Formal or informal agreements between neighbors or co-workers to share a vehicle and driving responsibilities from an agreed upon formal or informal park-and-ride facility to their common destination. Carpools—Agreements between two or more people to ride to their common destination together. Carpools can form and be sustained without formal assistance, or rideshare "matches" can also be made through a ridesharing database of willing participants managed by a regional transportation agency, as they currently are through the NFRMPO and DRCOG. Vanpools— More formal agreements between groups of 6 to 15 participants to lease a van from a regional transportation authority, designate a driver, and use the van to reach their common destination. Vans are procured and maintained, and participants can be matched and organized by regional transportation agencies, as they currently are through the NFRMPO and DRCOG. Employers can also initiate and sponsor vanpool services for their employees as a benefit. Telecommuting—Arranging the capability to work offsite, thereby avoiding driving during peak-hour traffic, or perhaps avoiding having to make the trip to work at all. • Land Use Policies—The implementation and enforcement of land use policies intended to encourage/require development to increase mobility for residents and businesses by creating land use-transportation connections. Example policies include creating a range of housing choices; creating walkable neighborhoods; encouraging community collaboration; mixing land uses; preserving open spaces; providing a variety of transportation choices; and strengthening and directing development towards existing communities. 2.1.5.2 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) Real Time Transportation Information— Can include static or dynamic information related to traffic conditions, real-time transit service or information on trip planning and transportation options accessible to the public. Information is disseminated on a variety of media including radio, websites, or variable message signs. Dynamic information relies on global positioning satellite (GPS) transponders, cameras, and other devices to relay information to the traveler. 2.1.5.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) Reversible Lanes— Conversion of a general purpose lane to a special purpose or restricted access lane based on peak hour traffic flows. The lane may be designated as a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, a limited access lane, a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, or some combination of the three. Having been designated, the lane is open to peak hour traffic that meets its usage criteria. The lane is operated in the peak hour direction and reverses each peak period to serve the dominant flow of traffic. Incident Management Program—A response program developed to reduce delay by • removing obstructions caused by incidents (accidents, debris, stalled vehicles, etc.)through Level One 2.7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation • the use of a comprehensive incident management service, including towing, alternative route designation, call boxes, traffic control, etc. Signal Coordination and Prioritization—Traffic signals can be timed to aid peak hour traffic flows. In addition, signals can be programmed to change for approaching transit vehicles to ensure that transit vehicles are not delayed at intersections. Ramp Metering— Signals can be placed at freeway ramps to regulate the flow of traffic accessing a highway facility. This reduces delay along the freeway by reducing congestion related to ramp merging. Signage—Way finding can help reduce driver confusion and consequent delay or incidents by clearly marking entrances, exits, or approaching landmarks and popular destinations. 2.1.5.4 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES These facilities would provide sidewalk and bike facility connectivity between residential areas and employment or activity centers; adequate shoulder space or bike lanes along major arterials; and adequate street features to encourage their use. Additional features can include lighting, trash receptacles, bike lockers, shade structures, crosswalks, landscaping, etc. 2.2 LEVEL ONE SCREENING Level One screening was a fatal flaw evaluation to determine if the alternative was responsive • to the project's purpose and need, if it was practicable and if it was likely to have irresolvable environmental impacts. These criteria are described in greater detail below. Responsive to Purpose and Need—This criterion stated that alternatives that address the needs identified in the Purpose and Need Statement should be carried forward to Level Two screening. The needs included the potential to improve safety, replace aging infrastructure, address mobility and accessibility and provide multi modal travel options. Practicability— Per USACE's 4049b)(1) guidelines, this criterion depends on costs, technical and logistic factors. To be practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall purpose. This criterion evaluated the feasibility of an alternative based on cost, logistics and technology reliability. While detailed costs were not available at Level One of screening, general costs from peer systems or projects were available for comparison. These costs were applied to the range of alternatives as applicable, for comparison based on their order of magnitude. Therefore, alternatives that would likely cost substantially more than others and would provide a similar function were screened out. Similarly, if the logistics of construction or operation rendered an alternative infeasible, or if the alternative technology was not available, it was also screened out. Likelihood of Irresolvable Environmental Impacts—This criterion screened alternatives that would have the potential for substantial environmental impacts and for which an alternative was clearly available. Level One Screening eliminated alternatives with impacts of such probable magnitude that NEPA approval or other permits would not be achievable. Table 2-2 lists the range of alternatives developed and the results of the Level One screening • evaluation. Level One 2-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results N in L 2 o N v N ... P O O) re .2 O C > z o E « a o ; c c C cli V V CIn " N •y O y O O- •-• tli y 0 6. A u_ II N J O Oa. Y y - O a aa) K t Q d J C a J w a a — w No-Action No-Action Corridor N/A N/A N/A Pass Wide Highway Additional Existing Lanes Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Interchange Existing Replacement/ Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Upgrade Corridors Horizontal & Vertical I-25 Pass Pass Pass Pass Alignment Improvements • Intersection Upgrades Corridor /Upgrades Wide Pass Pass Pass Pass Highway Classification Frontage Road 1-25 Pass Pass Pass Pass Revisions This alternative is not responsive to purpose and need because it would Lane Width I-25 Fail Pass Pass substantially compromise safety on 1-25 by Reconfiguration creating a geometric configuration that would be considered substandard according to accepted industry practices. This technology and alignment was Double Deck screened due to its order of magnitude 1.25 1-25 Pass Pass Fail cost and complexity of construction. These characteristics make it impracticable for this project. Existing Express Lanes Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Existing Retained as potential Congestion Climbing Lanes Highway Pass Pass Pass Management Strategy. • Corridors Level One 2-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results (cont'd) w v CA > C 0 cu O C C Z .O 'ill = O Ol > '0 C ( 0 3 « = O += C C a+ d co u 0 C 4" y d O y O a = R O N LL J a O Y_ d .- E u Q. 0) a I- < U) - J C t1 J w a a — w Existing Retained as potential Congestion Truck Lanes Highway Pass Pass Pass Management Strategy. Corridors Limited Existing Access Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Lanes Corridors New Corridor Pass Pass Pass Pass Highway Wide New Local Corridor Pass Pass Pass Pass Road Wide New Existing Interchange Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Transit Bus Rapid Existing Transit Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Mixed Use Corridors III Lanes Bus Rapid Transit Existing Exclusive or Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Semi Corridors Exclusive Lanes Bus Rapid Freight Transit Rail Pass Pass Pass Pass Exclusive Corridors Lanes Bus Rapid Transit New Pass Pass Pass Pass Exclusive Alignment Lanes Existing Express Bus Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Existing Regional Bus Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Local Bus Corridor Pass Pass Pass Pass Wide Demand Corridor Responsive Wide Pass Pass Pass Pass Bus III Level One 2.10 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results (cont'd) N N w To j O O C Z V CD C P O O) r = C C w O O m " _ N C Z CO N 2 N L O p 2 0. CO 0 ~ o N .A r U U C N N yt O es O y LL y J O O. • Y � E A d d I- Q oet i_ J I. c J w a a w o This type of technology has not been Existing proven in revenue service. Complexity of Jitney Service Highway Fail Pass Pass operation in an interstate environment Corridors would render it impracticable for this project. Commuter Existing Pass Pass Pass Pass Rail Highway Commuter Freight Rail Rail Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Commuter New Pass Pass Pass Pass Rail Alignment Personal Existing This type of technology has not been Rapid Transit Highway Pass Pass Fail proven in revenue service. Complexity (PRT) Corridors and cost render it impracticable for this • project. Personal Freight This type of technology has not been Rapid Transit Rail Pass Pass Fail proven in revenue service. Complexity (PRT) Corridors and cost render it impracticable for this project. Personal This type of technology has not been Rapid Transit New Pass Pass Fail proven in revenue service. Complexity (PRT) Alignment and cost render it impracticable for this project. This technology and alignment was Subway screened due to its order of magnitude Heavy Rail or Below Pass Pass Fail cost and complexity of construction. Grade These characteristics make it impracticable for this project. This technology and alignment was screened due to its order of magnitude Heavy Rail Elevated Pass Pass Fail cost and complexity of construction. These characteristics make it impracticable for this project. This technology and alignment was Existing screened due to its order of magnitude Heavy Rail Highway Pass Pass Fail cost and complexity of construction. Corridors These characteristics make it impracticable for this project. • Level One 2.11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results (cont'd) d C GSC N V Z W C > 0 ≥ °o V H °' o co c w d 0 co A o C {p ap C N O > C N ° .01- C - O C7 p ' d N U N S 1 a O H > a O 0 N I- 0 LL x °' E co co 0 d 1- et o � a' a. : = w _ a` 0. _I CL . This technology and alignment was Freight screened due to its order of magnitude Heavy Rail Rail Pass Pass Fail cost and complexity of construction. Corridors These characteristics make it impracticable for this project. This technology and alignment was New screened due to its order of magnitude Heavy Rail Alignment Pass Pass Fail cost and complexity of construction. These characteristics make it impracticable for this project. Existing Light Rail Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Freight Light Rail Rail Pass Pass Pass Pass Corridors Light Rail al gnment Pass Pass Pass Pass • Automated This type of technology would cost Guideway Existing substantially more and have lower Transit Highway Pass Pass Fail speeds than alternative transit (Including Corridors technologies. Complexity and cost of Monorail) higher speed technology would render it impracticable for this project. Automated This type of technology would cost Guideway Freight substantially more and have lower Transit Rail Pass Pass Fail speeds than alternative transit (Including Corridors technologies. Complexity and cost of Monorail) higher speed technology would render it impracticable for this project. Automated This type of technology would cost Guideway substantially more and have lower Transit New Pass Pass Fail Alignment technologies. Complexity and cost of speeds than alternative transit (Including Monorail) higher speed technology would render it impracticable for this project. High Speed Existing Rail Highway Pass Pass Pass Pass 79-125 mph Corridors High Speed Freight Rail Rail Pass Pass Pass Pass • 79-125 mph Corridors Level One 2.12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results (cont'd) co d a) s C 0 L d d _ - c N « d o E a 3 ` L w 0 o L O O 2 V r ~ L O N N V N �- N J W . d ua1 W 0 et 41) L 71 0 d 7 Y c W 03 A Q GJ re a. J L- W a. w High Speed New Rail Ae nment Pass Pass Pass Pass 79-125 mph 9 This technology was screened due to Super High Freight its order of magnitude cost and Speed Rail Rail Pass Pass Fail complexity of construction. The >125 mph Corridors technology is not readily available in the United States and is impracticable for this project. This technology was screened due to Super High its order of magnitude cost and Speed Rail New Pass Pass Fail Alignment technology is not readily available in complexity of construction. The >125 mph • the United States and is impracticable for this project. This technology was screened due to Super High Existing its order of magnitude cost and Speed Rail Highway Pass Pass Fail complexity of construction. The < 125 mph Corridors technology is not readily available in the United States and is impracticable for this project. This technology was screened due to New its order of magnitude cost and Mag-Lev Sealed Pass Pass Fail complexity of construction. The Corridor technology is not readily available and is impracticable for this project. Existing This type of technology has not been Rail Transport Freight Pass Pass Fail proven in the United States. Its Cars Rail relatively experimental nature makes it Corridors impracticable for this project. Travel Corridor Demand Wide Pass Pass Pass Pass Management Intelligent Corridor Transportation Wide Pass Pass Pass Pass Systems Transportation Corridor • System Wide Pass Pass Pass Pass Management Level One 2-13 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 2-2 Level One Screening Results (cont'd) in 0 L d r ≥ O 06 . 01 01 r • '++ C W Oy O ass d O O) C .a p 0 ++ W L w > C o M F C C a o 2 O = ° g U N y s_ o 01 '.es d 0 d 7 Y C a l0 N > O 01 LL 4 O J cc a J .S W g 0. 0 I- Bike& Corridor Pass Pedestrian Wide Pass Pass Pass Travel Pass Demand 1-25 Pass Pass Pass (With the exception of reversible lanes Management n/o SH7) Intelligent Transportation I-25 Pass Pass Pass Pass Systems Transportation Pass System I-25 Pass Pass Pass (With the exception of signage and Management signal improvements) Bike& Not responsive to purpose and need Pedestrian 1-25 Fail Pass Pass because it would not address mobility needs or aging infrastructure on 1-25 • 2.2.1 Highway Level One evaluation of the potential highway alternatives found that all but two highway alternatives should advance to Level Two screening. Restriping the lanes along 1-25 to accommodate additional lanes with narrower shoulders within the existing cross section failed because it would substantially compromise safety on 1-25 by creating a geometric configuration that would be considered substandard according to accepted industry practices. Double-decking 1-25 failed because it was considered impractical due to its order of magnitude cost (10 times more than widening at-grade) and complexity of construction that would require an increased number of phases, increased time for construction, specialty work, and construction of temporary detours, bridges, etc. All other highway alternatives were retained for further evaluation in Level Two. 2.2.2 Transit Level One screening narrowed the range of alternative transportation improvements to those that were physically and functionally suited to the 70-mile study area and numerous population centers. Therefore, mag-lev, heavy rail, automated guideway transit, and super high-speed rail were screened from further analysis. (Individual white papers on these technologies and their lack of suitability to the North 1-25 Corridor are available.) Commuter rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail and high-speed rail technologies on various alignments were advanced to • Level Two for further consideration. Level One 2-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 2.2.3 Congestion Management The strategies screened from further analysis in Level One include: reversible lanes, signal prioritization and coordination, signage and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Preliminary traffic information did not exhibit a directional rush hour along the northern portion of the North 1-25 corridor, making reversible lanes impracticable. Similarly, 1-25 is not a signalized facility, making signal treatments impracticable. Signage and bicycle and pedestrian facilities were considered to be impracticable due to the size and scale of an interstate versus the limited localized influence of signage and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 2.3 LEVEL ONE LESSONS LEARNED 2.3.1 Highway The large study area provided a large range of possibilities for highway improvements. A variety of alternatives along US 287, US 85, 1-25 and new corridors were retained for additional evaluation in Level Two. 2.3.2 Transit In Level One, it was found that transit technology candidates must be able to serve both local and regional mobility needs. Although stakeholders expressed interest in transit services, especially rail with the capability of operating at high speeds, other stakeholders expressed an • interest in serving multiple station areas to allow more access to the service. In addition, technologies requiring an exclusive corridor, whether elevated or not, were not considered feasible over the corridor's full length, due to the additional order of magnitude cost (10 to 20 times higher than other at-grade solutions) of construction and maintenance required. 2.3.3 Congestion Management With the exception of reversible lanes, signal coordination and prioritization along 1-25, signage along 1-25, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities along 1-25 these strategies met the tests for purpose and need, practicability and environment. However, they were also acknowledged to have limited potential to meet elements of the purpose and need such as improving mobility, replacing aging infrastructure, and increasing accessibility. Therefore, it was decided in Level Two Screening they should be analyzed both independently and as a group to determine their potential effect on the corridor's mobility needs. • Level One 2-15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • This Page Left Intentionally Blank. • • Level One 2.16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.0 LEVEL TWO In Level Two Screening, the range of alternatives was revised by defining further the No-Action Alternative, as well as stand-alone and complementary build alternatives. "Stand-alone alternatives" were defined as improvements that, on their own, would provide sufficient capacity to meet mobility goals. Other, "complementary", improvements, those that were not considered to add sufficient capacity, could be packaged with stand-alone improvements to fully meet the purpose and need of the project. In addition, stand-alone highway and transit alternatives were developed and evaluated separately by doing comparisons of alternatives within their same grouping. In this way, the best of each group would emerge for more detailed testing in future steps of the analysis. By definition congestion management measures either enhance build alternatives or are used in combinations instead of them. For this reason, congestion management alternatives were evaluated independently and as a group to determine their assignment to either the stand- alone or complementary categories. The Level Two analysis was conducted in two stages, Level 2A and Level 2B. Level 2A utilized existing and available data; Level 2B utilized criteria and data that were generated by the travel demand model. 3.1 LEVEL TWO ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT • 3.1.1 No-Action The No-Action Alternative is a conservative estimate of safety improvements and maintenance requirements that would be necessary if a build alternative were not constructed. The No-Action Alternative is presented for comparison with the build alternatives in accordance with NEPA requirements. Because it will eventually be analyzed for impacts in the EIS, it is assumed to pass through all levels of Alternatives Development and Screening. No-Action Alternative improvements included in the EIS are summarized in Section 6.1. 3.1.2 Build Alternatives - Highway Figures 3-2 through Figure 3-7 illustrate the highway alternatives that were considered to be stand-alone alternatives because they had sufficient capacity to meet the project area's mobility goals. They include: • Additional Lanes • Upgrade Highway Classification • Express Lanes • Limited Access Lanes • New Highway • New Arterial Road • Level Two 3-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • As show in the following figures, a range of both northern and southern termini was developed for each alternatives, and evaluated as part of the alternatives screening. The termini are discussed in detail in the Southern Terminus Technical Memorandum, November 28, 2007 V6 and the Northern Terminus Assessment, October, 2004. Both of these can be found in Appendix A. Potential northern termini included: US 34, SH 14 and SH 1 Potential southern termini included: SH 66, SH 7, E-470, 1-76, US 36/84th Avenue • • Level Two 3.2 d • o co U c co 0 ..0. V ) V_I rN 174 o A respv ‘,.. 44— o H. orc • . % 0". i ws es •.6 ., ... ... Al, .._._ ,:,./ , ' d ■ • . r t•poq - " r ® me , i „lir :IL C i I el litlift 117 h . • w o(y O U m E ; g a) 0 O co Cr) w = c C — E E o - a) O 0 N d . E E y rg p co f...20 t2 O -0 Tee O is CO CD 4-. 4, > n c m c E a� CD U _O o a cn 'o p c a U ° �rr .- EEm � ? a O w - to (D O -0 m O c 73 O 1111 yno E Q a� ch CZ O `- 0,'� C — `On ar w m o ui r M C° E E O, O O - Co ro p _ I c7 ` ,m..iC "a L 11, d m a.; cD '" ar E c RS = o O (0 U d a a w 0 O 4- O 0 n� o D o ILLN c3 EEn$ ≥ Lti 1O •C � a N C .C N _ <p 0 i7 L C gitt a m o ) O 13-.• :I. Oa� n CE�4 •O � � d Um � ta(d End1 Ocn C O L �_ O W 0) GJ O CO c m N -c—• C the - cc U C� N = L' CD M X CO - F.-- 4.0 4+ O ��' Cr li E CD CU O 0 0 L 0 -0 V •(.7) �= J co al P O 0 d cn U3 O O. 0.1> 0 .n U m c- = a io p OM 0) C o Q U Z O up Ce Q -O c r r M. rl Q J U c 0 N M W 0 M IllC bA UmQ w C O r, y ro ,_ d co . . ‘ ,..,tv, . _ , , ... . r ' � ..,_ . p r ba F•+•� p ca 1 , ,,, . . Ct f AA ' alliliPlanlikkr.: let J n.. ill a . : v. . - • I lir 1,� • - 7 ,1 < 3• _ N1 J }J �s z iz :. 0 S ,•..‘ . i 141M 0 r , lV ID 4-4 m a C p N -0 E a) c r C > R3 o CIO C• th U '- GL p L.-... ft 0) .C ,, y bet > o; c co c a UC -o U O o ,nm3 cepin o r R 3 • L ato r N °' v °' °' °i c °ift CU RI a) c 0 a) E m N N cQ C U a Oo3 rn C ' lit tit /� ` CO(O 0i N O W/ VI p C ` N co (O V C N C13 �C _fO T • C U (3 © to v y 3 ° m co j > >, x O E � Qw T 035 -0 CC E .o Q N: IIv p (O U) a L LL E � 8U a p IIIbe (o N C a CO N N y co ro 2t .iii 2c a O ° al N CO C > O a a> m ID Er a) a� en) ! •C .- p ° r° N N v= X (N ... -- O 0 3 rn C rr a N o O) LA Cll OJ ll l O' M 0 o Ti (7 t = a�i o t coo `° ID Z."-00 M V U co N `1 (n >` _p N a " E d a a, 2 v it a) c� a, a. et C 0 O E ci)D ° Qwt x >•. a LL Ecb O (d t- o N E u 0 • v co CO x LC) co (nCi) C O v c a ... ie: (ten U 11 Q p 00030a3 O U .r .�' o z v CrC a� UP .. - C Ce co co N. °'0.1 _ C0 CO .40 ° r-- a 3 a) � � < U Z r a3 aa3Cn cc N ._ ,— CA Q N N M a D in p = MS m C � U. CZ "" • w • CC) L I- 0 CO U I CA n ~ H N S3NVl 9 0OV�o c�o = a C S 3 N V l 4 d O V ® S3NVl b 00V 2 Co O ®g S3NVl Z la3 N00 w um) car) m — l N �� a W I-I W C JWVjN a Z -IZp _ F° � ® S3NV1100VJo QQJ S3NV1 ► OOV S3NV1Z00V S3NV1 OOV Z H J Q C 4 S3NVl Z 1?13nN00 cgO 3L® O o 2 Z — t it rc . in W > CAN Q —I- .J pi = Q c S?� O U IID P", lAi Lki F Co cej I Co =en a 7 « 0 G a N C ›NN CO a 1/4"o a) U C a = U A (� C U C C C Oi C a) U 4O O O O I13 •°) a a _c a) " a) a) 2 ii "o- 3 ° N L D L cD C (� L L L Q) co) C m Ul • V a � D D D O � Q E Ni co ~O N m CO O (� QJ ea) a) a) C) O 113- d c m c C U L a a CI T Opp en C1 c a> CO ° 75 C C i N - 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 C 2 o °'ID m f° u m 3 0 O :cC ru cn +� a L L. L O O C CO al c a) > m > M a) o m in A E a a a 2 � a `—° cna > o co J -p P W a — a) a) a) (II C a) (pp 4- 4-4 O E a a a 3 = 1:1 CU OM C (n O O O 0 co a) (n 5 t O Up a) O a) Cl.) n) a) a) D w C -° O a o et t CD ,.. ci) CI a a a > o m c! o m co 04 a) a) �. O O O v L cn c r... m m m O O C — L O O O W _ a ° _ o CD ro > (o _U Q) a) O (r) N vi co E 2 cn _ U GJ U �O U (3 L m a d• ti ti o o N N c 13 c (pc 8 a) - - ¢, C >, �' j > t O O O Oti � a a3 -0 coop w a O •V (II C ~ _ coO V C cn f u,la f° cu a� v m D att ca o � > _ ° ,/, cu ccu � c � O CO m >, u, ' U w D co3 CO- d- • 1-- r. acuaD .0m > 0m O n, — cn U c� L (0 CU ' c� ' o U >, oq in v _ a) ° a a, u; a aa) = C 4t To m 4.4 WW •L O -C Q) J o m c 'n OCO �+ ill C ca a) = cn C 113 E U — f— > O 2 v, C v) a� S Q c� a) — W Z:_1 I- 2 2 E Q o E a� � c .O _ ip C a) oY in T. > aci „, o w. 3 ° ° 0 Co a ° 3 3 � ` Q a = O Y mo (� +, Ci Na, cam O C = CO, CO CO o H N u = cn a 3 z a1' CU C ^ aos E ,„ Q as 0 a U _ CD U a a) Q) lC V w z a' Q w J t O W .- E r C = O } � , ,— > o r ca �- ,— � r a 3 ►_ Cn N en O co a) N o d) cc CC F- OO✓i �o - w W �,, cncr, C a) a) a) — Q V Zu_i r 0 4 _ CC i� _N U .0 -(� Q Q o w �f� r c is. a W o • > O > co co O C o • .-J co ,_, cn = //L Co • Z a i . II B c, f. i i s � IC WI O 2 g'' '''••• [II -. . Z C p - I C .,S ..1 i. L aht O Z ij I 1 . . , Z _CH- —�— --y Q v c all ? a = I �J 8 r a) co C c . u u U ,� �` - QQ C d 0 O : -, D ' \ 3I a� ) O x o , J +. r8) t C O w t �' .. 0 U a CD c0 0 .° a) a��iw a, coo C E U p vim, C ° a) cc = N a a) w J >, c0 c a) V) m c o = of > a o L C f0 W O •C .C O U in 8 o1 — N c c a a) O t0 (0 E O O a) cu 41) oc . r n v au 0) T3 E a) (o . .C J L N C Q ° o o,au w co Q d a a) EL O p O L m Cocr) U Q � , . = m v cn (0 L O) U (' ca cn -_ O co ca CO 0 v c a c cn — .� > U O Q O) m ai CO rn > a m e a° c a) x O (13 a) _C U C c� t E ca v O 0 c o TV CO C a) Q) a a) N U cn 0 N oho m � N -o0 CO >, (0 C +� > a) O . y w - r Q v 10 w > Cp • QJ (� O O +s cow p Q O c � m � Qv — > � co 0 O ` �" m O C O U � 'o m � � m cn 0 . C° t am Q M tC -C O O) C -5 CO O 2 Em— D a aaa) > Dn U cX o E .� J cn Eis 2 • a) > C c0 a) U 3) v � � cn 0 -o >, � cII ~ C al j a -±-4 CodU o �' C (v a 3 U) E Q iC u *E 'i la) s t QJcc in o — L C J O D U CD C •Q) C >> a) Z a) = Q t O L _ _ CC < O 7 c > 4- O a] .� a) a) c c a) >' O a) (0 -O U Q O •n.c p •t cn C U 4) +' U C a) O a j, a) U i. (0 >, a) p a) (n a) a] c0 m a a) 1 c0 m O S t a) E 2 L >, u, CO 3 O IS CO V) a .C 2 c0 on (� U `�-- a) - O a a WE 4— O a L S O .cn c — Mc') > W - 2 n 2 a) -n co a c0 E -5, L.6 a �# •^ >, C C) CO C O C H J a) et 76aiEop5a) cra '-- ) ( 69Ea o0 U > y.. -� 02 a) o L V) a) a) __ o o a) D o L ro W >, > > '-• C C a) ' O v C X OD Q) a a E � .-. �. o 4le >, C O (� OL. — • O • (I) -a 0 - O a) c0 O - ) U c -t c 4- L.. ..-. w e (n N v .-� ca p c0 (n C v) is 0 RI vain -`� oc , O �, +' co (no acu cA D (n _ U C U tC a U c a) (n a) U c0 Q W +� U U (0 a) c co a) c o 1O O F- fl. r co a) C cu co a) m> p U o V U co ai r Dm CO (n 5 s c E co •10 Z N N CO CD a) t c p J 34 _.. z J 'a m _ c0 O o f -E LE 0 LLQ w • 0 C O wC L 1 d I f \ C I1C0 I c a O `° i 4 _ i i_ 1 W o !-� O P" r� c. , S rL+ • •a : _ � �% •r 1. S. 0 Z V �1/4 ' ` �1 • mots r.�Irv.I.I.. japr I ® •4 -... 141 0 midi" I �� .111 ® f , i _ja• E7. 1 '' 0 O V3 .O 11) �` • a O > O 000E U CO _' +- O 73 .-0 (/) E O w -Q2 •— co___ E Q) "CD c c .c OaO .mo U E O a::, O 0 +. L rn a o c m �' � Qcp M my v �° ca fldL 3 cno a� O M � � � � o �O CCN 1� 0Cir + C O C c c E m cv n o ; M O O (n V) C ` a w v to c —J up E C O O03 c > as 0 a o a.) c co f- •0O O 0 viz >., tia co umH p co n6c — = 3 m CO 5u- m E (� . to H d Q.D c c �t E m c`ni n� o 14 C _O U H N O C py C C C P OH r�n 0 C y� 13 in co A C U E p� y C CO s---.., 0 d' �. ap in t c y co d o f0 N E 0 Li -0 > r ro tot O O .2- �t = � °; ≥ Yat/) Zs a� � � , � > Ew �J 10 O o F- Q D (0 C Q) in p a> c C c c JD D ^^'' O ` N Q c0 0 P c wmCD O i C N r C u d � En d f/1 C) V CO � ti _ � NU a`� f° o maa E ° w GJ � v to oUJQ' � c v * E .TN � � o C CV x .} - O C � w 2 j 0 4 La- et Q OJ O a to z a _z — co CD o _ C a n c U I;"; 1., . . "-L. > O V1 4- Z = V CO C d L- a) (- C O I- V - c. -, E Q .c -c O '' 04_ .0 LL `° J c0 0 is a) w w.. n 3 , •a7 0 iv y O) V) c a0 En Co • -C m 1O c v ` E ` o z a uoi m .0 0 r r in O , CO N M w j CU C � a) [-Is w C 0 .Y0 co t 0 ir 0- Wf .6 + ♦� : . -ii \ W C 0 m r1/4,1 p r--1 a> t i j -1 4 , illiori . ‘ hts' * • . 44, ,I Ai, I I: ; ; ° ZI. �.. ., . 11) e9 § �` _ �4 to i • ! �!• ! I �. : i 1 r- i 401 ! "le : .. a. ' ' Am ®z lt 0 Cm • C U .C _E o in r_ 0 z-cp � a) 0 U .o S To 5 n"-- (0 O D r O C -0O a) W c0 'O > >+ O C c0 C p '� cnt 0 (0 L U I— co Ill C CD OU CD O C > A O — E ccu o c0 w0o c O -loco N U C `' d � C � � 0 E a el ITcc v H co v v cN cB L - O L ' V — ° o m _ > o o as E CZ a c ` 0 CO cCnUm � ao 9. O >> in • via a7 -0 L a ? .�-. N a fn O N cn p — o rn -*- CU _t O 3 C _O O V � vtv in co y vv c a w U CD ~' O d m ij 45 13- evo �' d > m I (0 L a Uj > — O � dQ c�oU ° criN c o o ao 0 0 " . E -- a d v ao _ 4! O E -6-0 WC (V 3 C C C .� N z a = o _ —, dW O O 4- -C E � O a o w _ Cr a= CO IIC m 0 O O .� E � > +�. 2 d9� N m w oa m -5 Q cn 10 C E a) a) L d Z v cz C1.1 O _C OV C to to 5 O i TS ,_„1 cII .C D > ►n to U 0. m ai 0 0 ii a) 3 •-. N U E � J c.4.. N 0 m W ta U cacu 0 o co con Q a Z W N z c pcc !n t� 0045D O D TiU Q - r I a°• '. � EQ ° -0 U C(ti Ca r bit it. Q i • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Other highway alternatives carried forward from Level One were acknowledged to provide benefits in a study area but did not have the capacity to meet the project area's mobility goals or to substantially address other elements of the project's purpose and need. As such they became candidates for future use in project development if the stand-alone alternatives selected had the potential to be benefited by them. Designation as a complementary alternative did not guarantee inclusion in an alternative however. Complementary highway improvements included: East-West Highway Improvements—These would connect communities on the east or west side of the corridor with the main north-south highway facilities. Alone, these improvements would not address the project purpose of connecting northern Colorado to the Denver Metro area. Interchange Replacement/Upgrade—These alternatives would include improving or reconstructing existing interchanges that currently operate inefficiently or are expected to have operational deficiencies in the future. These improvements alone would not have the ability to address mobility needs along 1-25. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Improvements—These would improve the roadway alignment to meet current standards to improve safety and capacity. Alone, they would not have the ability to address mobility needs along 1-25. Climbing Lanes— Lanes added in the uphill direction along the highway to allow faster • vehicles to pass slower ones in order to achieve a better level of service and to improve safety. This type of improvement would be used in locations where long grades, high traffic volumes and heavy vehicles combine to reduce travel speeds. Alone, these would not provide enough capacity to substantially address the project's mobility needs. Frontage Road Improvements—These would address the need to improve the capacity, the safety and the layout of the frontage roads along I-25. These would not provide enough capacity to substantially address the project's mobility needs. New Interchanges— New interchange would be built along the existing highway corridors to provide additional access or to reduce congestion at an existing intersection. These improvements alone would not have the ability to address mobility needs along 1-25. Truck Lanes— Exclusive lanes used by only truck traffic. They may be separated from general purpose lanes, and may provide only limited access to local intersections or interchanges. Alone, these would not substantially address the project's mobility needs. 3.1.3 Build Alternatives - Transit Like the highway alternatives, transit alternatives were classified as stand-alone or complementary based on their capacity to meet the project area's mobility needs. This was interpreted as having the ability to provide service to regional commuters, to be able to respond to the regional nature of travel in the study area. The project study area includes both active and abandoned railroad right-of-way. It also includes I-25 as well as connecting • highways and arterials. Therefore, there were a variety of potential operating environments and alignments to consider in the transit alternatives development phase. Level Two 3.9 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation • By evaluating a variety of alignment options for both bus and rail service, Level Two Screening determined which kind of operating environment would provide the most benefits for each type of technology option. Operating characteristics such as number of stops and frequency of service were refined from the generalized Level One definition to more effectively fit the particular study corridor selected, but were still assigned based on a general station spacing only. (Exact station locations and parking allowances were not defined until Level Three Screening.) 1-25, US 85 and US 287 were analyzed as potential alignments for both bus and rail technologies. On existing highways it was assumed that the existing right-of-way would be expanded, or that lanes could be converted or shared for specific transit service. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe line on the west side of the corridor; the Great Western Railroad lines in the central part of the corridor; and the Union Pacific lines throughout the corridor were all analyzed. Each of these lines had right-of-way, and in some cases, track, that could be utilized by passenger rail service. In addition, a new alignment along the 1-25 corridor was also developed for analysis. New corridors that would require all new construction were also evaluated for bus and rail service. However, where an existing transportation corridor was available, it was considered a preferable alignment, due to the probability for fewer impacts. Due to the many alignments suggested, a range of northern termini were analyzed, but, after the FasTracks program Passed in November 2005, Denver Union Station was generally • regarded as the most preferable southern terminus due to its wide variety of connection possibilities and its access to downtown Denver employment. The following section includes descriptions and figures of Level Two stand-alone and complementary transit alternatives. Figures 3-7 through 3-10 illustrate the stand-alone transit alternatives (those with the ability to serve regional trips in the project area) including: • Bus Rapid Transit • Commuter Rail • Light Rail • High Speed Rail • Level Two 3-10 SIC O (a .-s ti (1 n CD 'Jr I. ICI n c y ��ott • If) (.1) Co • * se , ,..i- _ , N w o Y ® r� t 7 a @ Y O c x 1 {� O E • ,• Z o 0p � I tv ® , s t aN r � I • � � t� "— i w t ► t , ► .: a) 0 • c o 76 a� .75 .c C C 0 ... O "d a E o 0 m � 3 cn — cn w N X N c a, o) Der, O O oc � 3 z to U � Co � � N0 EttrCG) ? o N — v 5uDcndxC z � o)-a til C 7 C O D c CU N (� c m 0 wore O 0 0 ..is cA CO a 4-4 C C O © 5 c O co a co d T- r eil CO co E CU U -- c 00 c -O up " O z j 03 etaw .0 J E•I O w -CO L- C O D O ci co.' CO Cr c c y C w CO Cl PO — n, t3 c _ t- U -- E co a) c O c >` coN a' o L3 Q � � � n) J �- .0 3 > nNo (�// O C N L c 3 d FBI O U) D o.46 , o N C co CD Z D _� m .o n ali (A CD -C CL L � � � > � O Q •� c . 0c O Q) U o O (Y ._ c n ._ (� :— 4- i O C — U _C C o a) o a3 c c6 41) D `° N EC Q_at O 'en CD CO .0 3 d N ,_ w Co O • O CO > O O 0 cn >� O CD c) Z 0 a r a y Oa 0) N.ID — ar cn to _ 4 (G ed a) a N C" C c C c C W 5 co 4t }, O OQ — � _ y a� O 3 C .0 .1.r co O O) e = v' OM Uacirn_� N -_.> u) Cfl c�II C � � � ti � QJ cI — CoE N O c E a 3 u a) '-' (Ni co E a — 0 1- it) to lq• n. OWMR _ p u) E.� U) C Q CO c E 3 ,_ a) ca44 Q r. I'— N E _ oo C U d '�f Li) co C 0 ca g' �, to "� E to o O x C CV a� i-- E o `v Q) CU I— a) Q) C) 4.; D •.`- U Cn C N a) .0 Cr C c to C it C y m co o • • U(11 p . . >. O 0 n3 U �= V O N U Q o M C Q �_ O co ..0 c L .a• c4 z CL.— = C/3 o _� —� 11 in N. -OaT r- fl. 3 J w • wE O " � cr Q O - Q EE ► C ' a. >, C o O U Z M cD }' (o U LLQ 4J cra o_al ?tO O Z FA m w o . + J C O ... CO • y U a C • W S C CO � ' i. «+ 6 O ' (7 t ° -..--- 1i) (/ ) E2 E Iii m 1 N I ' 4 �. w C 0. 0 Eli c) ish" ro - t; I- , el O , �� - - -O +� _ _ n fr t 0 Q (� r L_ Y ` F. 1 . R �W] • mcw -i,t , a) ci- _` i & c c a •' i < 0 \ m r 1 co As ® w :'-' (n C Co C o a O 0 03 a 2 lcc C � Lv _- - Ch; o O) O rn 03 N- - S o _ m cr _> 7 y L T y c .at c -O 7 m N U a- a 4--• (n lL� N O y (n (a a y 0 a a - ON E C O D O , oL0rn 34 U a o 3 acn ai o, a) O (I) c ad,„ M ' - v, o C .- c a Co d c c CO O o2._ n> .73 ao o f ro C 7 © '- � 0 cg CO ' -- a�iyoB. (noncom v � C) a' Y' E v) -t:' -o i- 0 > D a� c _ p m Qt- t 0 = o a) O CO v D � ui 0 2 � - o o� w o0 3 rn E -Y It C L 0 Y • w Oa) — orn CO a _ o >. CO I-- 04 - v) ≤ �-• a c`�v .n o c as - -�> +.., L Q N N — c .C v CO O Cr �' >, c- h. a> o > 41 M �•-C all •— o V 1 •r.-• Q) C @ o > Q co r- s- a.) a a� o Co 3 c •V w O N U — Q1 � cc V > a a) ayt rn ` o v � .D ' ,••� ` c co a to aci aa) t (n 2 ; �' u x x0 00E o E •i + O O O c i N O u. O i- w U 3 co .= L r cum a) N - �� 0 L.- CL<sr L 03 a W co O 'c 3 t- O C _ > y a (n L ` C O a S C CO O a 0) > ` o m ca ' ' N O .- D v ; co a aa) c too COO a 0 co CO 'IN" N ac -CO > •n c CO c7 CO c � � av � C le, ' c co > 12 y L C o •o a) C L- C O N in o 2 _c 2 3 _E Oo woo 3 o (A C O O • °' t co (Qn) 3 Z co o a .- u, oa O D a) - O C C O N . VI U d CZ� V — m t 25 c co a) .O � o� m co w �' o c' >. rnE ca w a c o _ c O ,Q Q) in � � � en S > � � CAD - Ernvv 5coo - C .15 !+ co L r co a — c co m a y L y y > .ca a . d a � � o y y o W 2 “2 ° y nr 0 c° m V) a) C DC. CCUOMm Cr o - a cO ... !t CJ 0 O O c r7l _ �/ I N N .- c. yi ? O In . Se C O .r cn t m C o .- cn TF a '' ` O Q' cc sr) o c c co O � ,� ac re w ayi o v >. o, E � N et n CD O O — c N m a N . Loo v o _ a c . J �+� �, _ -0 Ott tl - oC c ". _ mac (n > C rna � Q mL n v m i� — c o c •o > y MO 0 °o y Q. D) 4.4a L ` O .� � � mo' � UOL � H 3 � O u CY o % aca T. ?' et (II a O O ,� CO U O N N a) -' - a �• 1._ C EA tap if) cV c VD O O) CO+ O a �, L `�° O- a �"`° ai o _rn_>. 0) E Q O h� 17 y O o o >. w co c c y H U > co CD a--I— mz J+ m o t U m C/) S 3 °' 8 0 3 o coo m C Imml .- CO C 0 V N _ O CO C U a o Co_ cV a) W i +� 0 o -J J W y o a� � ~ a) 3 ? o Q 04 J C) a ca a) W C CO I o 4 O U z 0 � CC c i_ Q oD Q Q' 0>, U _ bA I-o U •� IDw 0 C O_ L Y U 7 ti d C I W _ Es..: i- in ri V 1 2 c ® I / S .` — _ r pi( c D-+ O C ` C 0 1< o x ;-, co r \ ro. vl lam�//' O z �•• S '2 I ' _ , ® /' O 1=4 8 ' . , G p o � _ ^ t - -lir /1 3 ry m C • C. CI �, j 1/1 aQ O O O C vn Q ti--0 ro f9 r6 {Y • C L CA Vl V1 O to CD Cll r,. n re$ N _ H E LAr o a0 a O a O CD • C N O D U a (1) O L lb am mL L > N a � 0 �c a O Cl) ` c In C a`i o O .O L o o N O- y -o N �, CE Q G � O p � a� oC ._ 0) � U) oy E NI `o ro o c y O O 0 III a.)• >+ O orn (/) a '� oco � o � � m 3 U N .O en 92 C d O � U E cum en U•..._ 0 —' �) 200. - cc 3n E C C M cu Q) ' t _ _ _ J --� N To cv C = Cl) c cn c a'_o u a O• m !Ji o N c �, �, s � _ ,�CV •O o aai o 3 5 co0O E CD O cp a� c m o c d NO co 0 c Cn y E' N u O A f0 .a co et k_C U CU — Q_ U Q oo a it, CCCC c 1i) .c) W C a) E O .C. ÷-, @ L (a taDL — a Q C _lcfn r-1 C O N Cl) E M o s Cr' co -o ' a CO a _ 5 N a Et3 'c O O , Q - 7 .2 Y C N N `O a) Ga i r`CO Q O V co O S f° 0 - O N U J U (V oiSet in c O = O m U d Q C C C 1i. �--j CC O0 0r u) C0.) W 0 C CD 3.* N _ O O to O O — =0 C13 cn ,—cef) D o co O - a n co w +' Q cE ° � O N c a� a� a c0 O H w N .— cn -5 a> rn CD Q) O _Q) >. �; � 2co Cn mow � � � � Q J C'n4-4 mNU [0 Cr N c 43) 1.--J, CC CC cc n CC � U CU Q Iip CU O O cn C >O Ca c U 0. w z c '"a U a M U Q a_ W x v- o J M CC co c ce Q o w ~ c G- r Q U. eZt ad O J M .CD O Ill w C O .to' 0 U tn n I y se' ?tit u.8- ili o 4 ( _ ' o Z Co ® eiO3 2 • w ® r lil 3£3E S •y O -\c,:), vi, cs 4 O ,....i ® ? 1 V i i 84 - . 411L----- ® g 1 co ,, A _ L _ _ , , , _s_ a) 4 o 70 ?'l U >, x x1 a 15 0 iii , u) co CL a >, a) — ca C.15) D a) a) c C L mcu 3a) r'" CL L j U Y O gco w -0 .' o a) (1 1 O a N O -2 o to na) 12 C � c � c t� M o o -0 g o � � .E C '� c •O — = > c c� arcs t OQ 0 CO C . oit o C co �, I_ 3 > — ..0 a l' ' 'it 0 C = 3 U Li CU > yL (n oa � ) � 0 .- o ._ i 00- 0003 3 to ccn n � ��, > ch 0) — C N C seco —I o asQ • c O D > > 0 � 3 Uo C oto � � o v a� n y Ti a � a) o O acio � c rn 0 a= cnc c > x � E CV O c) a? CC ou_ ocvc CO r� " moo a � o - 4J D C L > c o �, .E °i 3 > , a) 73 C O •c O CCCCaci sE U) ( a' °' `° o ._ U O > = 0 a._ aaa = o Q � a� > > � � o co o _ • MJ Cl) a) L N- O O v c o -C a e") x a) +•• Q (1) (0 CD Tim U) a) � a � N >o O O Os Oc O � L � o r- L " u, x � E V) C CO ..7_, O c O O d = N (Q C arc ca mLca �° naioa� Co) us, O ( "J C '8-0 CD c Oro S N O a>to 0 a, -o — o E >o (>1; 8 8o = M > O N aai 0 o 0) O ' - - N S. -�-i-i a o - �3 Efj In - o Q w •ti 41t >, o a co D_ C — O cu 0 .0 z z o cn H LL .I— .I (1) -I ETC cc cc CI) a3 cr) 4_- co c c..) c� O r v .- a) ro 0 U r .- LLI I. ,r a) W y O Cl.) fa 4 O U Z J it cy) ri (n a) Q tic v ) c) > I Icn o U bA w Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Modes that served specifically local transit needs, or operated in such a way that would make them unattractive to a regional commuter, were characterized as complementary transit alternatives. As such they became candidate alternatives for combining with build alternatives later in the study if needed. However, designation as a complementary alternative did not guarantee future selection of use. Complementary transit improvements include: • Local Bus Service— Local buses typically stop every few blocks on local streets in order to provide the most access to neighborhoods and employment centers. While inappropriate for fulfilling a regional transit need, they can be very effective as "feeders" or connector services to more mainline, higher-capacity services. • Express Bus Service— Express Transit Service typically operates in shared lanes on existing highways with fewer stops than local transit service, but it provides no travel time advantage and is very often unreliable, due to operating in shared lanes that are subject to roadway congestion. Although it can be operated as a north-south transit service (similar to the Front Range Express, operating from Colorado Springs to Denver) it seats approximately 40 people per bus, which is too little capacity to act as a stand-alone alternative in the study area. • Regional/Commuter Bus Service—Although it is designed for long-distance trips, Regional/Commuter Bus service was considered to have insufficient capacity to serve the level of trip demand being generated in the project area. (However, as a complementary • alternative, it was retained for future combination with other build alternatives.) • East/West Transit Service—The purpose and need specifically describes the need to connect the North Front Range to the Denver area. Therefore, east-west mobility is secondary to serving north-south travel needs; however, it will be designed and tested as a supporting system to facilitate access to the main north-south transit service. • City-to-City Rail—The purpose and need specifically describes the need to connect the North Front Range to the Denver area, therefore, city-to-city rail that stops short of connecting to Denver will not serve the regional mobility need, but need not be precluded by the design of the regional transit service. • Demand Responsive/Call-n-Ride—This service is typically operated in rural and ex- urban areas to serve passengers with special needs, and is not designed to serve a regional, higher-capacity commuter need across large distances. Although impracticable as a stand-alone alternative, it can certainly be encouraged among communities to facilitate access to a higher capacity fixed guideway alternative. 3.1.4 Build Alternatives - Congestion Management Although by definition congestion management measures do not include major capacity improvements, an analysis of congestion management elements was initiated during Level Two Screening to ascertain (and document) whether the congestion management strategies could manage 1-25 capacity efficiently enough to preclude consideration of building additional capacity. The analysis was conducted considering each of the congestion management strategies independently as well as in combination with the others as an overall • group. Travel Demand Management, Intelligent Transportation Systems and Transportation System Management strategies advanced from Level One were evaluated in Level Two. Level Two 3-15 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 3.2 LEVEL 2A SCREENING - BUILD ALTERNATIVES In Level 2A, highway alternatives were compared to each other, and transit alternatives were compared to each other to determine which could better meet purpose and need, would be more practicable and would have less potential for negative environmental impacts. Alternatives that performed well in a majority of analysis areas were advanced to Level 2B. 3.2.1 Highway Criteria The Level 2A evaluation and screening criteria for highway alternatives are described below: 3.2.1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED AND PRACTICABILITY CRITERIA The safety, mobility, and aging highway infrastructure criteria are used to determine how well each alternative addresses the project's purpose and need. • Safety— Evaluation of safety was based on the functional classification of each alternative. Alternatives with a higher functional classification would have fewer crossings (restricted access) and therefore fewer conflicts. Alternatives with less access control were not considered as safe. Figure 3-11 compares crash rates for different facility types. • Mobility— Improving the mobility of travelers between northern Colorado communities and the Denver metropolitan area can be accomplished by increasing capacity of 1-25, US 85 or US 287 or by reducing the vehicular demand along these routes. Figure 3-11 compares • the vehicular capacity for different facility types. • Preliminary 2030 traffic projections along 1-25, US 287 and US 85 between SH 7 and SH 1 were developed with the North Front Range MPO 2030 travel model and the DRCOG 2030 travel model. Based on these preliminary projections, the 2030 unmet demand is approximately 55,000 vehicles daily on 1-25. Alternatives with the ability to accommodate this unmet demand were retained for additional evaluation. • Aging Highway Infrastructure—Alternatives were compared to determine which would replace the most aging infrastructure along 1-25. Figure 3-12 compares the amount of aging infrastructure replaced with different alternatives along 1-25. • Practicability— Per USACE's 4049b)(1) guidelines, this criterion depends on costs, technical and logistic factors. To be practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall purpose. Alternatives were compared to determine which was the most cost effective, and was a proven technology. 3.2.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA The data sources used in the evaluation of Level 2A alternatives were readily available data from census, file review, field reconnaissance and county and municipality planning documents. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate the potential for and of the highway or transit alternatives being evaluated to adversely impact natural and built environment resources. The evaluation criteria are shown in Figure 3-13. • Level Two 3.16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3-11 Purpose and - 'g p Need Safety and Mobility SAFETY 2.5 2.07 • 2.0 1 .8 2002 rates in • 1 .5 1 .49 study area: e 1 .07 1-25: 1 . 45 = 1 .o US 287: 3. 62 US 85: 2. 02 0.5 US 34: 1 . 71 0.0 FREEWAY EXPRESSWAY ARTERIAL COLLECTOR Facility Type MOBILITY 250 2030 Demand s a_ a t--; 150 • a Existing Capacity 100 Existing Capacity N a 50 O N ✓= a = CT, V 1 u ^ a a N M1 s s - - a Average additional 1-25 Link Segment capacity needed: 55, 000 daily vehicles 80 70 w 60 55,000 Vehicle Capacity Needed N 50 fi 40 30 _ 120 10 0 Upgrade Degrade 1 lea lee 4 Lane lee 4 Lane 1 b 4 he 4 In At lanai la LIprasseai Ex plantar Arterial IilMrq Frteiral III Lain lull Erne ftpressway to Lanes trait Lain freeway Level 2 Alternatives Level Two 3-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation111 Figure 342 Purpose and Need Evaluation - Aging Infrastructure Number of Deficient Number of Deficient Railroad Structures Drainage Structures VMT on Poor/ Alternative Replaced Replaced Fair Pavement No Action • • • HOVto SH 66 • • • NOV to SH 14 3 0 Toll toSH66 • III III Toll toUS34 1 4 al loII toSH14 \_.;1 (---. HOI to SH 66 III II • HO! to VS 31 I 4 1 HOT to SH 14 I o ill limited Access lanes to SH 1 O o 6 General Purpose hoes O O o 8 Geoeral Purpose LOOPS 0 0 0 (19 Best Rating • Waist Rating III Level Two 3.18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Fi ure 3-13 Measurements Used for Environmental Screenin in Level Two g g • Resource Category Measurement Used Section 4(f) Resources , me • Total number of Section 4(f) resources potentially impacted (parks and wildlife areas) fllia Land Use • Rating of compatibility with existing land use and planned future land use; • Potential to induce growth Economic 47) • Provision of access to future economic activity centers Air Quality • Rating of potential to affect congestion or potential to affect vehicle miles or hours of travel Traffic Noise • Developed land within 600 feet of the transportation improvement, number of sensitive receptors Transit Noise and Vibration • Proximity of residential uses to the transit improvement Water ResourcesVIIMPna • Total number of lakes and streams potentially impacted Wildlife/Threatened, • Bald eagle nests within half mile; Endangered or Rare Species • Bald eagle communal roosts within half mile; • Preble's mouse known habitat; ill • Mountain plover habitat; • Swift fox known range; • Potential impact to rare fish species Wetlands ei • Potential impact to wetlands and streams Environmental justice • Potential to provide direct access to low income and/or minority; • Potential to have an adverse impact on low income and/or minority Visuals • Potential impact to highly scenid views; • Potential impact from added pavement width Historic Resources • Number of existing and potential historic sites within 1000 feet of corridor Hazardous Materials * • Number of known hazardous materials sites (Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information Systems) that could be potentially impacted Sccial • Number of communities potentially bisected: • Potential for improved travel time; • Improvement in accessibility?, alternative mode of transportation added? Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Number of regional trail crossings; +3 I • Measure of impact to local routes: t. • Potential impact to planned trails 3.2.2 Highway Screening The following section describes the key findings from the Level 2A highway screening . Figures 3-14 through Figure 3-19 illustrate the results of the Level 2A highway screening . Additional Lanes — Adding lanes on US 287 or US 85 would reduce 1-25 travel by four percent to ten percent. This reduction is not adequate to address the mobility needs along 1-25 in 2030. In addition , these alternatives would not address safety concerns on 1-25 or replace aging infrastructure on 1-25. In general, impacts to environmental resources were not discerning at this level . Alternatives were conceptual and could potentially be designed to avoid environmental resources. Alternatives with additional lanes on 1-25 were retained for additional evaluation . Level Two 3-19 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Upgrade Parallel Roadways— Alone, upgrading on US 287 and US 85 would not adequately address mobility needs along 1-25. However, based on community support, the US 85 expressway alternative was retained for further evaluation in Level 2B. The other three alternatives were screened out in part due to their impacts to the human environment along the corridor and their limited ability to address mobility along 1-25. Express Lanes— Alternatives of shorter lengths would not adequately address safety concerns, capacity needs or replace aging infrastructure along 1-25 in the northern portion of the study area. While the H0V lane alternative to SH 14 addressed many of these concerns, it would require additional capacity to address the mobility needs; it was retained for additional evaluation in Level 2B. HOT and Toll lane alternatives to SH 14 were also retained. Limited Access Lanes—Alternative B, two additional lanes in each direction, would have more environmental impacts than converting one lane and adding one lane south of SH 66 to a limited-access lane (Alternative A). The wide cross-section required for this alternative impacted vegetation, wetland, and wildlife. Alternative A was retained as a more appropriate solution for tying into the existing lane configuration on the south end of the study area and adequately addressing mobility needs on 1-25. New Highway Alignments— Four new highway alignments were evaluated. All four were eliminated from further consideration as they did not improve safety on 1-25, divert sufficient traffic from 1-25 to sufficiently improve mobility, and they had the most potential to impact farmland, hazardous materials and were inconsistent with planned land use. New Arterials— Neither diverted enough traffic to improve mobility sufficiently on 1-25. In • addition, these alternatives would not address safety concerns on 1-25 or replace aging infrastructure on 1-25. However, either alternative could potentially be combined with other stand-alone highway improvements. Both were retained as candidates to complement other transportation improvements and improve accessibility along the corridor. • Level Two 3-20 • 41 cv C :_3 'i Z Y Z v. np != 'CL . , v y lY`� l O 1 g• y leBi -. `oe ..... 'Ali 0 4:4 , ,,, ii- •.. . :., i 1/1 .: 4 : / t { • 1 4. Y • © ,0. r IN\ VI cin 12 tIct Lo fn O \ O N / O in N m >. o H \> - O ulml co _ tUi = U C N S G CD L oea c al "CI c m CD 'J a cItt Cy o o `�° mCl E E \\ / o C 0 '� > E D ID C) > E is \ / "1O cC _0 an 413 C) S. CCI ela it am co 4— C � �' > � � Q C DE ,.na y .� CD g Jos C L m E W m L / W O\ 00 0 Ill : CD N o o Q H CC _%v C7 a .C- 0 2 m , ~ Q E a m Z .1%) of 2 a o\c H � � on � v 4 v t Q � c, r lo �i > . Q > / m 0 o io 0 O\\ •" { 4 0 4 \ R D \ C) GJ i•• V ecl • # E .—{ CD S. N / E w c O3 Cti ; II(301 \\ N 0 C / ! N y O CD ICI Ss IS N > n \ a o to CO2 > E m Cl 0 Q C) 4" / ca m 'a 4-0 O ID • O CO C co o ` >e\ -an E Q a`> m O C C E E N z \ N o C C -s N rn u) a _ I..a L rQ, W/ o ii O c L S m •c W .E o C C) V m v -cat To a a) a > w C7 � m 0 m o 'vcc_ C7 m o m m W a o I-- c ¢ J CD wm }� W m / F- > �o Q u, E / Z a c o € — Q ,,, E a co Z o , r 4 z Pr. t O j L a, \ Q z o j mnc CO O — o .a > o o c p III N t Q D • Q O C = I ii Q bt • w 0 .r co c.n cy, — 0.. n. , . . . __. • . , : : • ,. , , iz r� �1--i o is Z U Il3. r • j 1 t' '� 5 si z C M JIIr ti • it „. ig.,. -4-- a40 }) _ 1 . ` ` II O 3 > �-}} yy 0.7 3_, .. aid .-'�.. ® i `\ \ ,;o,1,r1' `'� \ ' 4 i. i .Ei et ti ♦ t '1 . ch et ct et a)bip / E • I -c a E / a o / \o /\ 75 ICIMI Ln i' 'a >� O Yn cc / N ♦\ N / d 0.0 CO Er V \ O / C� 3 � —° �o C , 'o \._ / C O �y bt m rrl 0 .+.� 0 m a\♦ /gym > y .� y m\ ° /' > H N 0 u. N am "F- d r � / W sip O In C co L CI) W c— \\ t• J (f) W > Es ti Q 0 W v a/v w ♦ Z • ra 3 y 1- n'\ - f/ H `o \ Q I.- c g Q ` 4H 4.1 ' j \ Z = rQ > > E \ v v Z ., > > \ 9 0 0 g c_n aO \ 4 O ♦ bt • CIJ GJ i-r V Cl) as fr.1 4t M tCD MIPS co rN MS O N C / C r C \ N ' Qj ? Ill'i ‘ 0 . c.) 0 "di 13 a Uo Z U to a Y — - a CD 00 4) 4) " • m// a °l_ 72 V • 2 t0 O W O o cs w ≥ •\ \ Z In -E,s�E E. \\ - 4 E /c, n c \• QO T > a' N 'n ' ti -0 \ r O t--1 > T � s ter = • \ > az � • N O • - \ - o cn • ♦ w 4-• (r) ft O \ iQ O \ Cid— r 3-4 03 mtle w0 C O 0 r ._ Co _ Y _ _ ._ a .L �� N 0 WIA N co ~ N N S3NVl b 0OV �o O ~ � 4I S3NVl V OOV ��AS3NV1ZJOV ~ = J = t t S3NVlb0OV /� /� o Q 0 e= '8 S3NVl Z 183 ANO0 p U1 1 (Jr) *w m �+ W a - I _ z c rr��--�� in w r�-+ o J W y N Z c JZF _ O S3NVlhOOVJo W o Q Q J lienaitt stave S3NVl Z 00V S3NVl 00V w tan a/ F- JQ D O '8S3NV1Z1N3ANO0 Z u i O �� . A E 5 di .t Z - _ O 3 c Z F N OH _ S3NV1 Z 00V a S3NVlZ00V S3NVlZ00V = J = a F Jo S3NV1 Z 1M3ANO0 Q O as 0 U et 4 m N • r (9 (p W W f• 0 0 y N a a 0 r L = « y y o O a N N OD ic- Lt) N C o c a, 0 m a) e iv c E c y (n a) o co > .o C) C11 W ' ,E, cooC c C _ E o w a °� s o cz — ft 4 E as on n' > 1 — Co L c 7 'C 4 C >. .N y YO O cn _ -O 1-1; C7 X r v - a CO rn _ Ill CV _ ns a 0� (V a •�+ y m c .C �° E LL > Cr) w CO H a E o u' RCD J C m > N o ` m WI in i E.wJ _ CD fn L. o m vdi w a CD -. • S. a 8- C -> E c CD — o a a 0 o 5 _ a �-�-i W o n3 Q a > n `ra n E CD .� 0 = E0 Z ≥ o a .c m as > y o U CA Q Q 3 gr '� m E c c OD > C — Z > > c Q -S o C7 >45- E a ch u co m (C o X o .- E 0 .E. — ii* 2 bt�i ~ d p y m m E _ a O T ` ca a C C vi E _ ._ m 0 a o ^ 1 v W O `' mac C C a7 O U _ 2 c `° ' 0 a' E of 0 O — a u a> a) a u Cld = -E In Cr) O - - a' d 3 .a m a� c� m c° -C- a, .w N E a) m o W a m Q m Itt V co rr w y y o a' —° `� 'o C7 o o O . 4t C _ CO F > o f liJCD m N o a o d 3 >, 1 3 m i� CD 2 = - o c -0 _ a cc v) m o F- <n o) -5 — • m y y > a ≤o o d o o aa) - cc Z c o a) o as 2 Q w to v o E >o c V F- a o E N v v > �° c m = S y Y t.. = t m o oa c' z a-xi a a c o o p p m v m n c et CD o o E — 0 c c �a (C u. o F= c2 c..) d z F- 03 a s a) v 1.� cn c a, c E o a V > O N .ii CD rn rn E m _o o ca Q 0 W 175 N [a • O U C Q > O O @ .(n O U 2 fa a O N a a n m m a - O = U N C CT H0 o a c C ar m ca i a) E c E _ .A� 11 im co m ≥ `n - ≥ o _cv m Q) 1 D J 7 al `) N N -. E. cu c c N H o v' a) y Q1 4.0 C LLI 7„ m o c " ar J + — a) a> 0 A— 4 w -a -a d .a - a -t, to) Q O 00 Z o o O .o m C (n N I 3 Q 3 3 as 3 _N r. en Z < U > < < a co > U LV y 0 _ p -E- o u.> ' p r > a Q 4 N Q Z Q c >' < c bAIll d o " Q w C O Co0 ct O a CO C cD I- C 0 2 i' •( W 0 s' t•t 7 °s p ZU - P. , - Ilk_. 7 . ; O U ,- • V c n O • a' V En I , iW O O /li Zo '} 1- ■ • U — A ; i O SY A c . I - — Q A * 4 B o ` L t c ` !Q L L 0 : a N_ M r 1• O .M. ~! 'r 1 � - ae - C `1' 1rI -S L i • V p IA` L • O_ h r i IC r0 4,1 t \ A E ti 3 n CD -.S icit m O CI.) cc — W s a ft �� x - w L'_ V) o CD V a V ct' .C oc ♦ \ g. o A / NJ ` c aw •- / N to O CU L \ y V N c>// 0 cu 0 .+.r 2 o a ILI E Q •.N CA ti - u /C Q �t Ili E C ` ¢ m / 0 4) w t N el •py N C i t E N C N CE CD i `— J c o m /—C c 10 (4 o c J C • O N CO > Q. J m C o . / a E ao y co c) n \ / t0 w •g a x a) CO E S' Y a $v Q co C 8 > 40 t _p u xO j y S CD 0 o 3// O a 8 -o .E Z a -E C W a E' rj v O Z a / o Z > `‘ i..l > . i _ z a o `l a CU CU c.r) O, v. g- m = It rt ca o a �+ up U • C) i.M a p *sets E N in Q C V C /�1� C ; `„ c L G) /^L`` W —no .C C O •C O — V W tit )* N C '_ O O O 0 C Pawl •D O a O L v Q FPM C ea a� v I €o al ,Y '6 a C a 03 o2S C a p t/1 N � � a• n@ t m L11 et Q Cil v4W O E a cCI CU co N a d E Z c, a) Q 1— .0 mm a -0 J 0 0 r N Q O 0 r--1 w N W u M CU RS 0 _ bt - iiQ ,- wlii 0 C O C9 c- •-.) C1 v) C co N ,-1 ct E o �. c .4 tiil: f ( 1 O o r ?r y 1 , • it tsre: st".--,%)... 1 4 . . 1 . w. .4._ v .. .,\\ • y_ , _�_ . V . . r, �+ • do t : ' f. • y ` I E v. \ tizi r6. ,. in 5. on o ea c , btcu • Co ch N\ ` N m CO e17 Q `t U / d -C cu cz 7 CO CL • • -E tEO E 2 o 00 i o "C `Illii-s ca O : .a Nitt 0 °' coo Cr •V 'o N o CL x�`A° co i� v a� Q 1 C in 3 N — �. Cu 6) n 0 r C u cc e V! a, `� 2 L a ¢ / W \Cli c E °° O a. = ¢ /W 6617 a + � / (Jr, \ w O CD � _ W ~ p, / ° t \ \ `o .o . O �..- W y rna ' a �\ N i ¢ W E o to S aci cn 2 (' Q a aT Z c m 4' v°'i _� . . Q o t v y Z c 3 vi E N ��aJ Q Z m a > � E E\a a¢ Q a� D Q o ni ma c° Q oleo m o O o c"'., rn o o\ o a Z N e o 7 ° o 'n t b > C7 U N S.• O — 2 co f L > W CC Lt O ¢ S. N J 2 E bt 9 _ • N \ t CD CV V N Cr V. 4t ri-I CD w • \ / pi , eta, _ .•i \ o a o / \ oC ,/' / et •H \ CO 4.4 iil \ c c m / \ j m / W in -ci liZZ 0N\ N C / c as CO u CD CO \ ._ E / C m PM W _ ,O U co E / u v as ' m — \ E \ c mE/ U C C ICt •_ Q O \0 ♦ E /an L •_� in \ _G E0 CIO o w O / Z)" U Q O` n. co, O m ' J E m „) \ UCD Q 6� c M \ E u *I C N N m \ u m - Cid L Yy o0 / W \ — cC O L Qa sa \ m O J N E / %S v \ CO - o i0 v �"' W m c \c c 2 W 6W / /a m\ m Z y E - Z c o 6Ni — C7 - o c g co r 00 Q F" b ›.../..„ °� Q a a \E Eigir '-• b d/ ¢ a E E b M > / mU ¢ — ia = S \ > Ij0 < S _ r co \ w \ 0 o c o ID Ll. Q •bt w C O 'fi=r • L. O 4 _ It ,a .s S , ... 4 L u 0 r z U1 -{� It---, _ r1 p-4 0 . 4;\\%2 i 1,44„ " - . it) , % ,,, ., a II Ira .. I i ,, C:'•n L. g O O . , - .-, Adr . A libt si, ,,. .., 1 rt.! �. _ ��\ P i r a tt�Sq 1 ..d.. +7 a r i y II t tie ,-i-, ' 1 7-O tt O • z / C ` � E `m / N J ezi .0 c - M .� C m c \ a) c v, p E „C -i-• r+ \ o co v > U i-� I CO a U O N / _O O tp ifro a n o\ / r c o > ~ cc) all Id _ o o E _ •\ / 'G d ch M e0 C O U VV3i ≤ �C Q ZW U in N CO a// \ � 0 V1 fC J • a I O L mo .ad W d = - o p > - -- , a\._ > c o Z O a •: M itw co 0 m E > a m ¢ H o\° m y ci W. Q F c I O Q a -0 3\c c„ -0 ay a j �v [aj Q on o o 1) co 0 0 0' o\in tip 3 > X 3 Q 0 -J = 4 3 3 3 �'\ Q in C v 3- V et t! t Izk ' for a in +r ad rndUh= o = An ea o 09 $ E o C \E a, — d u Q o 4i' E a / / t CD CD Q O N r.. N L �\ O - 1� U > V C t0 C V 0 ' AS C m N vn >� c u N C Q CL-oU E 0 L 0 5 / 92 O w Q) a) co a m a) y V O OI v0, .≤ C li•J r i m � o � o \ c o COo' CO Q > 7 E L ` a) w .... N r Q1 0 cya y -O r %.,\- 1: z a' CD — 4? wm yo/ - o aid z J NN r; ♦+ C3' uttF ; a \wm0 m R . a c - yo v o Z 0 l5 0 Ill 0 i' 2 -a `0 3 w a a a .0 o\C o to v Q Z = x w = v J v ca 03 cn O d a o /O a y o o O O o o\y N C r in > _ Eaic) s:z g _ � qq�• 0 . \ Q N LL • O ` w ID Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 3.2.3 Transit Criteria In Level 2A transit alternatives were evaluated using various available data such as Census information and National Transit Database information on peer transit systems. For example, reliability of each operating environment was qualitatively described based on the physical condition of each alignment (exclusive, grade-separated, shared, etc). A general description of the evaluation criteria is provided below: 3.2.3.1 PURPOSE AND NEED AND PRACTICABILITY Safety—Alternatives were compared to determine which had the fewest number of at-grade road crossings. Improve Mobility, Provide Modal Options and Support Economic Development —Alternatives were compared to determine which: • Served the highest concentration of employment and population centers in the study area: Analyzed through the use of 2000 Census numbers for communities along each alignment • Connected to other transit systems: Analyzed through mapping other transit systems (TransFort, The Bus, FoxTrot and RTD) • Had the fastest travel times: Analyzed through measuring the distance of each alignment and applying the average operating speed of each transit mode (no station dwell time allowance was included at this level of screening) • • Served anticipated trip patterns: Analyzed through comparing the alignments to the Census 2000 Journey to Work data Practicability— Per USACE's 4049b)(1) guidelines, this criterion depends on costs, technical and logistic factors. To be practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall purpose. Alternatives were compared to determine which was the most cost effective (based on an average cost per mile and cost of technology obtained through peer systems), and was a proven technology. 3.2.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA The data sources used in the evaluation of Level 2A alternatives were readily available data from Census, file review, field reconnaissance and county and municipality planning documents. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate the potential for the highway or transit alternatives being evaluated to adversely impact natural and built environment resources. The evaluation criteria are shown in Figure 3-20. 3.2.4 Transit Screening Level 2A Screening used readily available data to screen the transit alternatives within their modal categories in order to narrow the total number that would undergo travel demand forecasting. Therefore, the best of high-speed rail alternatives, commuter rail alternatives, BRT and light rail alternatives were selected based on the transit screening. Level 2A Screening narrowed the potential options to the following: • • Bus Rapid Transit • Commuter Rail • High Speed Rail A and C A-F A Level Two 3.27 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3-20 Measurements Used for Environmental • Screening • Resource Category Measurement Used Section 4(f) Resources • Total number of Section 4(f) resources potentially impacted (parks and wildlife areas) I ; land Use • Rating of compatibility with existing land use and planned future land use; • Potential to induce growth Economic sen • Provision of access to future economic activity centers Air Quality r • Rating of potential to affect congestion or potential to affect vehicle miles or hours of travel Traffic Noise + .- • Developed land within 600 feet of the transportation improvement, number of sensitive receptors Transit Noise and Vibration • Proximity of residential uses to the transit improvement Water Resources • Total number of lakes and streams potentially impacted Wildlife/Threatened, • Bald eagle nests within half mile; Endangered or Rare Species • Bald eagle communal roosts within half mile; • Preble's mouse known habitat; 1r1 • Mountain plover habitat; Swift fox known range; Potential impact to rare fish species Wetlands • Potential impact to wetlands and streams Environmental justice • Potential to provide direct access to low income and/or minority; i • Potential to have an adverse impact on low income and/or minority Visual • Potential impact to highly scenid views; • Potential impact from added pavement width • Historic Resources - • Number of existing and potential historic sites within 1000 feet of corridor Hazardous Materials • Number of known hazardous materials sites (Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Information•.� p P y o Systems) that could be potentially impacted Social • Number of communities potentially bisected;"ti • Potential for improved travel time: Improvement in accessibility?, alternative mode of transportation added? Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Number of regional trail crossings; Measure of impact to local routes; l • Potential impact to planned trails p Due to the range of transit options still being considered , the northern termini varied , and would be tested further in Level 2B screening . Figures 3-21 through Figure 3-24 illustrate the major findings and results of Level 2A Transit Screening . No Light Rail alternatives were advanced because the travel times were so high (over two hours on each line tested) and both project advisory committees (the TAC and the RCC) agreed that it was a poor choice of technology to select over such a long distance when other more efficient transit technologies were available. Level Two 3-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Other transit alternatives that were screened out include: BRT B and BRT D— Compared to other BRT alternatives, it caused out-of-direction travel for passengers trying to reach Denver, which would lengthen the travel time, and faster, more direct, and more cost-effective options were available on either 1-25 or US 287. The alternatives also had the potential to negatively impact future land use, wildlife and hazardous materials. BRT E—This alignment serves very few population centers, and uses no direct highway routes to reach Denver. In addition, as with BRT B and D, more direct and cost-effective alignments were available along existing roadways that would not require railroad ROW conversion to a BRT guideway. The alternatives also had the potential to negatively impact future land use, wildlife and hazardous materials. BRT F— In the highway alternatives analysis, it was decided that US 85 would be upgraded only as a supplement to the improvement selected along 1-25. Therefore, without substantial upgrades, BRT service was considered to be unfeasible along US 85. By contrast, BRT could be possible in special-purpose or managed lanes along 1-25. Similarly, communities along the US 287 corridor were supportive of widening or converting lanes in certain areas to support transit improvements, though a continuous BRT-only lane would not be possible. Commuter Rail G— Compared to other commuter rail alternatives, this alignment would require out-of-direction travel for passengers from the Western side of the corridor trying to • reach Denver. There would also be a prohibitive amount of coordination with the UP for track space and time along the main line as well as through the Sand Creek Junction that enables railroad access into Denver Union Station. HSR B— Of the three HSR alternatives, this alignment had the most potential to impact natural resources, due to proximity to wetlands. It also served the least number of population and employment centers. HSR C— This HSR alignment would require the most travel time of the three alternatives under consideration. It would also require the highest capital cost expenditure due to the alignment's length. LRT A, B, C and D—The travel times of all the LRT lines were comparatively high compared to other transit alternatives, and high enough to make travel from the northern to the southern terminus extremely unlikely due to the long travel time and the characteristics of the vehicle that make it uncomfortable over long distances. Therefore, no light rail alternatives were carried forward for further analysis. • Level Two 3-29 C _ • CD U a • N C (D /— 4 - J w s, �a 6 t - 00 1r1 C/') : a ® i ® = a KNZ '� �� a * co Hi 0 .1 N . • _ a 1 • Z _ rliptrie *) \ r m C) . 4 i I 4 �►� WT o fa i5 c 2 1 1• , - Ie �E °' U S. ) • . N O / •5 co aEi = r a .+.. " c cn Irk " / E •,..c �_ • \ 9 m us V) ` ,c N E c > .p• CO t' +.0 \ , .o a « En Cr) Ill V) O OQ o « O` O - ▪ CO .� L W u Q a\ 3 a) a a .t w o l Z 3 \ 3 a .E i-+ i_, ad Qw ` o ft i Z ( .n > N ` cA d o t Q OW � \ N m th C � IL � co t) C/) 1 S" 0 g) I— a) 0 W ' I > M O Cn J 4.0 r ~ / •' dl ^I > tD m / d / 7 U E , t Q.J co 0a \ 0 _ •fl \ O , ,� CD .. E E 0 C E a 2 w a7 O V CD 6 `o C \ d / m C = cc •� .— y c E \.. ,c u > •.. E ` r/ u c > rr a \ �a > y > �\ , „. .- CI) (� c E wrzi -fl RS c/\cn m E Q (D `•�! v>, E « w a QJ a co •.c W p o x it c / w •p Y > .. }.y V) C a d p Q N O/C U' \ a " `O 0 N « g. U' p " `p 0 O V " W •a,° 1, > < a L W Cu •, Q a ;° ; a L W d ) Q O- \ 9 ; a a Cl) O c c m z t/c R ` c a) a ll c z 't 3 .E Q N o 0 tt « d Q d N Z Q tt_v y z y W N d « 4-d > v� °' « a, > N N H m a) v .„,. (1) ‘ 4) (a4)N\o O - 4s J•,/ -612 y a 0 N 13‘ () \ () *-0 p 4. Mii Z p ccu > > N m O — * > N cu a N c ��r Q j a y •� '�' a Z c Q > `o n+ a Q Z •c o\2z Z Q > o` v a Z • TA N\ Z tD ri O � � LLJQ � tnu CU O � LL E V) t�i � : `tn O2LL � cnu2 �' cmO 5 Q . . . . a • 4t • . . O . . < . . O C . • . v J~ w 1c 51 CD 2 u c E / u N II = ca m ` >, , — 08 0 c \ a ,Lo w C3 a) 2 y -o Q) . E , 3 E u ,7 o a c C CD (1) I a c C > Cl) aP a 0 > y ` o / ` of cc •.M 3 Y E •c c c . E ` , 0 C > 4-d o. N •,,c m o Cc +r z ` �' a s C) -c CO a ;; 3 Y3 4 V) m y u 0 .n CD ".3 N L E " Q C U) NO v O W Q 0 « Q a co Q W « 0 , 0 p. O " 1- O r Ec i W a) a a ` 3 .� a s 0 l'iCA 0 a.) u d c a .-- u O a ,c ~ c5. 0 N Q t t ct am z na ., N °p < .! d Z \ dN :.. f/) CV 'i••. ~ N >. N u d > d c E u ~ m a' > N N u c w - — Z d a d N X O N N •5 U , ; O a1 a) " ` 0 aJ a > aEdv � 00ov2 a Q � � � o 0 CZ Cn .0 O co o ul ,j u. _ J OX1: O 2 LL N cn u cn 2 � � < O Q . . O . . . . " a w • C 0 • r .Y • I Co r: If ' 5 U n �CnO (0 6 1 O f a.44 C ® _ S p 0 Z 03 is N N CA 4-1n3 bihs,ZyZy1, , \ cn1O gl c r—+ w 0 ® • I ' •0 @ • 0 U AA 'Al 124 Co — �� r ~ ZIN fr. c� _ �, ! Q F, _a_ • , . I & i et UU J I (Z .. 0 g) in • c 2 a y o u 0 E � y0. o f . E m a A� ' a) k k O Vii. y Nle _ /` c a W W i:, aZ ti ',7, , i o a .m I � oa=' a` N m v Q d �1 ' ar E A W 7 Y > «. CRY u .. Fa' d' °a ° a C ; � w « ._ _ a 3 cE J > ~ \3 3 'E T � U c ta ZSE c a a, 0 Q • 0• • • • H- Cr) CD • O > CI) U °; 40 c in E ar _ d _ 0 u 7 E1 ' ' _ 13 ° .' ° c O N M It CA Q> > > E I. > a -0 E a E 4 u E a' a) IS E a' a) C E 0 o .: c �..,/ � aiE ° o > � aNiE ° .. NNE u d E o tit .� � Eo = .— .. Eo = c .� ta1- ° 2 c c �' « E a _� ° `° +� a E o u as ti • 03 c > a°, (n v f0 C07 ° (n o b a (C •- 0, m ° 0 � a •civ > w 7 x > a, w o > a' w .E x > Q y C COD &-° E Oa a rn E � 'a Q E a � o CU L W c m = Q n 3 i` N c m = Q ° ° L. N �v — C_, o ° o v' _ a' N w .3 3 c - d in < a 3 w •:-.) 5 to Q a ,a 3 a Cl)ii � � Q ai Q Q N _ A > Z o LL) Q °' `>° > Z• v u CD Q . Q ' a ° ai o w o o aa) Q > E ° o — of "Zi Qt1 Q > v >c , O 0 0 d o u • t• 0 2 J to — 000 0 J to — <D ow cO O J 6' 2 J to — (n u 2 In O •� Q O • • Q 0 • • Q • • • 0 • • E il A ED. E 7 3 v et L. N 'v 117: � CO m d a' °� ° m ° E $ E w = — c w E •t a) >' 2 -c 4) T ° E o tina N c •C E a� o c OJ ° u E 03 �9 �. 0 ''' co 0 U , a V > a 7 p Cl, Cl •� j Y E m c 0 C •� E E c C .. o E «. u C 04 +r a N '« a 3, o co 4 'm ca ++ « 1"a c co o6 ce fC a «' 3X! (n — m �' N > 0d •a en (I) (1) •n r c ,� N w > E ° a et w > ° a 'a w E N 0 o U o ` a o " a C L. C9 O a C - rn en « a W N N i w E c E v 2 `.-a a > i w Y a' Q a i w 3 .x E d +-. M Q) a' °' °' a Z m N - E m a.) o ° 0 Z o o ... '° Z ``° $ LLJ In v « E « - m QoUo « « 4+ I ° 3 •- Qo �+ Ia- a 3 ai Q � 0 �, Z o i > a c (n o Z N N �' > C _ Z ale N 2 > > has CD c j� Q Za ` dra amoytm ocnioczQ Q � EZ ` Qt Q Qcc ` a afoo 0 LL < btQ (n m CO � J � � �' � = R 0 W u (n . N O 00602 .E f I to wQ a . Q . 0 . Q • • • • 0 • d o ••Y. C./9. I , . `t ---4- , 5........,..t.......4c...„,_ o W y . ._ 0 Z 4s r. tO Z o ® c PE4E E I. . f r O .- .C) c 4 . _., n)-4;-___--- . , . , . i. _____. . _ i tal co I o Il . 10• ' ti 0 I.) 3 ' y 0 O a a a) 0.4 ,,t. F— c., 0 bt U to Z ` E °i � . r vi M I ' \ C O C ell\ u � / O C =C y4.4 W CC et (3 2 . vI `n o • )v a ,I O 473 w i # t\ w c) O c > • ' Z 0) f�l b. in aim �' fp O < .B v u `a O i Q Q cb E �a o c Z A • • Vr tc i-^« cz ail'a' Q «\d E p cz O) _ Z d `) a 2 > aNi S o c A t Q j > w U Q c to.B. d cidCU 0 F- I J C - I J cat) ' )ai a • • • O • • e II 1 V CID et Z ..r I a) Az ` I _ 4 COm 7! 3 N J U "JE co \ o' c c = ...• Is 5 • o J \ a « • ca d N a V •— \ , u u rn O y al c c ( o o 2 « > (V « (0 \ so `" o v •E `° d « U c O a « >I) r-a > • c ` . AD v o C ° I. w 10 « a) • a Z « a i w A Q `.9 .,u `° a r (� Q E f° m Z• u a ° u a) 0 'ad z m -`c c H E o E a g u L11 N Co > ALrna Q °1caczw o > m _a) Q � � aab h — = yc 0 - I E I w S O It i N I .. w E d n rn0 a • • • O • • a • • o • • 0 u_ Q bf) w • C 0 .y Co -4 C I w t D_ .r fn ( C } G g > co 1, z W S Ni C i " E c 0 ® W W N O I--10 oo CO ® N' v Q { a c o Q u so c a _ _ .O .`� v J� y� C ?Ii r�.4.L. C co a) O C ; 0 O O O c g c 03 CO c0 '4: r, - 76 V) 0 0 _ \ Ise a LO Jm U) to N a 0 M M O a all It •,..f et • .4.., lot H M CD M .r.f C) Y--J 1 / _J / , i O , V ` W0 43) 3 O / O) O W I0 \ E. 8 / m 0 ct ' 7 c ° o. C / ♦ / fC J 7 oca C) • •. \ .,,, > w ` «O / To X5. 1 zi F�1 ` ♦ / t',2 O1 ` \\ tap CO c w cp. a o E c Q (B `c v) 0 ,a`; 0! 0 c C m •a ,W a v �' rn 0.° ,°, E c r �tr cn c «� C7 ..♦ L rs o o c O L o f ■ .i .f W �,•4 ar ♦ 01 ;; c a L W . /< 0 « o cm Z CI) d 0 Z a, ui cm CD ° 7 7 2 ; ac, c0 1!.-1,. d a) }+ ,d ; Q w E u♦« m ,_ a, fn a w E ` d .. )sls a �f > N > N > > O H > > , >• 6. J > O I�• L VJ . ,a O fD o d a .a L L`O 7, — .c O O fV ° ai d \O 7 - , j o f co 52 0 E z = ° O E N ac 0 d z = 2- 8" f QC, W � ro Ct MI C 1 � � .,..f m a) CLJ Q W - / J �• Cf E m ` I'll s� ac Ems be > c a) .m N/ ^, L► f0 w L L1 2 L 0 ("1 V/ ° ` 4 / ≤ - c O♦ / c c _ r \ / ' U ,≥ ` ` cc a > .� j ` ` / / o> a o cu (3 a :; ,n , lit 6. ai as fA o Q CZ O. 4z WW)♦cn 0 ai, o cc b. w E 1c � 3 � a s aci z L W E 44 x a 2 a � c a O N a II E 3 Q rCy' f�ae °a o Q 20 E ; Q ♦c to •o 0 N N (� 400 ' 1t > 0 > d d c L d La J I- V) O N > ` C♦ u a ` W y Q `t ZaZ agLdnL ° kt ZaZ aL0L\Lo cu > w E w 0 .c cn o .° P o Q > 0 E o < Cr' lin•0 a.. ou� wu _ U, = a ± rE oN ° wn _ ± ozr = C) 0 c C . . o a C . . o . . . . • ii c::( btJ Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 3.2.5 Congestion Management Criteria The Congestion Management criteria included practicability for implementation along the congested sections of 1-25, as well as the maximum potential for trip reduction and management relative to the estimated level of congestion. Table 3-1 illustrates the potential level of effectiveness associated with different congestion management methods and alternatives according to regional data, CDOT data and third party research. The Congestion Management Alternative Technical Report of February 2006 contains this and other detailed information, and is available for review. This report is included in Appendix B. repetitive Table 3-1 Congestion Management Strategies Measures of Effectiveness Strategy Method Options Typical Effectiveness Measure Public Transit Express Service 2 to 3% share of all trips Carpools 11.5%work trips Ridesharing Transportation Demand Vanpools 5% work trips Management Employer Programs Telecommuting 4.7%work trips Land Use Policies 3% reduction in VMT Transportation Systems Incident Management Program 5% reduction in delay' • Management Intelligent Transportation Real Time Transportation Information 22% reduction in VHT2 Systems 'Time savings are only realized if there has been an incident; this is not a consistent time-saving strategy due to the haphazard nature of incidents. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems, Final Report.Cambridge Systematics for FHWA,July 19, 2004. 2Time savings are realized only when there is delay; this is not a consistent time-saving strategy due to the changing nature of freeway conditions. Litman, Todd. Guide to Calculating Transportation Demand Management Benefits.Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999. Understanding that 1-25 needs to be able to accommodate approximately 55,000 additional daily trips by 2030 (roughly doubling current traffic volumes), trip reductions ranging from 2 percent of all trips to 12 percent of work trips would not accommodate the need for additional capacity. More specifically, in 2030 many segments of 1-25 would be congested (above a 0.9 V/C ratio.) (see Table 3-2). • Level Two 3.34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation Table 3-2 2030 North I-25 AM and PM Volume/Capacity Ratios 2030 Volume-to-Capacity(V/C) Ratios Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound North of SH 1 0.43 0.32 0.49 0.31 Mountain Vista to SH 1 0.28 0.44 0.38 0.32 SH 14 to Mountain Vista 0.47 0.79 0.66 0.55 SH 14 to SH 68 0.99 0.89 0.95 0.96 SH 68 to SH 392 1.36 1.01 1.07 1.19 SH 392 to SH 34 1.26 1.00 1.06 1.15 SH 34 to SH 402 1.41 0.76 1.07 1.25 SH 402 to SH 60 1.22 0.88 1.02 1.14 SH 60 to SH 60 1.22 0.88 1.02 1.09 SH 60 to SH 56 1.22 0.97 1.03 1.07 • SH 56 to Great Western 0.94 0.98 1.02 1.01 Great Western to SH 66 0.86 1.03 1.02 0.94 SH 66 to SH 119 0.57 0.71 0.66 0.62 SH 119 to SH 52 0.69 0.90 0.84 0.80 SH 52 to Union Pacific 0.79 1.09 1.02 0.93 Union Pacific to SH 7 0.93 1.22 1.15 1.03 SH 7 to E-470 1.27 1.19 1.02 1.24 E-470 to 120th Avenue 1.07 1.12 1.05 1.05 120th Avenue to US 36 0.97 1.39 1.28 1.11 US 36 to I-70 1.03 1.14 1.19 0.97 1-70 to Denver Union 1.01 1.10 1.15 1.03 Station • Level Two 3-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Even a 12 percent decrease in work trips (which constitute roughly 30 percent of all trips) in these congested segments will not reduce the V/C to uncongested levels (see Table 3-3). Table 3-3 2030 North I-25 AM and PM Volume/Capacity Ratios with Maximum Congestion Management 2030 Volume-to-Capacity(V/C) Ratios 2030 Volume-to-Capacity(V/C) Ratios (Work Trips decreased 12%) Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound North of SH 1 Mountain Vista to SH 1 Not Applicable SH 14 to Mountain Vista SH 14 to SH 68 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 SH68toSH392 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 SH 392 to SH 34 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 SH 34 to SH 402 1.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 SH 402 to SH 60 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.1 SH 60 to SH 60 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.1 SH60toSH56 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 • SH 56 to Great Western 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 Great Western to SH 66 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 SH 66 to SH 119 SH 119 to SH 52 Not Applicable SH 52 to Union Pacific 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.9 Union Pacific to SH 7 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 SH 7 to E-470 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 E-470 to 120th Avenue 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 120th Avenue to US 36 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 US 36 to 1-70 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 l-70 to Denver Union Station 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 The potential benefit of congestion management measures is calculated by applying the measure of effectiveness to the total number of trips passing through the congested locations. This represents the maximum savings the congestion management strategy could have. Then, after each strategy has been evaluated individually, they are combined to estimate the effectiveness of a comprehensive Congestion Management Alternative: the combined trips reduced from transit, ride-sharing, and telecommuting. Reductions in VI-IT are not counted, as • they do not actually decrease trips. The potential benefits and associated change to volume to capacity ratios are shown in Table 3-4. Level Two 3-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3 4 Trip Reduction Due to Combined Congestion Management Methods Location Estimated Peak Hour New V/C Still congested? Incremental Benefit SH 14 to SH 68 227 Trips 0.92 Yes SH 392 to SH 34 824 Trips 1.03 Yes SH 34 to SH 402 125 Trips 1.11 Yes SH 402 to SH 60 252 trips 1.04 Yes SH 52 to Union Pacific 161 Trips 0.94 Yes Union Pacific to SH 7 962 Trips 1.00 Yes SH 7 to E-470 1,217 Trips 1.09 Yes E-470 to 120th Avenue 1,096 Trips 0.98 Yes 120th Avenue to US 36 1,203 Trips 1.10 Yes • US 36 to 1-70 1,751 Trips 0.99 Yes 1-70 to Denver Union 1,489 Trips 0.98 Yes Station The potential benefits cannot meet the future traffic demand, and would not substantially enhance connectivity or direct travel within the corridor. However, the congestion management methods described can reduce trips, VMT, and VHT. As a result, they are recommended as complementary solutions to be implemented alongside any Build alternative that is selected. 3.2.5.1 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SCREENING Regardless of whether the Congestion Management strategies were implemented independently or as a group, they could not reduce the trips in the congested segments of 1-25 to a point below what is considered "congested" by the regional governments (a volume to capacity ratio over 0.9). Therefore, the combined congestion management strategies were screened from further analysis as potential "stand-alone" alternatives, and were not analyzed further in Level 2B Screening. However, they were preserved for further consideration as individual complementary improvements for the build alternatives that could be considered in the draft EIS. • Level Two 3-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 3-5 summarizes the congestion management strategies that should be considered to enhance the selected stand-alone alternative, and in what locations they could be most effectively applied. Table 3-5 Recommended Congestion Management Strategies as Complementary Improvements In Local Congestion Management Along 1-25 Communities Local Interest* Strategies (Enhancing Access to 1-25) Express Transit Service NFRMPO, Longmont, No Yes Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley Carpool Yes Yes NFRMPO CDOT Vanpool Yes Yes NFRMPO CDOT Telecommuting Yes Yes City/County of Denver Land Use Policies Yes Yes City/County of Denver, NFRMPO • Incident Management Yes Yes Thornton, Program Northglenn, Adams County Ramp Metering Yes CDOT No (Region IV ITS Plan) Real Time Transportation Yes CDOT(Region IV ITS Plan) Information City/County of Denver Broomfield Yes Thornton, Northglenn, Adams County 'Source:Summary of Stakeholder Interviews, Fall 2004. 3.3 LEVEL 2B ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Based on the results of Level 2A screening, selected alternatives were carried forward for additional analysis in Level 26. Data derived from the travel forecasting model were used to supplement the Level 2A evaluation and to conduct the Level 2B screening. 3.3.1 No-Action Alternative By the time the project had progressed to Level 26 alternatives development, the "FasTracks" • referendum had passed in the Regional Transportation District (RTD) serving the Denver metropolitan area. As a result, two rail lines extending north towards the North Front Range Level Two 3-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. acquired a dedicated funding source and could be considered funded, committed and part of the No-Action Alternative. This affected alternatives development and analysis in the North 1-25 EIS, because, through coordination with RTD, it was determined that potential North Front Range alternatives could either connect to FasTracks stations, or be interlined with FasTracks rail service (depending on the alternative).Therefore, Level 2B rail alternatives included the cost of construction only up to the FasTracks line, and some additional incremental cost paid to RTD to interline with their system. 3.3.2 Build Alternatives - Highway In Level 2B many highway alternatives were still being considered for evaluation. Some alternatives were variations of each other and would have similar results from a travel demand-forecasting run. Therefore, instead of exhaustively testing each separate alternative, a strategic method was used to perform model runs to assess demand, access, function, and location as described below and illustrated in Figure 3-25. A comprehensive summary of the travel demand forecasting effort is included in Appendix G. Demand —The model assigned traffic to eight-lane 1-25 between US 36 and SH 1. Based on the level of traffic assigned to 1-25, a determination was made about the need for four, six and eight-lane cross sections. Access — Seven new interchange locations were added at existing crossroads between SH 7 and SH 1 to determine what impact providing more access has on 1-25. • Function —Three models were run to test the effect of a new lane's function on 1-25 operation. • The first assumed four general-purpose lanes (two in each direction) and two HOV lanes (one in each direction) from SH 66 to SH 14. Six general-purpose lanes and two HOV lanes were assumed from US 36 to SH 66. Both included existing interchanges only. • The second was used to identify the influence of toll lanes on 1-25 and assumed four general-purpose lanes (two in each direction) and four special-use lanes (two in each direction)from SH 66 to SH 14. Six general purpose lanes and four toll lanes were assured from US 36 to SH 66. HOT alternatives and shorter segments of Toll and HOV alternative were determined using the results of these two model runs. • The third model tested how limiting access to new lanes would impact demand. Location —This model run was used to identify how well US 85, as a freeway, could relieve anticipated congestion along 1-25 in the study area. This was completed at the request of the Technical Advisory Committee even though this alternative was screened in Level 2A. • Level Two 3-39 O • C1 T O_ Li P /U , f CI • r o U -Ii ! 1 • coo N `� O 1 it . j 1or ii jco i Zc-) o j ,�. f f ? N O # } . , I Cr- , co O O t 4 \r i l}� R 3 7 Z c U Q 11.1 04 C tc to (Ow a al• c o L 0 .c1: LLB C `0 a0 1 _ 7.3 Nom: WO + t li t OL o ' I E / U NS _ # \_ 1 .— 2 � Ha to} _ •\ 1 • ` el w J fi"`- f.1 c c I Cft 3 CC I O P— CD 0 111 I M CD V et O L c hi ." 1 ! 1 _ t~ v �* ■ . Oll I s NflU vool y ' y Lwt c_ 2 >. i !Li` o o y• i11� m 13 cll Vi S • _ .3 _ _ co l0 fC 0N � 1 7 , a i 3 / '- (0 ' I W 10 > C ( . 7. (13 tit C 71) 0 O 11--��.11 1-+-i TO E Q M N O N > fa c .—.4 mO y E N U C *t a N N O J C � cV !4.0 3 '� ca � m 1 - � , m DoE c ID CD o WJ j -�-;•-. 1 •. I g 1 its <u �' z .... I IC' 0- • al [ \ _ ' 1 ii Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 3.3.3 Build Alternatives - Transit Similar to the process used for highway analysis, to accommodate the still large number of alternatives requiring modeling, a specific set of model alternatives were chosen from the remaining 2A alternatives to test the difference in operating characteristics as well as locational differences that can affect ridership. The travel demand model provided information on the: Alignment— Commuter rail lines were tested on western, mid-western, central and interior alignments to determine any difference in ridership attributed to the location. All of the transit alternatives had similar headways (20-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak). In addition, similar access was assumed to each alternative in the form of a common bus feeder network, and drive access allowed at station areas. (Large capture areas were assumed for the stations, as exact station locations were not identified. In addition, a similar amount of station areas was assumed for each mode.) Speed—An alternative with better travel times (due to simulated higher speeds)was tested along the central alignment (and compared to the central alignment run in the "location" test) to determine what additional ridership increment could be captured with higher speeds. To differentiate between modes, a maximum operating speed of 75 mph was assumed for high • speed rail. a maximum operating speed of 65 mph was assumed for rail alternatives, and 60 mph was assumed for the BRT alternative. It should be noted that "rail bias" is included in the travel model (calibrated to observed base-year conditions)to account for the increase in ridership that often accompanies rail service. Connectivity— To determine the effect of forcing people to drive to the central alignment, a test was conducted of the central alignment with alternating direct service to Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley. Assessing the difference in ridership would clarify the ridership benefit of a "one-seat ride" — direct service with no transfer. TAFS Test—The final test was a run to determine what level of ridership would result from the rail alignment recommended in the previous Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study that was conducted for northern Colorado. This was conducted as a point of reference for the Technical Advisory Committee. Many members had participated in the TAFS study and were interested in how new alternatives would compare. Figure 3-26 illustrates Level 2B Transit Model Runs. • Level Two 3-41 C M 0 CO L. 0. .4-4 x 1 n p y rl 4 c J u C LrAO C W a ; p W 1 O O $ • N lei !] ;. u F - 3 s 1 II L - (—� •g 1 ' I I )• I CD s C7. --a I I II o C ea Y j G a \ r _ uauj ' o t ro o z ` C € � T' a) Liti j 1 alY b j t 1 IP co i_ Csi to. li fa M 0 III co d �i J 0 o _ lifl ti G 1Qs) Cs- { ;$11•Jil :1 * v o F ' kl el :,l�ii E CO CO S 'i+ o t t s w a CD a r, r , {} • 4 .y. o o a • COTwit l '` -,_ cn - _� X17 h irl cc a • -"_"'k Si • _ i/� d al al ,,,, ,.. " 6 F yea - c C Cr i-� t a> a F-Li ,1 , O G) C C a tti c co al E 2 21:13 E V C d d G 4"-..-, 2' s...1 c., `t = c c d a C ss U e ChNN 1, 3 ilictA ' I I I Jig I pc N _ _ ..y = 8 • s . � . W IIII 0 GJ c m s --kJ. ,¢ C E i= r .� j 111 O CD M I 4 +i' �a_ i Cad a) N —,i 1IL/ LL < re) ..,.. Eal I HI �. r r C / b. ill Fall Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS information cooperation transportation.• 3.4 LEVEL 2B SCREENING The modeling effort primarily focused on providing an evaluation of mobility to supplement the evaluation conducted in Level 2A. General screening results were as follows: • Highway alternatives with the potential to provide an average volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 between SH 66 and SH 14 were advanced, see Figure 3-27. • Transit alternatives with travel time competitive with private auto were advanced. • Transit alternatives with the highest estimated ridership were advanced, see Figure 3-28. • Based on ridership and cost per user volume to capacity ratio, transit and highway alternatives were analyzed by comparing their utilization (v/c and ridership) to their costs to determine the cost per user. More favorable alternatives were less costly. (At this level of analysis, costs were based on average per mile costs from similar systems and were not based on engineering estimates). Highway costs are illustrated in Figure 3-29. Transit costs are illustrated in Figure 3-30. • Alternatives which had the least potential to adversely impact natural resources, and human and social environment were carried forward from Level 2A. In general, environmental criteria used in Level Two were not a discerning factor. At this stage most of the proposed alignments could be shifted during the next level of design to avoid resources. Those alternatives carried forward from Level 2A were supplemented with • modeling results to select alternatives to be carried forward into Level Three. 3.4.1 Highway Additional detailed results pertaining to the highway alternatives evaluated are as follows: Additional Lanes on I-25—When eight lanes were assigned to 1-25 between US 36 and SH 1, demand increased along the entire 1-25 corridor. The largest increases were experienced between US 36 and 144th Avenue, and SH 60 and SH 14. In these two areas, demand grew by about 20%. Between 144th and SH 60, demand increased by approximately 10 percent. Demand for eight lanes extends from US 36 to SH 119 and between SH 56 and Prospect. North of Prospect, demand drops to a six and four-lane facility demand. Six and eight general purpose lanes on 1-25 had the lowest average cost per mile compared to the other highway alternatives. Both six and eight-lane alternatives were retained for additional evaluation in Level Three. Upgrade Parallel Roadways—Alone, upgrading US 85 would not adequately address mobility needs along 1-25. However, based on community support, the alternative was retained for potential inclusion as an improvement to complement other stand-alone alternatives. Express Lanes— HOT and Toll lane alternatives represented the highest average cost per mile to construct but were found to have the ability to address safety concerns, mobility and replace aging infrastructure. HOT and Toll alternatives extending to SH 14 were retained for additional evaluation. • Level Two 3.43 O co 16. _ .. .. . I- 0 n N C CO . 0 O 111 cn • I Z H _s 4:4 o sau i asodind Z I pauag g I I I I I SHP] asodind i iaua9 9 'DI —s a� 1 > tl ' y l NS01 6 sauei ssaaav RI 0 = W c> M 0 J ft C) imi b O 4 1 t tit HS (II SON O ..• O et I N wI O -O I O z I 0. 2 I uoil3VoN re z I IL et I z o I I I u 0 r O 0” 00 ti (0 In I M N T" O c :„a . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a) r r O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 co N W TA N Azioede / aUunIoA 73. en C , en LL Q QJ bf) w0 C O • CO .-a CJ d 41 pr CO..., O 7. 1- 0 O in rP-'-4 a I+ u••a o M I' 0 Z *eat a E O u � p o O Z c c,, d `�d O O O � \ , d d o O C) 1_ d:.) o � i 0 co 0 0 - c It, o ; M 4 J O .. O, 0 •- d'S CA 0 0 et F- N v 0 O d .., _ ti ft O 0 N W met HI 1:9 GetCLJ CU Z O t, O t CV 0 4. es ni- t, I g d(I) , 't �, ,? \ '1 7 O t a4 O O O O O O O O r 0 O O O O O O O P,,, O O O O O O O 0 r r R r CON r`+ co in `d' n N r- N ca g saapiti dlie0 ocoz Cm en _ LL < C) • bA w Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3-29 Cost Chart for Highway 40 C4 0 30 - - - C c 20 - - - 6.n � o = = 111 L N = ♦V iv 10 -- 0 No Aclioo H0V to SH l4 loll to SH U III to SH 14 limited F General 8 ieoeral Access hoes Imagines rpose lanes toSHI Alternative Figure 3-30 Practicability Evaluation — Average Capital Cost Per Mile Average Capital Cost per Mile FINDINGS: 25 23 • High speed rail costs twice as much as commuter rail , but 2 20 - attracts only 20% more p ridership. • BRT costs 1 /3 to 2/3 less than 15 - commuter rail and attracts 50% c 13 12 13 12 12 13 to 90% of commuter rail ridership.ailO 10 9 N co 5 5 --41111 o CR A CR B CRC CR D CR E CR F HSR A BRT A BRT C COST ESTIMATES ASSUME: • Average cost per mile from end-to-end • Grade separations at state highways • Signals and traffic coordination • Acquisition of right-of-way • Transit improvements only - costs do not include associated or related highway improvements • The use of FasTracks corridors with minimal improvements Level Two 3-46 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. • While the H0V lane alternative to SH 14 addressed many of the purpose and need goals at lower costs than Toll or HOT, it did not provide substantial improvement in North 1-25 general purpose lanes; however, it was retained for additional evaluation in Level Three • Express lane alternatives that did not extend north of SH 66 would not adequately address safety concerns, capacity/mobility needs or replace aging infrastructure along 1-25 in the northern portion of the study area. Limited Access Lanes —Average cost per mile was somewhat higher than adding general purpose lanes to 1-25 but not as high as additional barrier-separated HOT or Toll lanes. (see Figure 3-30) 3.4.2 Transit Level 2B screening utilized the model's results, along with other data, to make further conclusions about the transit alternatives and to forward a selected set for further study in Level Three. In addition to the ridership forecasts, the North 1-25 Travel Model predicted station boarding, feeder bus network ridership, and the 2030 (No-Build)Travel Patterns that the transit alternatives would be trying to serve. Costs for each of the alternatives were developed using peer system per-mile capital costs, and applying an average cost per mile for right-of-way purchases along the alignment. In order to account for the changes in operating environment (rural versus urban development adjacent to the alignment) both rural and urban peer rail systems were considered. In addition, general • costs were estimated for grade separations, track signalization and track electrification based on peer systems. In this analysis BRT had substantially lower capital costs because it assumed the widening of 1-25 (a construction cost)without the purchase of right-of-way. The results can be summarized as follows: • Commuter rail service will attract approximately 4,000 riders, regardless of the alignment's location. • High Speed Rail service attracts 20 percent more passengers at double the cost. • Bus Rapid Transit attracts 1/3 less ridership compared to 50 percent less cost. • Local ridership on the feeder bus network was relatively high. • Transit serves a high percentage of commuters from the North Front Range to Denver, but the total number of commuters is not a large number. • Alternatives along the western side of the corridor had a higher potential for physical environmental impacts. • Alternatives along the interior alignment had a higher potential to impact aquatic resources. As a result of Level 2B Screening, the following alternatives were screened out from further analysis: Commuter Rail F—Compared to other commuter rail alternatives, this alignment served very • few population or employment centers, and resulted in out-of-direction travel for passengers trying to reach Denver. In addition, it required the restoration of the portion of the Dent Line through Frederick and Firestone to an active railway, rather than a recreational trail Level Two 3.47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 3.5 LEVEL TWO LESSONS LEARNED Figures 3-31 through Figure 3-43 summarize the major findings of the Level Two evaluation effort. To aid in presentation to the public, the alternatives were given a "final grade" of satisfactory, needs improvement or unsatisfactory. The "final grade" definitions are described below. Satisfactory • Sufficiently addresses the evaluation criteria identified. • Will be considered as a stand-alone alternative, meaning that the alternative could be a primary component of an acceptable transportation solution. • Moves forward to Level Three. Needs Improvement • May not meet the criteria, but if modified or combined with other improvements, may justify further consideration. • Will be considered complementary, meaning the alternative could be used to improve the functionality of a stand-alone alternative. • May move forward to Level Three if it can be combined with a "satisfactory" alternative. Unsatisfactory • • Does not sufficiently address criteria and is not being recommended for further evaluation. • Determined that the alternative is too costly, does not serve a substantial number of travelers, or has the most comparative potential for environmental impacts. • Does not move forward to Level 3. • Level Two 3-48 0 C O Co •- U O. C CO : a P " • 0.1 . C S `,1 , 7 \� O ■ w _ C is .. 1 V n ,/ / v �_ 0 • _ , [Z O W - 1 I-1 W O / 4. , 2 .t • i t«` . C A. a j a i. O I ■ _ I. ! alri coC tis'a" y i L O C • r ` ; a e t •., O Z C • • • • J 0 a r __ - r. _ Q 0 C P Z . v C I ` • p • g • - I, - • Y E CC - • a -_ N i ' A is .. . .-.. ` �, F o 0 Co + --NS/ tc E 0 ' (x a 1 € z C 30 A• 1:-\Ekt:±N" 1 ____ / t/ 1 X y C c c ... C m e B cc w E E \ 4 aTd co .Ca N E O O 2 a Lm J • c c N Cn C C $ in � E tD o c O c a CO :25 yy 3tro EE3p EQ� rEo s o -° u 3 N �E C U C L C im �i N U m N 2 ri v a Y L -rte' C Z c C V L_ �i' N scu o o a) E o - a c > c+) 0 0 et '""4 �. m m 2 'a D c E_ m ro a> et ca N m .m � dE J �, C m ca omc O a> yzi 8m c E E o y To-al p .— • M 2 E o o Q• N o c m m m 1... m a .� s o 5 - c `� I L. «: E - a� .. oI ac m m U — . . — — o 13 ra L. m W N E_ -o.o ro a a a0 t_ al w a mro `—° y 0 n +' Q 1— = `no-0moo Q F- coEoE Tes Q O U co CC J J Cl. O O Z C ro ,� CC 0 Z O • • 3 C7 Z C 01 CI) .c t litt via; a aryl > * N > -0 0 V E. C C N _ o C E. p CU et co .C ro E co O. J 5* ' n g y.o ' a to c C7 n ,n o m c ca _ ° 3 C a C > 00 — o m ...1 • " o f roc c oc ft 3 N mgr ? � ro E c cco n E w �' a 2• 3 �' [a,•,M Q im I •E �n ro y o IM m c E m Z lao - 2 '� � c E o .c cr _v Cr Il r' 1ZE C La., laZ z� U O ED. iii C Q� o _ o o N E >. 2, , o C l'• -c- o O 'C V — 2 aE Emi e a C ro s` r fll 2 r s 0 o omm 'C H a -o cc 0) "r o _ E as L.(CrE c c n- c0 �' o ea a W (..) - m m > CO V •. . N ro y C N en •• . + W (A c c a a$ m �, V W CO a m 0 g o C m Cr) 0 Q C. Q F- ° ° Q1 ° c� a _ W m Q Q) 003 0 LLQ 4J OO = 2Lm v 0 QQCC � 2 5r CC 0 Z IX Q O Z 0 0 Itt w C • I CO 416 C1 y C CD 4-0 C A 11) ( .- i S u /�" Y" L/ / t _ - - €I N I—I a) `S o �. . - �`� h� W O s �� O v ° V W • / V •r O [` . __ O _C 3 1 F E C E L Q C z i �. I It i c. ` ;i Y e 4 E.2 Z • l A •J W a I L o —_ T lel Y ca 0\-.5i I. O + i tg 6. s w E • [ 2 a a $ \ il ---. >4. .- s.16 C A 4\11( 1 Oel O II i C � - �m z O ar V • w o ••.i e m c aci w O( 3 T RS N - co) E cfl M in - ft ..� — C via p g 2 ca vim cv N C Q (� E m ro •5et Lis LL 4 0 —- .O Lp C�� in OE c RI ,E A p m m $ z� - o m cn co - 3 m o in c a_ M rat N y ro E c c O E a) bA N o g a N T 0 o u --1 L v h- t o 0o g y o e• 2 13 ' ' In{ n CD fc7 _o • I 113 tri r (4— N nay L CO m > - .L.c T N ` CI Sir s- > V 03 U • d Vf c Cco C a dre Taa- �� .-1 W C a.C C V .. .. OE. .►N 0 O W on y m Q o N CD a O a et i_ O _ o t O o Q W p C �ra) O comma• • CC CC o. M a. a . . •• m C CC CC a o, I C 0m a.+ C ,_, o ch cV ° M CI) * "2 N 4 oT W c Ia. CD t ID W O Tr CCI co 7 N OS a C la N J C C Ti in vin O U, J — CS C L. el: ca i _ 2 u ru m an 01 �0 3 v r n SE N _p C y E �� eF In O 'l� Q C., 4 z W - c c X z iZo • — U . N N a p� O E O O W C (0 E p 4--. IDS N C 3 C cpow In m m Ec O F N p a Q3 3 CO a o w u CU N E.$ U N v 7 C6 a J ^., cn y > o o In > y D 0 GJ v U) a > .co = h n m °'m J r r G� U Q E v cm y co C� E 'v a m Co a )..� L. W c c °acy a U •• ILW c c � C 4-. O - O W a m .n ay c " o W m a' d o Q F. o O oOy o O — ''> W (V Q 0 0 0 Man. 1 a Q Q H o o c cu CC • • • • a) CC 0 0 0 w CO IT M o� a z IX a Z C E.. Q y a- bt Cot* Ill • o co v a c co c z_^ - In Cr Y • 10 f • c.... • o f CO s . . i 1 "E� � i ° • 0 e r i ] ca.Q) J • = , j I---L �^ O f 0 " U Zd w s III e Had 0 'Y w CO w \ v. I \Fti - Z c.. 1 • i i i a. C ` c4 C n _ II CI • _ W_ t • + P ~4 . .�. C n � f n i e Q I _ Is o W 1 s Ii0 " • { i y s — ` C C I L. 1— _• • E �. i •o - A W I �� *a e R ? 2 C w0 4 a ^41 Z 0 O .; W 10 u. n e% � [4i i > a .c Cn g o t D >-• 2 I i n P C O w c w tt-- c yy O O V U cC U c = as v E � N A a M p ° Z a N m o u > c ° c c E v O Z c OE �o Z go °' Ta a - r— t 16 CD 'L C tic oo U C LO V �•. V Z n 8 a j ,_ c O Z v ° O) 0) CD CD m d � a u E E g ° wa E J M J Ui o > g a, = a� d a . . ywiF ! o a ma O0. O .'J LL. -E, U- V> ° y Cl) 17 0 7 To 0 a> 3 >_- ri of cc ... is 3 ca a- .C c V) (i Lc ° ro m m C) . . o om m c CU 7.4 ` = 41 o W N a Do m -0 8. .. Q o W N c cE a E nr a Q 1- a (StyC CI _J a Q Coon _ , ct W Or (7 Z Or 0 Z C c C (Ti E .L.+ c O co .• _ I c r C _ C Cl) , t O (_n a J CC T V a) d o _ O c f t CD o Y C O �, - O C +.. C tp O - • a in .c to -� _ P N t V et • . O rJ'O c * C C Q. E• C C t6 ^J ° C C 13 CO Z Q) Si O a �' .v to O '' a 3 I.r r� O N a 0 'u E N - u co 5 E �, V I O mo — 4. ao a O � c _ oo m CO W 0 N — Z z o C 0 C .•. u Otil Z I - Z` ° a c Q) p� y C Q s mac a o �a E _ '� E $ �a E Q � C X C a, 012 ; o _mp WI- ; ea a • o a-8 C N Oa. _ - o Vi a� c ck m 3 In a p m 'w O Q) CU a m c T. d a - O v _ c 7-, 0 a 0 L _ C> > eo - p 7 L. C m O 2 o r ct Q L ov Di am c � ; ca am c O )••� .0 �,; m U Q LI I 0 c c E s U — C a W Vj c -6c (n N L. Q m O W d� to 3 :_O a co q a W O r CO 0 3 ++ o � o o _ o W 0 M a o et 4 F- 00 0m -i a ow Q ~ oo 0w _°I • as 0` a Z CC C3 Z 1 Cr 0.4 0 Ill beC w C o_ COL `V 4.— L V 0 a cn C CD 1_ C 0 e a1°1 ti P ' ` r i . - 1 g = O = W _• �_T, / / 1-1 F.1-1 0 < ess. r • 0 ,■ u 0 V d Ed 0 • ■s■7- • _ B O \i/ • Z E_ r �: O , $ • tI c F1r I 4 ` I ! I 1. c �_ , �, O u • 1 z — c4 = _. L 1 0 ._ z a o t = K " z I. _ C . i + **Na.57 ;a li J 0 ha, ? • ` O � L C 0 A 4. l S I _ * * .c = > c c m t cn s m m c o ' e c c o m e n In L N co co co O ? N t— 0 * V �' -J $ C N 5 Q (Q v v c = r, O 7 2 m O' m a h ct) a O E `� cca L° O = �� c ro � = o m m — o f 3 U CA m y m a io 7 o o c o E r c H N V c m m m 0 m q 2` '.� Z e a O 2 Ln Q r e c a 0 ctsC E O r c cE . - U E o o J M c/� t a� y rr 7ro o ;0; al CD m c 0 a) ti U ad G1 _ E t c D a n" co o J �i C °" e m tc ' >� C ° N c� a _ H RS o ; L. v, m m m — COc0c ,w m a `c_ E E J c d I e m � « O 1 = JO N e ro a t O O H L = co e m D o m . • � _ , 1 1 S o m i C/) U = O m # ro a m c c9 Y — m O co ro oc ti n I— a « o 6 m V 0 a y m 00 c C1 �• o v W (� c c E r F-- W a m c no 13 re W CC O Z cc O O Z c I .c Z o CA CO ;� k 1. Z gCco c c ¢ s in E E u 0 _D E > O a3 N .8 ` C a c p O •Ss � Z le u c >1 0 • C * C It r C C V c _c' y •~ r• Cf N m m C M = c . U t lb. v _ cv am' 3 i••c } V!v f m m c E 7 Q 0 o c cc E tri 4 Oai 3� (-) E C s c > > $- m a - Q r E � . Z3 $ L t V O • Z ?$ c c O E m � U O O O r - E c � -O Eet cp C O � ro 2 II) G., ' ccc C a E"c F— o a cc e a a C o r: N v E > c J N :1 r (1..) d o "0 ro — r CC -, -v %.- w 0 C �_ N 0 a _ Co W N a L ro (> r ~ ro c m Y ? W w c c O 4.0 rill r- 0 W m 5 a — p a cA CO p a W v' ~ Q n. ¢ J J 0 4 4 ~ CD p j p V 0 O 0 (") J CO re) Ir 0 Z CC a Z••• C LL Q G1 1. o tx ••..c wID C O CO U O_ N C co Y C O o =!a C..) # d 8 li itf F.14... * �� E .tr)\� j Il : J C O r. 3 • ° ' u 4 O It a sos •• •- ^ mi,. a; ■a 4. 12 • In C • O A • O C 3 / V • ( 1i. J N z 1� 1 _ • A � ;sel I i C O 0 Rla w j ` 1 N. Z 6 O y C a C 8 � C e N E R d ;IIcCroUC� yNQcil an E m U O isi 0 CZ c E o MI et _ � y E 2c. d j i CU c d a y J V • `° c� ES V — zs N u m m mu c O in u Co e m IL_ ID Ifft:i CO TI co ct CU U Q as . . y y y 2 y E U y •;� •is 00 W uj a s U 8 E I._ 0 W y > D_ Le 4 M— Q m o mtt • 1 Q S a Qao� � 3 3 . . . •,...1 cc O Z rn _4 ' � ill Y n . „i itil � t 1• f0 r ice . — o L i O � � , , . i � �,^ m •oZ C 63 co M : E • , , i • Its ttCO 0 c c CO ? C ' ' _ tE CA(D O O L C r .�Si.Ss•. , _ S « E w N m a, • � C1 `,/ O C Z la 802t)O v v F i r . 3 • E E ) E. y 09 cp `� e o o i f4.) om .= y�e j - .¢v .a C) C✓ 29 o m v 5* J %... L O .c i• ca Of O O -- r CJ � . . .- u o o ac ac Co ).•J U Q c . . _y y m mE dE +-' O — '� m 0 W W m - a -g5 $ > W y (n a c i.... a a ¢ '2 m M m to CD I S m — O Z C LL Q CU 0 bt 3.4 C O .y cv 4- O • a N C co I- O • 1 %.,L / C�9 N w O slit F �'� C • w s ID Z I i. o I :I : _ �� •- W o j o o ' \ O CO a o - I .7.-. c fi _ s --• IC r • s •l •y' 8 C 1 IV , 2 • ! l'••iI ...Dirmin; IbkC F Y r 1: • o tL J O �E � • Cje*. R O JF LL Y IS _ u l i \ W •� a Z K .+ O -o C >.. E C CD I n L N a; c O UJ 1-j N8 rjb I tr) , c _ �2 a) N E c° `° — o a ° L a) N O • in p c E F., r 7 d I' 'Cr 0 Q MI Z^ liu 4 Cy y _ �o •N a J o 0 11') — CV _ ) M �y� .c E O I• N CO 2 C S O M 0 U UO- C O J CC ui bA O0 h • `° C r/ m E ° m •� -O cn a E E O � � oCI M m ' E E rc a.. v o � y c E .> Z E o U . . O N N U .. N C m ] R C 72 E C) O �; O W o °xr oc`mo p O W CD OS 0 orn aro Z � - ~OoacnME a .- Q I- ° o � m aI CC aCC Z QCC Z oao � t 3 ._ to •E ---' C) c/) o N CUo a > • > ° ^� q N U n ••v• � _ u, ern a ��l s E N -8 o V a) ; N m C C N C C eE t0 J IA O c0 G1 Is -c-cr., he n CD CCD a O C > N ' _ c T5 CC Z • Q z• N o ct m •- � Y: an n c .� Q E O - c0 § C E € C ° ° a' `cc, O �..� cn d .m c m 0i 7i •••--i J E w F— S E GJ a CD ,7 • • 74 o• r _�-o CO y o f OD v J I''' Q N o m a � to w a E C c CD E m ti D E E- C 52 N N a C) �; 0 0 0 ,—tea $, U . . • • o N :8-1 Wy,• W N y OC C a- WfA C (p IA O Q 0 W a) a) N ro ai UpWm > co Q I— O ° o MET O • o °2 O ca as cu cc 0 o o � Em «� ~O o au) ME C = M ¢ 0 Z CC Q a Z • • • s. a CU O tt LT* 0 0 c ...T.. Y O a CO t. C 0 L . g C M C 1 iliO=j 24 0 i i O u • L / L } n r O • r • V , i 1--1 la W 0 •j $ V „ a - •^ — Ha, 0 0 E r, • ii• 4 in 7 ,. _ • • ilk_ r S - I 1 l C 1 ' f t i X. ` S C . IS O J 0C ■ X a _'!..? 9 i i a I 0C 0 x -4 a t0 -4 x oit i,, w [' � �` w. W c et z o in I y - , U N o Ea l c O D 1:10 — , I15 N G cr0 v. za c 12 € 0 0 E p f oZ.co tz H MI i M w a a as M Hp�l o j N O C 0 et _ J a CD cat 0 U ' .. m 0 ti .}i 0 cc c c CC i-' a. W E m W d m CD 0le 0 .) -etc a. o DOME m Q U Z 3 4J o, Z 0 ct o en 1 — s q o um u o v m D O0 I = o N . GCD tit n Q scri inCa be- : 6 E LC 3 w Ii cu m a. 110 v el IS 4 Z _ o 02 �-o C A. 1* g Z, O O to o a EDCD N m � '• v J Ls L. d m o y J co ; E -O C lit U o o CD i ad .. .• a.+ •• W N C C �c r CU p Q W y CO .-• m • a }— o0 E N CU et O . . . Q a z W(i)co 0)= M _ u_ Q GJ ts Z 0 bA w c ir O 0 •_ U Q N z i - iii ta ..-. _.,.....0.1La-ihit • i 2.1 ilia d eg Si el a a WDI CU < < a _ o )—v- _ pm 1:8 co . . 0 .N...57 le 1L Jla C J 0 ryw 4 O ., b �yy W 1m W • •, a ^_I {► (1...,._ al 2 1-4 as /mil W O • 11 40m � O co ' a c ca a) . leC • Ntog to • O /I y. C «O. V) m o m a a m m . C d eml a1 .c 0 O N = QJ `W t C a O E — a) (A 03 `= E m 3 c c C m o m C6. _ E >, a 3 y •tn It Im mm n D. III ` mE O. a=o E .�.. Z OC En Q) Y C a c ; a7 > M • �I "Cl� c ; c c c 3 E > r� A <C y O U U o U N O� •0 a c o m o r a C o �4 iv 0 m c E E 12 ft (I) O O I�l o °' " is n o. o E co O m 0 N Q a E ≤o m o n a E t io (j . 0) a3i in co ac' H `aa)i m m E„ 0 co «. CO w �' n n V M� • • „ W rn w c`'a �' 0n N in Q > > t U L a) a) H N CT I O a rC COICC o. Q � V) _ CCMc O m ,� CC 0 z CC O z CV CIJ • Q r r O li i.i ill Lt cul ac' c� • r F N C n w 5 C g m oco �, _ ` E nLL c m 1{" _� oa O Y - - y L se�0 d ` Z •0 4 p� 3 O Iiim ! m> > a E 3 a) c �� zom to gm c St 16 a a ._ ._ a ,...1 co E o C o E ro r. �' a to o t /M�/ w N O. c _ f.�. do C >. ` a c 0 H a E ° a '- N h E E CL.E 'es) Co N on u, ti a) o ff c �+ U u u, O a> v `o U > rn m o en L CO 3 Q W 3 , 3 C D en a Q F'• cn co U to —I 2 Q �. � (0 J ett CC L.L. Q d CC O . . . . . . 3 CC O Z CC O Z wIll C O N it 1191 t r A c , „ 1s, . .... , a4J 0TrY ff • oa 2 i b - I _A i W o • p /r i� O. ~ O ^ Z i I t_ O 6 c •----' - C • I crit • x :ti g = • 0 IN..i .til"."41—m-43-L---/-— ; ; • t siNst ft 0 • X W J I O ? 2 ix Q • a J Ct • 0 m �4 nXi 4. N T ..is D • -o co 0 L q • m r _N 6 c • p m �7 l al • _ ` W 1 44 .� c U W '(V a7 N ' a) aJ 76 I C d > `° 3 o O -gE o n c ill .1.4 '� i Z mE a a o a H ti ��..++ Z n E Y C N i•.I E O 2 r >, ('7 m _3o p o c) a ' c c " J `o _o y n ,t RI i `° c E E E • E o . — n o y y tau ` n on 8. E is �+ - N 3 3 r E c c U a' .v > N m ai 3 W . . to N "3 m ay U) a) a) CO cn � m W z Z rncr "' `- a Q F- cocnS co � c CD Ce 0 CC 0 2 I .+J aJ bA ' 0LU • a o m m •.•� 44 co . m . T m 4, N .� U a m 1n m 3.4 a) cb c p - C c `c E is c r m •� o n c a ai O L. Z E =n n $ Iii rn 2 y E v o 13 c CI "Clm o i; e 11 i a t, co v CO t� a) g To" e y 6 r CU " C --•' o o a E aci m b O �...1 nnE m mo y O N co N 3 3 ._ E W y C3. w m d `� o aci co 0 0 c c en o s- d cog o ° � C Q I- wolcc -c• E a u- Q v CD CC CC Ill 1 3.4 _o CD •o_ CA c Co c o 1. ' (,/ ) CD Sal $t 2 v N a) . gym _ : : III L Eh.L.) o _. ci a_ w• Q Y • • Y • • r cr v a c-) �I V • o u.• ii .ti � o a _ Fi > > s CO e O E ' E ~j 0 F. Z C - I • ' u 1 e 1. V ��ti I 2 I-- E J C t � a a 4 a o a $ $ m a nz- a 4 ,_ . : "%Si i. o J mIs E 2. _ C � of...N. li ueni •••••1 a) . •_ o — - c c `o a) 4) /CA a • t a) E E W I N • . N ` N C C �I .N Y W T a) N U a �'Nea I — in y a) C •� O co .� 0 a) •• ^N m C n is. C - 1--- l0 •-• "- E CCICIp O E CC co y Z 'o o r ..c m L c T n �- 00 0 f�l Y Q1 E 3 ,3i, C Z E c a) n n O W is ID U C ca a U Y J 3 03 c m CC: r - n n 0 3 _1 •+ x o - G o c) o E E o m EE ars C t= - n c a w E b o o m c L. E .n a) `° o f o to co m on o 0 a O a N - ., O ,„ m a C C n n Q O U '+ „ n E = in a`i i O ca y a) 3 3 Li r V W N N a) b co .. p p N W ` u n n °) U O ; c - .` CI) d N N O W m a) o O O W 3 c N N a) a) CL O VJ (n U N J = Q N ~ J U J J CO CO J 1.i. O CC SS C� Z CC 0 z Ct CZ a) > a N ��•y•� N O in pp no �V n C (p A U • D �1 -, a) in ' yr 10 N a C C.) a n f0 b O N a) d N O co b co _ Li- Q � � co E, - m �' a)O Y LL- 4) O` N•_ Ln OCD€ i1 n o _ m c Z c, .C 0 0 L CD E E 3 3 @ O E LE 3 — C a /� - b C C C N_ ` a) W C C '� O L O) a) Q- C) 0 Q coO J C E c E n e �° E v E in _ 0 0 0 E m g FI 2 ? a -0 c •d o o C C') ° v n E �- w n E o co E ca n c - q co a) ti O o o c c L a`a)) I Ul o E n OU , ` .. n N N j N ` d O f0 L N ` Q fn a�i co a0i �° n v on 0 W " ,i, u) N uj D. c r c _ v a) a) a) 0 4-, O Q H m m o g> o 0 o a O O W c } o, W N cncnU = 2J2 E O ~O incnx -J Mcr 03 C) z cr 0 z • • . c ii. < v WO INTO • 0 • O C6 O CL Le) C C6 1.1.) 4—I n aell- 4 O rNI III CU 3 /i•i t it .- I : 11 tH ti; •te. . h s j. O p l �' - : 4 O • • ._.. • Si• • • � la .o ' T !-Eh- till • •• I. O • ■ a Si t • j v O • SAJ 01 rall : agi .'2 C O f o v434 -u m r' �l t ? 21 ° .J NIn A Q) ill A wcu H 0 Um N U N U C c o in • = C o o m a) O C0 O Hm o n co m �m n n co c Cr) a)0> E i17 CD MN c--c 1.4 MI CC L E a Y c M •� �• c m 43.1 C c n n Z' - c E E ;,y `Ya 3 E o 0 Cls) n o C 0 aTo 0. co rO w V L - • Y 1/2 c. Tr .. V W 0 fA o 2n c a 21 a iv c i o a f o u o cc o o 17, C7 re c c c� LL a - m E °' L U Z R d o n ; o 0 fl ml E N o ai ^I : -. 8O p o c O0 O co c_ E �� — •_ • n E m E o i f �. co C G .•'-• O E U �O r� N E a) . ^y� m a Q C0C O C WI) W =u. H E E In 77LLL co 3 3 E °.' b c CO O V • N V) cO N U y O • o C - o « W V) o a) '- E c c i '0•�y CO to ca to m a' c G O W m a`� sr Go i V M azi 1L co tO y a Q VJ Cn S 2 U y in 3.4 i� � o� E >. 18 n y 0 $ 2 C., ►1 L = 2 3 c c O a CC 0 Z o 0 `/ Z G N Q/ n ht E c L - E Y -2 2 o °' ; � $ 9Ts m o o 2 n n G CJ E ? o E E o m en a� c o o = E CO n '~ E o To n oo n n Q� R 0 ,n RS c c L rr U U >it ° " o ca CD I� ... W in c u o o ci d a 0 W 3 0 3 N `"n z N a Q J U Vl J J Cn Wo W �. co, ocO . . . _ = e-•1 Cr O Z al = 11 C en u- Q cu 0 bt w C O_ •Y CO L V Q CA C In Li) 'a.. e / U11 °! a K ` a O 0 `` U pp c of MIMI 4C-01 a u / C )I ay _ is 1 4 ,,, a s .) 2 40 1 at 0 1 C I 1 CI. Fr I RC O 1 COIL J C 41' ; - n s Iltak----441,'- ‘- f-z--- ' T O • leNO C V li i i a) CO Min o A N N C) C C O @ )E a o c- li T 2 N cO O N N „ a L H O �f- 0 E _rn m ma O a N cp E ca • c a) -0 - C 1— 0 0 n c O co `° U > M CD E n,In' N > 42) Cl. T y N 1r E o J v y f0 N "o a CU n O O = y0 CO z 7-5 n Cr) N N d VJco > O O co U '� at 2 w � � � .€ N ic n3 bt I- • a Q F- 1 X 1 5 CO COan . vi ca o CC 0 Z a of a 76 I 13 Z L oo -o y c E c CU 9.. tCto E te m a t •�, N CU y V _ ro N N O O 1"� E z. Ln -C E113 co Q 'I u C . .criN n C a N �i i.�l a) a tC O !. V U U U Q t •y." To• se C _ E o "0 a O ~ W coU) N N O Q)E Q LL1 t t rn 2. E . . . . �/ om CC c� Z o � Z t • 71)o • W E C O C CD O " w c co E t- ic In CL D ^y N T o C O N O O U CV /r. � m OU O C i co z in r W I.J 1 I t� _ U CD N U o 04 CO ,_ E z -8 o 1 4..r o. = • • -W cn w m N h E WN a' E a) It O 0 W co C_ c N M CC IX Z i U- a CU a) w III C O C3 L ti C c0 i C f O 1 :�a� c i ^ E,e a P. O ° to CD E o Z o1 . s �� J- WIN e i• • G O o f -_ a W = ' r I o c O h. .g • R r. cpi. V 0 O C a li a J P I. W I '13rAti1/44):Zb J t.,4 r� 0 (.; 1 X) .•� Rm a 7f: ` o 2 .5 t.. o Ili u u 2 CO SO TO O CO 2 m a avi M C C C L W = N =0 U 07 O c m CD CL 0 _ 60 0 E 5 — m E n o ._ vm o a, ,� of >, N (C Z m� c m> o v E H r zp o Z a o n c o CO o. in ti = I- I E •N R v Z :n _ n, aEi M U a) }I O Ol ' -J c n c o r o a. o t n >. E o a a $ �° o S " � .� = d h d .� a • o 9 o •1••1 N t N o N C �f/� J to 7. E `� N J to n .E co u ,7; cry P.Sco cf,Ti) Ill 76 c CO m a E rl-, W N — a`, u -6 .. W Cl) y `_' a u a' 'o �i ` W v, q q, d 0 O W n .,..i O~ xxx > Q� H cn = cn = » 0 O - cc O z cc O z 1 -w•+ CJ ZO h T;.) S.l J&J m �r ' Nal I re; ' w ill0 1-23 li a, a ry C in C C L co E yea Q = a L., L.3/ ' C e et o V E. a m 3'. m w C m °' o .� r�E a.c- Ems O y h �� am ii �� i �0 O U E O ~ Z Z ` CL N c V O O O E L N ra c O E . D b b a, -6 € m CO 1.5 CO CI) S o Eo. L - o o. d O >` U U r-1 C' A ._. -O • 0. u TC 'C O O0 W �• y m ` N _, > m �p N n W O N IN C • r. Gin `_2 .E 8 y .J n a E v v r CV CCS m m c CO 3 3 a, ++ W `c 4 4) 4 La, O W a`, 4 2 4' Ln, c W N M a Dill > a Q I- cnicOr> D D CC O RSa T ) 1 cc O Z CC O Z C LL Q 4J 0 0 ttt w Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 3.5.1 Highway Lessons Learned Freeway alternatives along 1-25 would provide the most potential to improve safety, aging infrastructure and mobility. Improvements extending only to SH 66 or US 34 would not address the safety concerns, aging infrastructure or the demand anticipated in the northern portion of the study area. Variation in 2030 travel demand along the corridor indicated that some sections of 1-25 might be adequately served by six lanes while others may require a wider, eight-lane cross section. New highways had the greatest potential to adversely affect natural resources such as water quality, wetlands, wildlife and vegetation; especially those between US 85 and 1-25. New arterials did not serve existing populations as well or comply with future land use plans. Express lanes had the least potential to adversely impact social and natural resources. During Level Two the southern terminus for highway alternatives was reviewed. It was found that general-purpose lane and toll alternatives extending south to E-470 adequately addressed the project's purpose and need. HOT and H0V alternatives would best address the projects purpose and need by extending further south to the existing reversible H0V section at US 36. These findings are documented in the project's southern terminus paper included in Appendix A. 3.5.2 Transit Lessons Learned • The main message of Level Two Screening is that the total number of trips between the North Front Range and Downtown Denver is small; therefore, although transit attracts a high percentage of the trips, total ridership is relatively small. By contrast, the percentage of travelers who remain within their own towns is very high, therefore, the local bus network and the feeder bus network ridership was comparatively high. As a result of these findings, none of the transit alternatives were recommended as stand-alone alternatives for implementation. However, several of them were recommended for further consideration packaged with highway improvements, and other transportation improvements, to serve the demand for transit, and to fulfill the project's identified need to implement a multi-modal solution. Practical northern termini would be developed for each individual alternative when transit alternatives were paired with other build alternatives in the future. The alternatives that were recommended for further analysis were located on the central or western side of the corridor. In the case of rail service, this facilitated connections to FasTracks corridors, which increased mobility while decreasing capital costs and mandatory coordination with the railroads. In the case of bus service this maximized the improvements being considered along 1-25. Both bus and rail service is made more feasible where there are a greater number of large and dense communities that will benefit from the service; the land use patterns favor either a western or central alignment over an eastern alignment for that reason. Mid-central bus rapid transit and rail alignments had the most potential to adversely impact natural resources. Western commuter rail alignments had the most positive effect on economic and social • resources. Level Two 3.62 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. High-speed rail on the eastern half of the study area did not serve populations and had the most potential to adversely impact natural resources. Light rail alignment along 1-25 had the least potential to impact environmental resources but did not meet purpose and need and practicability criteria. 3.5.3 Congestion Management Although the congestion management strategies did not provide sufficient capacity either independently or as a group to preclude a Build Alternative, several strategies were retained for future consideration to complement build alternatives. These include: • Carpool • Vanpool • Telecommuting • Land Use • Incident Management program • Ramp Metering • Real Time Transportation Information • • Level Two 3-63 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. • • Level Two 3.64 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.0 LEVEL THREE Level Three combined the highway and transit alternatives advanced from Level Two to create packages of improvements. The packages tested the influence of different transit and highway improvements on each other, and ranged from largely highway with minimal transit improvements to largely transit with minimal highway improvements. However, to address all the elements of the purpose and need, all packages included both highway and transit improvements. 4.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative Assumptions The No-Action Alternative did not change since Level 2B Screening and was not analyzed in Level 3. 4.1.2 Highway Assumptions As a result of the Level Two screening, seven 1-25 improvements were considered for further evaluation. These included: • 8 general purpose lanes (E-470 to SH 14) • • Toll lanes (E-470 to SH 14) • HOT lanes (US 36 to SH 14) • Limited access lanes (E-470 to SH 14) • 6 general purpose lanes paired with two TEL lanes (E-470/US 36 to SH 14 depending on type of managed lane) • 6 general purpose lanes (SH 66 to SH 14) • HOV lanes (US 36 to SH 14) Each of these alternatives would include improvement to the horizontal and vertical alignment of 1-25 and existing interchanges. Existing frontage roads impacted by development of an alternative were assumed to be replaced. 4.1.3 Interchange Assumptions Interchanges considered geometrically substandard were assumed to be reconfigured and • upgraded to improve safety and achieve current design standards. In addition, preliminary operational analyses were conducted during Level Three to determine the interchange configuration necessary to achieve Level of Service D (LOS). LOS D was considered the minimum acceptable LOS. For the initial evaluation of highway alternatives, existing Level Three 4-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • interchange locations with upgraded configurations were included. Interchange configuration remained the same for all packages. More detailed information about the access planning process is included in Appendix E. 4.1.4 Transit Assumptions In the Level Two evaluation, it was clear that no transit line would generate enough ridership to form an alternative on its own. The remaining transit options were generalized into four transit alternatives, and advanced for testing with the different highway options. Therefore, BRT Alternatives A and C and Commuter Rail Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E were advanced as four general alternatives: • BRT along US 287 • BRT along 1-25 • Commuter rail service along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) line connecting to FasTracks in Longmont (US 36 line) • Commuter rail service along 1-25 connecting to FasTracks service in Thornton (North Metro line) Because the purpose and need elements of the North 1-25 project include "modal options" and "mobility", a complementary alternative of Commuter Bus was added in some packages to ensure that in each packaged alternative transit service would be provided to each part of the study area. Commuter Bus differed from BRT in that it would travel in lanes shared with private • autos. Commuter Bus, Bus Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail provide different levels of transit service quality as well as capacity. Therefore they were considered a "reasonable range" of transit alternatives to package with highway alternatives that were forwarded to Level Three. 4.1.5 Station Assumptions General station locations were developed for inclusion in the Level Three transit alternatives by considering the following: • Station spacing appropriate to the mode (approximately every 4-6 miles for commuter rail; approximately every 10 miles for BRT; approximately every 15 miles for Commuter bus) • Connectivity and access to east and west highways • Proximity to population centers • Proximity to activity centers (such as campuses, hospitals, or major employment centers) • Connectivity to other transit systems • Committee and stakeholder support At this level, only the intersection or interchange was identified; a specific station layout was not designed, nor was a specific parcel or site selected. In addition, each of the stations assumed walk, drive, and bus access with the exception of the station near CSU which was considered pedestrian and connecting bus access only. A full Stations Screening Report • was developed in January 2007 and is included in Appendix C. Level Three 4-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. 4.1.6 Maintenance and Storage Facility Assumptions Maintenance and storage facilities are used for transit vehicle fueling, vehicle repair, vehicle cleaning, parts storage, vehicle storage during overnight or other non-revenue service times, and other system upkeep functions. Depending on the size and scope of the system, they can be operated from a large, central location, or in a series of smaller locations. It was determined that even if the North 1-25 transit elements interline with the RTD system, a maintenance and storage facility would be required in the study area, and utilizing an existing or planned RTD facility for the majority of the 1-25 vehicle needs would be infeasible. Therefore, it was assumed that the main or major facility would be located in the study area, and additional minor facility needs in the RTD area could be coordinated after the operations plan was finalized. In addition, because of the distribution of the transit modes, it was determined that a combined bus/rail facility was impracticable due to the likelihood for substantial "deadhead service"—the distance buses would have to travel from a maintenance facility on the western side of the corridor to either the central or eastern routes being planned. Appropriate maintenance and storage facilities were assumed as part of the packages. The screening process to develop and analyze them is described in detail in the Maintenance and Storage Facility Technical Report of January 2006. This is included in Appendix D. 4.1.7 Congestion Management Assumptions The congestion management elements that were advanced from screening in Level Two were included in the alternative packages as appropriate. Their inclusion and placements were • dependent on the elements being tested (transit signal priority and queue jumps were included on bus routes only, for example.) They are described in the package descriptions as being either "on 1-25", applicable to freeway access and egress and managing congestion through avoiding it (through VMS signs), or removing it (incident management plan. They are also listed as being applicable to the study area, i.e. supporting existing carpooling and vanpooling programs through the maintenance of carpool lots. 4.1.8 Packaging Assumptions Level Two Screening determined that transit could not be implemented as the sole improvement in the North 1-25 study area, but that it could be implemented alongside a highway improvement to fulfill the project's commitment to providing multi-modal transportation services. Therefore, Level Three Screening developed and screened alternatives that would test various combinations of transit and highway improvements to be able to select the best "package." Commuter Rail services tested the potential public preference for rail service, as well as the benefits of expanding the planned FasTracks infrastructure north. It was best paired with lower capacity highway alternatives as it provided the greatest transit capacity. Bus Rapid Transit provides less ridership capacity than commuter rail, but relies on an exclusive or semi-exclusive operating environment to maintain a comparable service quality. It served as the best transit option to pair with express lanes, as they provided a semi-exclusive operating environment that is critical to the definition and viability of Bus Rapid Transit services. In addition, due to the travel time savings of operating in a less-congested express • lane, BRT could also provide greater accessibility by stopping more often. Level Three 4.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Commuter Bus does not have physical facility improvements; instead it would operate in mixed traffic. It offers less ridership capacity, and less service quality than bus rapid transit, and was therefore best paired with high capacity highway alternatives. The goal of testing the transit and highway alternatives in packages was: • to determine the influence of each kind of transit alternative on the highway alternatives, and • to identify the best performing (highest utilized, relative to its capacity)transit and highway alternatives. The packages would also answer specific questions raised during the previous levels of evaluation. These include: • Which type of transit service is most effective: commuter bus vs. BRT vs. commuter rail? • Can a transit connection to Denver International Airport (DIA) be justified? • Which commuter rail alignment works best: central or west? • Does a commuter rail connection between the northern areas of Denver and Longmont improve effectiveness? • Can a commuter rail spur to Greeley be justified? • Where do volumes merit six lanes, eight lanes and / or auxiliary lanes on 1-25? • • Which is better, managed lanes or general purpose lanes? • Which is better: HOV, HOT, Toll or limited access lanes? • Which is better for managed lanes: a buffer or raised median? • Where on 1-25 are managed lanes optimal? The packages are described below and illustrated in Figures 4-1 through Figure 4-8. 4.1.8.1 PACKAGE 1 —8 GENERAL PURPOSE LANES WITH COMMUTER BUS Highway Description: 1-25 would be widened from four general-purpose lanes to eight general-purpose lanes between SH 66 and SH 14. From E-470 to SH 66 the six general purpose lanes (included in the No-Action network)would also be widened to eight general purpose lanes. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Other optional highway improvements that could be included in this package to improve operation of 1-25 or to sufficiently meet the purpose and need of the project include parallel arterials and upgrading US 85. • Level Three 4-4 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Transit Description: Bus service would operate within shared general purpose lanes at all times. Commuter bus service would operate from Fort Collins to Denver along: • Harmony Road from Mason Street to I-25; • 1-25 from Harmony Road to Denver Union Station (DUS). Transit service also includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern Colorado communities to the 1-25 transit service. If ridership projections and cost estimates indicate that service to DIA is viable, a bus transit line to DIA could be added to this package. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: • Carpool • Variable message signing •Vanpool • Incident management • Telecommuting • Ramp metering • Support sustainable growth Background: • Eight available general purpose lanes provide relatively free-flowing freeway conditions, allowing the bus to achieve acceptable speeds. This alternative combines a high quality (high capacity, fast travel time) highway improvement with a lower quality (longer and less reliable travel time)transit improvement. • Level Three 4-5 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationIll Figure 4-1 Package 1: 8 General Purpose Lanes with Commuter Bus Wellington 1440 _ 797 14 \ Add 2 general purpose lanes Fort r Ilins in each direction north of 8S SH 66 'oath Sovorana. Eaton 257 92 Lucerne Add 1 general purpose lane tar Windsor - in each direction south of I rir= SH 66 Lovel nd ' I 34 ' 34 Greele Commuter bus service in ,. garden City 02 general purpose lanes I (25 ; Evans eo LA RIMER I M E R Cain on nstowq La Sall Q Commuter Bus Station ' I s6o X MIIIIken 56 l menmems FasTrackse•rtho — olorea III ( I WELD Me Plattsvlll 7 66 ` Longmont . _/. 119 1 I_ 38 C5 BOULDER i_ 85 119 .-...;1 Fires7e— 1'J rick 1 t si` 52 'r cone pton Erie tts oulder �g L. one 7 , .n 93 - * 7 36 ,Loulsvil Sri' on �� Bupsrio Broomfield Thynton North Co' US 36/Longmont • Metro c Corridor 'bore Corridor /\72 ' t n.t.r /E470 Denver International Airport 2 SI 121 ' P1sfr • • I :a r 71 t Unio Station NVER , - 70 6 Den er - • y: 125 NOT TO SCALE North i 0 Level Three 4-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.1.8.2 PACKAGE 2-TOLL LANES WITH COMMUTER Bus Highway Description: This package would include adding two new Toll lanes in each direction on 1-25 from E-470 to SH 14. All users in these new lanes would be tolled. Users in the existing general purpose lanes would not pay a toll. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Transit Description: Commuter bus service would operate from Fort Collins to Denver along: • Harmony Road from Mason Street to I-25; and • 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS. Bus service would operate in shared lanes along Harmony Road, and within the barrier- separated toll lanes on 1-25. Access and egress would be provided from the toll lanes at each interchange allowing buses to access the station areas. A second commuter bus service would operate in shared lanes along US 287 from Fort Collins to Longmont, and a third commuter bus service would operate on US 85 from Greeley to DUS and on US 85, E-470 and Pena from Greeley to the Airport. US 85 service would have alternating destinations with one run serving DUS and the next run serving DIA. • Transit service also includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern Colorado communities to the 1-25 transit service. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: On US 287 and US 85 : • Carpool • Variable message • Transit signal priority • Vanpool signing • Signal coordination • Telecommuting • Incident management • Bus queue jump • Support sustainable • Ramp metering growth • Pedestrian/Bike Improvements Background: On 1-25, toll lanes would provide a less-congested operating environment than general purpose lanes, but would not provide the more exclusive operating environment necessary to operate BRT with median stations. Because toll lanes restrict general access to the improved lane by charging a toll for its use, it was paired with transit improvements on the western central and eastern side of the corridor that would stop in several communities. This effectively combines a highway improvement with less access to a transit improvement with more access. • Level Three 4-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 4-2 Package Toll Lanes with Commuter Bus Wellington 1 87 , \ I. i I a , m Add 2 toll lanes in each Fort "olli 1ns ir‘pC: � 851 direction noes Severance 57 f392 Laverne Commuter bus service in 287rit wlndsor 1 -i.A general purpose lanes l r m e34 ----, Love nd Greele-� O Commuter Bus Station 34 � y • Garden City 402' 257 Evan O FasTracks - 60 -- La Salle • Cam n hnstown LARIMER 1 • 56 Milliken rthoud Gilcr III38 ( ,N E • Me Plattevlll 88/ • Longmon W • . 119 • 3s .8s BOULDEP EF I Firestone 119 rick I 52 52 i t i n cone • piton Erieoulder X119 tte 77) 7' 93 36 Loulsvll " grin on - S Su Broomfield Thornton -' North om US 36/Longmont • Metro Corridor North nn Corridor /`72 t neter ,E470 Denver International Airport : 2 .7 1121 / s . • 1 - 7. JEFFER ON 4 ' eenv r 71 71 Unto Station 40' 70 O g; ■' , v� Den er _ - NOT TO SCALE zs . , III North Level Three 4-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 4.1.8.3 PACKAGE 3-HIGH-OCCUPANCY/TOLL LANES WITH BUS RAPID TRANSIT Highway Description: This package would include adding two new High-Occupancy/Toll lanes in each direction on 1-25 from US 36 to SH 14. All single-occupant vehicles in the new lanes would be tolled. Users with two or more occupants could use the new lanes for free. Users in the existing general purpose lanes would not pay a toll. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Transit Description: BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to Denver along: • Harmony Road from Mason Street to 1-25; and • 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS. BRT service would operate in shared lanes along Harmony Road, and within the barrier- separated HOT lanes on 1-25. Commuter bus service would be operated within shared lanes on US 287 from Fort Collins to Longmont and on US 85 from Greeley to DUS. Transit service also includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern • Colorado communities to the 1-25 transit service. If ridership projections and cost estimates indicate that service to DIA is viable, a bus transit line to DIA could be added to this package. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: On US 287 and US 85 : • Carpool • Variable message • Transit signal priority • Vanpool signing • Signal coordination • Telecommuting • Incident management • Bus queue jump • Support sustainable • Ramp metering • Pedestrian/Bike growth Improvements Background: When compared to Package 2, this alternative will directly test the incremental difference in ridership between BRT and commuter bus service on 1-25, and service on US 85 to DUS and DIA instead of service only to DUS. • Level Three 4-9 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 4-3 Package 3: High-Occupancy/Toll Lanes with Bus Rapid Transit Wellington 1 Ca.\)-8-kr /% a \ 1 14 Autt Add 2 HOT lanes in each Fort Collin es; direction • • • nath sewronco Eaton Fb9 • 392, Lu 287 windaor BRT service in l -25 HOT lanes Lovel nd • Commuter bus service in `" 3a $ NGreele general purpose lanes •--402'- Garden City 257 Evan 60 ' La Salle LAR1MEr. Cam •n •hnstown n Commuter Bus Station 60 0114 ' Milliken U Bus Rapid Transit Station I 0 hood 56 - - G cre ill O FasTracks • — • — • - - - - - - - -I0 3$ I WE Me • PlatteviU 7 • 88 ii Longmon Be • 314 O + 85 BOULDEE —11-- I Firestone 11 287 1 rick Niwot 0 • --Las; . 1 •"--Th L i -, Fort i(f 0 upton I Erie F—'T Ll ulder 76 119 La yen* 7 7 ' • 93 36 Louisull .•. Bri •n _r Y • ' J I Super • • Broomfield on i • r 36/L 36/LongmontMetro North Con US on Corridor North• ! Corridor r 0 West - nster E47 Denver International l,jj _ Airport 2 fSi 121j , . - .. • 'a''176 JEFFER • ON Alla '- i • •env. r 70 70 Unio Station ill __ .1/44°- 4 770 6 Den er NOT TO SCALE • v` Zi's \ III North Level Three 4-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.1.8.4 PACKAGE 4- LIMITED-ACCESS LANES WITH COMMUTER Bus Highway Description: This package would include adding two new Limited-Access lanes in each direction on 1-25 from SH 66 to SH 14 and one new lane in each direction from E-470 to SH 66. Two lanes in each direction would be barrier separated from the two general purpose lanes from E-470 to SH 14. Access and egress points to and from the barrier separated lanes would be limited to E-470, SH 119, US 34 and SH 14. Because of the limited access/egress points, the lanes would be used by long-distance travelers. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Other optional highway improvements that could be included in this package to improve operation of 1-25 or to sufficiently meet the purpose and need of the project include parallel arterials and upgrading US 85. Transit Description: Commuter bus service would operate from Fort Collins to Denver and the airport along: • Harmony Road from Mason Street to 1-25 • 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS; • E-470 from 1-25 to Pena; • Pena from E-470 to DIA. • Transit service would be in shared lanes at all times. (The nature of the limited access lanes makes it impractical for the bus to enter and exit the limited access lanes.) Operations assume a service that alternates southern endpoints between DUS and DIA. Transit service also includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern Colorado communities to the 1-25 transit service. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: • Carpool • Variable message signing • Vanpool • Incident management • Telecommuting • Ramp metering • Support sustainable growth Background: When compared with Package 1, this alternative tests the incremental difference in ridership between service to DUS only and service to DUS and DIA using 1-25. In addition, it tests the difference in ridership to DIA between a central and eastern alignment. From a highway perspective, this package compares the demand on 1-25 created by long-distance travelers that would benefit from limited-access lanes to the demand for shorter trips. • Level Three 4-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 4-4 Package 4: Limited-Access Lanes with Commuter Bus 25 Wallington r,�_t. I 1 14 Ault ri Add 2 limited access lanes Fort • Inn ci (85 in each direction • mnath • severance Eaton 257 392 Lucerne Commuter bus service in x287 Windsor general purpose lanes -3a • Lovel nd Two new lanes north of SH 66. South of SH 66, one 34 ( ` Greele existing lane in each direction would be converted Garden City to a Limited Access Lane for a total of 8 lanes on 02 the entire corridor. I 257. Ivan Cam• - 60 hnstown La Sall O Commuter Bus Station %s0 i I Mnnken FasTracks Berthoud .i.' agoras O Ill 3s WELD Me I 7 66 :- Longmont .ze.„7- S 1 36 r Si as BOULDER,9 '" I f Firestone 2871 I crick wot • - I r / ' 32} '�____ 52 -' i Fort !,Upton cono Eric -- = oulder ,. c119 yette 7 7 (93 36 Louisvil Sri on Su �_ Broomfield T nton • US 36/Lo ngmont • Com e r • y Corridor Nor . lenn 72 ter North Metro E470 Denver Corridor International Airport 2_,.1 • L\-:' 121; lc. JEFFER ON .Si % i 7J •-- ►env r 7i 7i - Unio Station _ N t V �l 40� 70 6`( 6th Den er 1 NOT TO SCALE North 0 Level Three 4-12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.1.8.5 PACKAGE 5 -6 GENERAL PURPOSE LANES,2 EXPRESS LANES WITH Bus RAPID TRANSIT Highway Description: This package would extend the six-lane widening on I-25 from SH 66 to SH 14 and add one buffer-separated express lane in each direction to create an eight-lane cross section. The two express lanes could be high-occupancy vehicle lanes, high-occupancy/toll lanes, toll lanes or limited access lanes. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Transit Description: BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to Denver along: • Harmony Road from Mason Street to 1-25; and • 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS. BRT service would operate in shared lanes along Harmony Road, and within the barrier- separated managed lanes on 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS. Commuter bus service would also operate in shared lanes along US 287 from Fort Collins to Longmont and on US 85 from Greeley to DUS. • If ridership projections and cost estimates indicate that service to DIA is viable, a bus transit line to DIA could be added to this package. Transit service also includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern Colorado communities to the I-25 transit service. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: On US 287 and US 85 : • Carpool • Variable message • Transit signal priority • Vanpool signing • Signal coordination • Telecommuting • Incident management • Bus queue jump • Support sustainable • Ramp metering growth • Pedestrian/Bike Improvements Background: This alternative is comparable to Package 2 and, especially to Package 3. This alternative will test the difference in transit ridership when there are fewer highway alternatives compared to transit alternatives. This will directly compare the utilization of lanes whose use requires that a toll be paid, compared to the utilization of lanes whose use requires carpooling (two or more passengers). • Level Three 4-13 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 4-5 Package 5: 6 General Purpose Lanes, 2 Express Lanes with Bus Rapid Transit 4440 (I\ 1 "- Wellington I 'zs7. Ault 14 Add 1 general purpose lane i in each direction Fort e • Ilins ik 85 • • • 1 ath Severance Eaton BRT service in 1 -25 managed 257, lanes • 192, Lucerne ;287 Windsor Commuter bus service in Love nd • general purpose lanes 3` ' ." ' •�� ) �Greele n� I Garden City Add 1 managed lanes' Ev 4 • natown La Salle in each direction LARIMER ;soA • Milliken ii I "Managed lane'could be an HOV, HOT or Toll lane -- on 1-25 f3iler_ III o Commuter Bus Station 30 I ; 0 Bus Rapid Transit Station 0 Meed Plattevill 0 - FasTracks Long �`on (q1-i. ieora 119- -0 a ) ' I" I E:i 85 BOULDER® Firestone rick 0 ® 41 ort .r' pt on aili �9 . : oulder -1 p 93 36 iLindsvil s an ej OreollMleld� 1 ROOMfI : ' North ► • US 3tULongmont qp Metro c• , Corridor L Corridor ® . Saw IE470 Denver • International Airport i 0 Illibig ili / _ _ _ __. JEFFER ' ON e Deny r 70. _ -n-Li Unio Station n 17 imr 70 LAVER ', 70 NOT TO SCALE C3 6th .ve Den orIII North ___- J / Level Three 4-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.1.8.6 PACKAGE 6-6 GENERAL PURPOSE LANES WITH CENTRAL COMMUTER RAIL Highway Description: This package would complete the six-lane widening on 1-25 from SH 66 to SH 14. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Other optional highway improvements that could be included in this package to improve operation of 1-25 or to suitably meet the purpose and need of the project include parallel arterials, upgrading US 85 and climbing lanes on 1-25. Transit Description: Commuter rail service along 1-25 would operate on the western side of 1-25 (within the right- of-way)from Harmony Road to approximately SH 119, cross 1-25 north of Frederick/Firestone and continue on the east side of 1-25 to Dacono, where it would connect to the Dent line, becoming a "FasTracks" service at the North Metro end-of-line station, and continuing to DUS. Commuter rail improvements also include extending the rail service across SH 119 into Longmont. It is assumed that the rail service would provide a single seat ride from Fort Collins to downtown Denver via the North Metro FasTracks line. A transfer would be required at SH 119 to access Longmont and Boulder. If ridership projections and cost estimates indicate that a spur to Greeley is viable, a rail transit line to Greeley could be added to this package. • Transit service includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern Colorado communities to the 1-25 transit service. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: • Carpool • Variable message signing • Vanpool • Incident management • Telecommuting • Ramp metering • Support sustainable growth Background: This alternative pairs the highest quality transit service with less invest on the highway when compared to Package 1. It is comparable to Package 7 and 8 which test commuter rail on the western side of the study corridor. • Level Three 4-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 4-6 Package 6: 6 General Purpose Lanes + Central Commuter Rail --t <0.\,,w, 0 Wellington 287\ l ,• \____ Fort Collin - 95 14 Add 1 general purpose lane ^at 257 tovaraaa. in each direction • ;28T Windsor Commuter rail \\A34 Lovel nd 34 � - • _ Greet Garden City O Commuter Rail Station ,402 X5,7 Evans .r so 44 'O. Train Service Pattern L A, RIMER . C.n.taWn Q j L. Sal Milliken Impose FasTracks f' L L_ Gaon 0 ( WELD Platt•vIll 7 r 88 Longmont �� A 119 BOULDER j 85 ' 119 Firestone rick 52 ! , ! • 52 ; on tr ono ton r, Ena, _ s;1 = o,ulder . i k �s ,• 7 -1 -r— - = - - r-t_"- LI 93 38 'Lousy l ■r " v S rr Superb �._. & di rooaald Mon ROOM .- '► US 38/Longmont Coln C 1 Corridor N tarn 72 nstar North Metro 'E470 Denver Corridor _ Int onnl . A Airpoirport 121 r r, • l JEFFER ' ON 1� Deny r 7 t Unio Station t 40 70 NOT TO SCALE ® s Den er • North Level Three 4-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.1.8.7 PACKAGE 7- 6 GENERAL PURPOSE LANES WITH WESTERN COMMUTER RAIL Highway Description: This package would complete the six-lane widening on 1-25 from SH 66 to SH 14. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Other optional highway improvements that could be included in this package to improve operation of 1-25 or to suitably meet the purpose and need of the project include parallel arterials, upgrading US 85 and climbing lanes on 1-25. Transit Description: Commuter rail would operate along the BNSF right-of-way from Fort Collins to Longmont, becoming FasTracks service in Longmont and continuing to Denver via Boulder. If ridership projections and cost estimates indicate that a spur to Greeley is viable, a rail transit line to Greeley could be added to this package. The rail improvement could also include extending the North Metro line north along 1-25 and east along SH 119 to connect into the proposed line, if ridership and cost estimates indicate this extension viable. A transfer would be required in Longmont to access the North Metro line. Commuter bus service would operate in shared lanes along US 85 from Greeley with alternating endpoints at DUS and DIA. • Transit service includes feeder bus service east and west to connect the northern Colorado communities to the 1-25 transit service. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On 1-25: On US 85 : • Carpool • Variable message • Transit signal priority • Vanpool signing • Signal coordination • Telecommuting • Incident management • Bus queue jump • Support sustainable • Ramp metering growth • Pedestrian/Bike Improvements Background: This alternative will test the ridership difference with rail on the western side, and bus service on the eastern side but no transit service directly along 1-25. • Level Three 4-17 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation transportation. III Figure 4-7 Package 7: 6 General Purpose Lanes with West Commuter Rail Wellington ,.287'4# I • ( 14 Ault i • limn j f6s • imnath goons Eatae Add 1 general purpose lane g in each direction T .- Luaarn. 87 ' Windsor N2 _ t, Commuter rail a Love nd 41, • ,34 L Greele • • 02~ Garden City Commuter bus service in 257 Even general purpose lanes LARIMER Ca on 0) Johnstown La Sell. , 60 -� ' I Milliken Commuter Bus StationIlk O •• �: acre Q Commuter Rail Station _ _ _ III FasTracks Me pi I 7 WELD C • ee LongmontOr ! e_ jtii 36 • 8$ BOULOLR 119 ' R"J I Feed. I J 52'1 ) ® • t '.,t�l Degas Erie O = oulder 119 La ' yette 7 , s $ O • 9_3 36 Louie Fiiire . it . , AL4 ROOM= _ TIMon ' _ No• rth Metro US 36/Longmont Corridor Com • n Corridor Nort glenntrApP f 'osiertir .E470 Denver International '} Airport .17— I, t 0, h. 1f JEFFER ' ON I 'i e Ti env r 70 Unio Station 70 LAVER r 70 g eveDen or :t NOT TO SCALE rriAd • North Level Three 4-18 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 4.1.8.8 PACKAGE 8—WEST COMMUTER RAIL, HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES WITH Bus RAPID TRANSIT Highway Description: This package would add one buffer-separated, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction along 1-25 between US 36 and SH 14. North of SH 66 there would be a total of six lanes. South of SH 66 there would be a total of eight lanes. Deficient interchanges as well as locations with deficient vertical/horizontal alignments along 1-25 would be upgraded. Other optional highway improvements that could be included in this package to improve operation of 1-25 or to suitably meet the purpose and need of the project include parallel arterials, upgrading US 85 and climbing lanes on 1-25. Transit Description: Commuter rail would operate along the BNSF right-of-way and provide a one-seat ride between Fort Collins and downtown Denver via Longmont and Boulder. The North Metro line would be extended north along 1-25 and east along SH 119 to connect into the proposed BNSF line. A transfer would be required in Longmont to access the North Metro line. If ridership projections and cost estimates indicate that a spur to Greeley is viable, a rail transit line to Greeley could be added to this package. BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to Denver along: • • Harmony Road from Mason Street to I-25; and • 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS. BRT service would operate in shared lanes along Harmony Road, and within the barrier- separated HOV lanes on 1-25 from Harmony Road to DUS. Commuter bus service would operate in shared lanes along US 85 from Greeley to DUS, and along shared lanes on US 85, E-470 and Pena Boulevard from Greeley to DIA. Congestion Management: Throughout study area: On I-25: On US 85 : • Carpool • Variable message • Transit signal priority • Vanpool signing • Signal coordination • Telecommuting • Incident management • Bus queue jump • Support sustainable • Ramp metering growth • Pedestrian/Bike Improvements Background: This alternative includes the most capacity and highest quality transit services with a limited highway improvement. The commuter rail alignment will compare with Package 6, which • offered a "one-seat-ride" to both Denver and Boulder, but along a central alignment. Level Three 4-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 4-8 Package 8: West Commuter Rail, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes with Bus Rapid Transit F - Wellington (7.\\ /I I Add 1 H0V lane in each 287 direction - _ Ault i Commuter rail Fort l • Ilins 85 oath Severance Eaton q.511/N. Commuter bus service in 92 Lucerne general purpose lanes 87 ' Windsor 34 Love nd � BRT service in HOV lanes _34 _. Greele • ` 02 Garden City 57 Evan O Commuter Bus Station d Ca on 80 town La Salle• LARIMER_ (i2074-.._ 0 Bus Rapid Transit Station I FMMIre ss O Commuter Rail Station sr ud 4 0 c ► Train Service Pattern P36 WELD Mead!i° Plattevii O FasTracks 66 Longmont i,•,•..,,, ,,., I 119 88 , BOULDLIR Firestone 119 8 I I rick trret 52 i f rin. Corp Men i Erie '-7 Boulder z1Ill La tte 7 ! • I 7_: B •on 93 d) 36 Louisvile' i-- 1 :• Superb / Broomfield nton 7\--�� US 36/Longmont • Metro °o C e • - n- Corridor M K Corridor 772 Mist nster Denier E470 International Airport -Th—N.,._,, §, 2 .• • i ;121} • / JEFFERON • • env r 7t Unto Station LAVER NOT TO SCALE - 6 Den er J NorthIII rr" 6th Ave ns J Level Three 4.20 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING Evaluation was conducted by package as well as by the individual package components in order to identify the most effective elements and repackage them as appropriate for the Draft EIS. Level Three evaluation criteria are listed below 4.2.1 Evaluation Criteria Level Three packages were evaluated on using new quantifiable criteria available from the travel demand model, engineering costs estimates, how well they address the project's purpose and need, their practicability (in terms of the USACE 404(b)(1) guidelines) and their potential to impact environmental resources, and other detailed sources of data. The evaluation criteria used to evaluation the improvement packages and their components are described below. 4.2.2 Purpose and Need Criteria Purpose and need evaluation looks at an alternative's ability to address safety concerns alongl-25, replace aging infrastructure along 1-25, address mobility and accessibility needs and provide modal alternatives. Each criterion is described below. Highway Safety • Accident projections were based on existing, historical accident information provided by the Colorado Department of Transportation, Traffic and Safety Engineering department. The methodology used three key data inputs, and two analysis methodologies to estimate the expected accident experience for the year 2030. The available accident history for the previous five-years (1999-2003), the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes for each year, and the roadway geometry and length are the primary data required to create the baseline from which projections can be made. For each of the alternatives involving 4 lanes in each direction with no physical barrier separating any travel lanes in the same direction, an average accident rate methodology was used. In this method, an accident rate was derived using the historical accident data, segment length, and AADT for each of the five-year history. These rates were averaged in order to provide an estimate of accident experience that will scale with changes to the AADT. Using this derived rate, and the projected 2030 AADT, the potential future accident experience was calculated. For each of the alternatives involving 3 lanes in each direction, or when a physical barrier is present separating travel-lanes in the same direction, a more advanced methodology is available. CDOT has derived Safety Performance Functions (SPF) that relate the number of Accidents per Mile per Year (APMPY) to the AADT based on an analysis of accident experience along state highways that share similar characteristics such as number of lanes and urban or rural characteristics. Using the relationship described by the SPF methods, the historical data and AADT are used to define a curve that scales expected APMPY as the AADT changes for each lane-configuration. Therefore, for a 2-lane section separated by a barrier from a 3-lane section, the historic accident data and AADT are used to define • SPF curves separately for the 2-lane and 3-lane portions. Once defined, the AADT projected for the year 2030 is applied to the individual functions and added together to describe the expected future year accident experience for the complex facility arrangement. Level Three 4-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Aging Highway Infrastructure Four different criteria were used to evaluate an alternative's ability to replace aging infrastructure. The criteria used included the following: • Ability to replace aging infrastructure, which was considered a benefit. • Need to replace new structures, which was considered a drawback. • Ability to replace deficient pavement, which was considered a benefit. • Need to replace good pavement, which was considered a drawback. Transit and Highway Mobility A number of criteria were used to evaluate an alternative's ability to address mobility needs in 2030; these included congestion on the highway, transit ridership and travel time. Highway Congestion— Highway congestion was evaluated using two measurements. The first was miles of congestion which was measured by identifying the number of miles on 1-25 general purpose lanes from SH 14 to E-470 that have a volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 used in Level 3 or higher during the PM peak hour in 2030. Hours of congestion were the second congestion criteria; this was an estimate of the number of hours of the day each segment of 1-25 would have a volume to capacity ratio over 0.90, averaged over all 1-25 segments between SH 14 and E-470. Transit Ridership—Transit mobility was evaluated by comparing the number of northern • Colorado riders using the proposed transit alternative. Highway and Transit Travel Time— For highway alternatives travel time was evaluated by comparing the PM peak hour private auto travel time, in minutes, on 1-25 general purpose lanes between E-470 and SH 14 in 2030. For transit alternatives travel time was measured from the new Fort Collins South Transit Center to Denver Union Station in 2030. Transit and Highway Accessibility Accessibility was used to evaluate both highway and transit elements. Highway accessibility was evaluated by comparing the reduction the vehicle hours of travel to increases in vehicle miles of travel compared to the No-Action Alternative. Ideally, alternatives should reduce the vehicle hours of travel without a disproportionate increase in vehicle miles of travel in 2030. Transit accessibility was evaluated by comparing the 2030 population and employment located within a half-mile of potential transit stations. Transit lines with high population and employment in the vicinity were consider more desirable. Modal Options Modal options was evaluated based on the percentage of the total work trips from northern Colorado (the study area north of SH 66) to the Denver metropolitan area using transit versus private autos. • Level Three 4.22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 4.2.3 Practicability Criteria Practicability criteria include capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, logistics of expandability and constructability. The practicability criteria are described below. 4.2.3.1 HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT COSTS Capital cost estimates were based on present day construction costs. Estimates were calculated using a combination of calculated construction quantities multiplied by applicable unit prices, plus percentages of the quantified costs for imprecise items such as utility relocates and construction traffic control. All costs were considered inclusive of all materials, equipment and labor associated with each construction item. Unit costs and percentages were based on the following: Roadway—CDOT construction bid data from January 1, 2005 thru October 28, 2005 plus select projects bid prior to this time period. Commuter Rail— Recent projects and studies (1-70 EIS, US 36, 1-225, North Metro Corridor and the 1-595 Project) with costs adjusted for inflation, plus information from rail suppliers. Transit Stations— Cost data from recent RTD and CDOT projects. Rail Fleet- 1999 RTD guidance manual + 6 years of 2 percent inflation; unit costs do not • include fleet replacement. Bus Fleet— North American Bus Industries; unit costs include the present cost of fleet replacement in twelve years. ROW—Assessors' 2005 property data information from Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Larimer and Weld Counties. Replacement of the rail and bus fleets was considered as part of the Level Three capital cost estimates. To be consistent with the methodology used for calculating user costs, i.e. capital costs spread over twenty-five years, using the current prime interest rate of seven percent (n = 25 years, l = 7%); fleet replacement costs were calculated using the same time period and interest rate. Based on a twenty-four year life expectancy for the rail fleet, and twelve-year life expectancy for the bus fleet, replacement of the rail fleet was not included in the capital cost estimates, and one replacement of the bus fleet was included in the estimates. Unit cost of the bus fleet was calculated as the initial cost plus the present value of fleet replacement. Total rail and bus fleet capital costs were based on additional fleet requirements above and beyond the no-build alternative. Highway Maintenance Costs Roadway maintenance cost estimates were based on actual maintenance costs of the 1-25 • corridor from milepost 243 to milepost 269 for the years 2001 through 2005; average cost equaled $14,150 per lane mile plus an escalation of$1,000 per lane mile per year. Level Three 4.23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Maintenance costs were calculated by multiplying the additional 1-25 lane miles per package times the average cost per lane mile (adjusted for the yearly escalation) times 25 years. The time period of 25 years and an interest rate of seven percent were used in these calculations to be consistent with the methodology used for calculating average user costs. Transit Operating and Maintenance Costs Maintenance and operating cost for transit alternatives were based on annual revenue hour projections multiplied by the cost per revenue hour. For feeder, local and commuter bus service the cost per revenue hour factor of$68.85 was based on the existing data reported by each of the three primary transit providers in northern Colorado. This factor was increased for more premium service to $90.64 per revenue hour. Operating and maintenance cost for rail service was based on the cost estimating method use for the US 36 Corridor Draft EIS.1 Transit Cost per User The total capital cost amortized over 25 years and annual operations and maintenance costs of the transit system divided by the total number of annual transit users. Highway Expandability Two different criteria were used to screen for expandability, which included the following: • Potential to phase the investment to meet the region's needs (within the 2030 study horizon) • Ability to increase capacity to meet longer-term needs (beyond the 2030 study horizon) • • Packages and components that could best meet both of these criteria were considered favorable. Transit Operational Expandability A qualitative measure of the physical capacity of the line to accommodate increased services; and the potential additional costs of the subsequent expansions (i.e. larger platforms, additional train sets or bus vehicles, etc). Transit and Highway Constructability Impact to existing users and adjacent property owners was used as the criteria for this measure. More detailed information is necessary to provide a quantitative analysis and summary; therefore, a qualitative summary was used for this evaluation. The construction of specific segments of each package was reviewed to determine which would be the most disruptive to both existing users and property owners. Segment criteria were ranked from the most disruptive to the least disruptive and have been identified below. • Commuter Rail (CR) along US 287 -this segment is highly urbanized and has high traffic volumes and would include substantial improvements. • Segment length of overall improvements — more impacts with longer segments due to number of properties impacted and longer construction duration. ' Transit Operating Plans, Operating Statistics and O&M Costs for Level 3 North 1-25 Packages, Manuel Padron and Associates, • 12-30-05. Level Three 4-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. • Commuter Bus (CB) along US 287 - this segment is highly urbanized and has high traffic volumes; however, not as many impacts as CR. • Commuter Bus (CB) along US 85 -this segment is urbanized and has relatively high traffic volumes; however, not as many impacts as US 287 CB. Based on the above criteria, the packages that were the least disruptive were considered favorable. 4.2.4 Environmental Criteria The Level Three environmental evaluation coupled the previous quantitative evaluation with more qualitative criteria. Evaluation at this level was done by package only and not component. The evaluation criteria are listed below in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Environmental Evaluation Criteria Subject Criteria What number of known parks and recreation and/or wildlife refuges properties will the 4(f) proposed transportation improvements impact? Of the properties impacted, which ones will incur impacts to important property features? Air Quality Will the alternative affect air quality? Archaeology Would any known archaeological resources be impacted from the proposed transportation improvements? • To what degree will the alignment alternative disrupt existing and proposed bike and Bicycle and pedestrian circulation? Pedestrian Will the transit station locations be easily accessible from existing and proposed bike and pedestrian facilities? Paleontology Would any known or unknown paleontological resources be impacted from the proposed transportation improvements? Will the alternative provide access to existing and future employment and economic Economic activity areas in the study area? To what degree will the alternative disrupt existing employment/economic activity areas? Energy How much fuel will be consumed per day(compared among alternatives)? Environmental Will the alternative enhance or split the communities sense of place? Justice Will the proposed alternative enhance or split specifically definable community groups or their community resources? Geology Would any known underground mine (potential subsidence)areas be impacted from the proposed transportation improvements? Hazardous What type of hazardous material sites will be encountered by the proposed Materials transportation improvements? Of the sites encountered, how many would incur substantial clean up costs(liability)or pose a threat to worker health and safety? Historic How many known historic sites would be impacted by the proposed transportation Resources improvements? Are the proposed transportation improvements compatible with general land use? Land Use and What impact does the proposed transportation improvement have on existing residential Zoning areas? Does the proposed improvement provide greater access to planned mixed use development? • Level Three 4-25 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 4-1 Environmental Evaluation Criteria (cont'd) Subject Criteria Noise How many sensitive noise receivers would be impacted by the proposed transportation (Roadway) improvements? What is the maximum number of potentially-affected noise sensitive receivers that could Noise(Bus/CR) be impacted by the proposed transportation improvements? Is there a possibility of a severe impact(as defined by FTA)? Parks and Would there be direct impacts to any park and recreation areas directly adjacent to Recreation proposed corridors? Prime and To what degree will the alternative require the conversion of farmlands to transportation Unique Farmland uses? Right-of-Way What is the total number of properties that the proposed transportation improvements potentially impact? Safety and Are there safety issues of concern? Security and security Will the alternative accommodate planned growth in the study area? Will the proposed improvements enhance access to social centers and community Social resources for neighborhoods/residential population areas? Will the proposed improvements bisect or create a barrier within a high density residential area? T&E How many known or potential areas of state threatened and endangered and/or species Species/Wildlife of concern habitat are impacted by the proposed transportation improvements? What number of these areas could be classified as high quality? • Vibration (CR) What is the maximum number of potentially affected receivers that could be impacted by vibration? Visual How many viewsheds will be impacted by the proposed improvement? Which of these has a high level of scenic integrity? What is the number of impacts to water resources, including drinking water associated Water with the proposed transportation improvements? What number of these impacted resources could be classified as sensitive? Wetlands How much wetland area will the proposed corridor impact? What is the quality of the wetlands being impacted? Safety and Are there safety issues of concern? Security and security 4.2.5 Package Evaluation Table 4-2 summarizes the results of the purpose and need and practicability evaluation. Table 4-3 summarizes the results of the main differentiators for the environmental evaluation. Table 4-4 summarizes the results of the other environmental evaluation that were conducted, but not considered a differentiator in the comparison of packages. The results of the package analysis are summarized below. Safety—The safety evaluation attempted to compare safety for the various packages and improvement components by predicting accidents in 2030 between SH 14 and E-470. • However, the differing methodologies needed to predict accidents for different cross sections did not provide a consistent comparison between them. All alternatives equally addressed and Level Three 4-26 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. improved safety concerns associated with substandard geometric configurations such as sight distance, horizontal alignments, and vertical curves. Based on this, the accident prediction was completed but not used to evaluate or screen alternatives. All alternatives were considered to equally address safety concerns associated with geometric deficiencies. Aging infrastructure— Packages with longer improvements on 1-25 would replace more aging structures along 1-25 then those off 1-25. Mobility— Packages 1 through 5 resulted in fewer miles of congestion than packages 6 through 8. There is less difference in hours of congestion among the alternatives. However, expanding to an 8-lane cross section with managed or general purpose lanes results in the lowest private auto travel time (Package 1, 4, and 5). Transit travel times were lowest using managed lanes. Accessibility— Package 8, serving the western side of the study area with rail served the highest amount of population and employment concentrations. Packages 1, 4 and 6, with improvements primarily along 1-25, serve the least amount of population and employment. Modal Options — Packages with more transit capacity (6, 7 and 8) attracted more transit users, and a greater share of the commuting market to Denver. Practicability— Package 3 would add two additional barrier-separated travel lanes in each direction on 1-25. This would require design variances at E-470 and each of the new interchange structures south of E-470. This would result in numerous variations in the cross • section width along that stretch of 1-25 and could create speed differentials that reduce overall capacity and safety of the section. Environment—The Level Three environmental evaluation revealed that there were several analysis areas where the impacts associated with the packages resulted in similar impacts to the natural environment and the built environment, this analysis is shown in Table 4-4. There were a number of analysis areas where there were a large range of impacts between packages associated with each of the resources, these area served as the main differentiators and are shown on Table 4-3. Conclusions drawn from that analysis are summarized below: Generally, the packages which utilized existing corridors, Package 1, 2 and 4 had the least potential to impact resources because the proposed improvements were in or on existing transportation corridors. • Package 1, eight general purpose lanes and commuter bus on 1-25 had the least impact to resources, because much of the improvement could occur on existing right-of-way. • Package 8, western commuter rail plus HOV/BRT had the most impacts to resources because there were improvements on several alignments including western commuter rail. Impacts associated with these alignments resulted in impacts to stream crossings, wetlands area and potential noise and vibration impacts associated with commuter rail. • Packages 7 and 8 with western commuter rail provided the most increased access to existing and future economic and employment centers in the study area. • Level Three 4.27 o - - 4 o. cN • m 0 I N '—' S W � c � F Z 4j • a F W Op yv i £ s5 r QI N pro C W d LL Q a 9 c 9 N ry 2 G i" t 2 e e ti T' $ a Z o x, a 8 $ z R S s C 8 a 8 o R E aa M 0 £ ft a U ! ° t a it a *I 2 a 2 all s �--. fPullIPM i g - F 1c av t nR a a -2 € 1 aF 1 ii fr i • t�6 n o T g S a a 3; d 3 ; s a s a �3 m 5 C C R Y/p K 'C a .7? i a 'g z .c f t iz : < 2 t :--iff, ` S ca Ev 60 C ag O O _ ■ m Q a ■ I i § i I ga '^ N.M M E E E E E E g g $ a g V I to u r N W . _Ismi IC Ag 1 0 N$ �` S yiag s aZE ill Ng 3 e eg si � t /�/ WIIPIIM/�l••d$3p1 g 1 N c m aa�an 21, a - 22 22 1 z s �€ . c .a # r x z2 lipfo I - zs It _2 Gi it r =i F `a. o Z 4— O S C N N ,R :R N V 1 ya, VVJJ V] (� 33 ,1 q 0 R n N u M n b o aaCC 2r gGo� q R� nep EE i 9 ..i pn Fpi A M E S (21o)u011•�4U1 n & - - PUB Y PUB bo)IDIOM g f£ - z ? ' $ $ ? _� s $ b' n .4m FA! t $ u g 2 4 - a Q 2 z un ii 16 E a iO ee as I i E E o Eat EA 3 s it al g € s t t m gm � "lupin pus Nn Pus- S ffi m t t t ¢ t ¢G p c 08 sbg '8 a.g i! m`8 t Cl E eg '1t .. -E t� i 53 ; 8s G3 E3 S3 E; GE 3 i a & te y O s z i a a a a CO V v. Ca r o ■ m i k @ g � B CI A 9 a - g € e 9 m c m •o>,nos•a D1lh p a, (9 N (G Itpp i Q Q G la gS S I Y I I I Le _Q' o o o O I ; 0 p t> q •IeNN�W snapH ,,. gI S I E w w tit A 4 it I i I s I it w ✓ rE a COe O Q a q _ R r. tiTil n 8 Hi elf 2 $fi tas u 3 a A �, t N g� $Y i 8L N $m 6 f.. 4SR auk ailE i p no , a fez $ ��Lig!tt g . } Rafe nss : gtA 294 44i � �+ o Y� A rc ? gall a '� � Q i b 1� 5ia�y r • of PAuewuwlnug ms P b $gc aA �F alit Mg �aSt I g blip !' $$ s n ` g a212e 1-217 F 24, 2 flig c.,230- � a Y O L u O O _ 4 O E_ l Ill N Jr... ., PVI Cdi I.' e taw - Sc C rc qg>]7� Igt §oy � yr{�y eZji we a > C t M "- 6 C Q ■R E £ a 12 : O w C C L t yl yCg G p p a u as B ns a us i s a a 1 g i2 , a 65 ;g 1, 8 V' fi '4 1 a tea n a v v r _ f- �' ,� l c a e j ' C 6 E0 A 6 1 ac 8 b` g o E` 'l �. attInYOD3 N .'14 ¢ §$ °' 8 g• t Q tl{`{ R X� e .. ..¢ y. cX �g ,� ma o 2 $ a <O fill . f ht t t �a R18 2 L i 7 e Q i t ! a i a ` R. lit 4 l of iii g g R Pt Qs2 § is , s Rts $ s e!ts ft E. ,->s ,s R4 -. Rol -.s Rz„ oa Q o < Q g'= g A4 W Y Y S I - M1 a S . Y Al.c B A . R a .a 4 , m� 2 A ss $ R e o a A _ Ps a d a- e- w e t . a w ffi y N ,, n 41 SC E V. o g aa to .... :1 .. ADOION4in/ gQ $ m ge a e C u'351 '1'a !� W b W W Y W W W W W fIC i11 L� .5 g 1 O Y 1 1 OZ ■ F - ^w'1 W QJ 1., i- afi s xi Pi g 8 = g gv ga nodsLL ;� ti iii �i w with)Pu•'oA1WIM WiwuN l c £ o Y $ a 0 r .- 'west u auN- tar R $ 8: z $ e w s O ¢ n P aP ¢ a E' a.t n oE' CON = ti as =a �s ' t X � i g % � y2 w to M M IL a d g ea E. e V VZZ • • Y S • C) w i Cl. O : Y ya x x I - E d a n a a a.s S a O ■ C a `a n N KK }f { 0 g �N a I 'C A P Fi Y[ Fy ii w O I li E - ii KaI-- PPM + r a1.1 ,- ,i to .24 .4 • i' cs •? f €' s€ i` s' zd f-- e4. co i r t r i- 1- 4 t At I.. 2 1• F:t V PF Yc E 11' 41 ,t ie -1 •F. ;i pt. -; `4 -i s� :r », :r �: Z .c S 4'.s � _ •1:�_ iL ri �= J Efa 'eq�`s .C ,! Vgt } ll ; y Ex; .r..d S 5 , �" �'Ps x i = • i-E pyrt to TY •}, 3 p 4 :F.; ''i 4 Of E !”. .!--R S Ei }-g is p% 11".•t v F?{i ,dtq f ,_;'A a EF21 :r c MM'►�Opl r - :'8 'Ti is -r[4 r m�-'x A !1 ;i G F v.. ccy ..a Frk 'c .Ea i '. +� i.FF f), `sib . F '•44p xp t I ' i'€ w. • .. '• gnlwrda,c.:nvewud ; ',1 '" -,.N t.F Li; pti;i $ .sY `4 'gct r'gi j't 'rE` 'F% ti� a 1 Ik'....„4 ewH .13 d+ < si x Lt• "x ii iY of 6- Kr d- dg �- €m :7 _ p - I. • { i k C •c M. J A 45 r d d d 3 '-• k▪F _ F F Lii t c3 f } 9 •3 ; C • 9 s s 9 ii i ZEE r. .. ,i r - q .* ' P$ if. ti k: [' ah P •4 ≥� � - “ V:' O p §F a .i 6,1 : F R i q • ►. si.4. Fk t.i ek ti !T if t. e ' 4 _pr .F ¢j iii _€ c} Ei ii k0 Ti eP. if WI F3 } s ' ki 4`• ii ii de a 'x .3 !,.•x :: = -i - `!F. v. 7. C V4 Y S x N� xc P 3 ;t Lk .F :3 5 44 f C O 'fit . is . - e, Fk - 6• 1.: [ a t] a - s e n Y _ E • I a a a a a e a a f C Q V i7Q Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.3 SCREENING RESULTS The Level Three evaluation was designed to answer a specific set of questions. Each of these questions is answered below: Which type of transit service is most effective: commuter bus versus BRT versus commuter rail? • Effectiveness was measured in two ways: the alternative's ability to attract riders, and the number of riders attracted compared to the cost of the alternative. Commuter rail attracted the most riders, generating ridership ranging between 3500 and 4500 riders. By contrast, BRT generated between 2500 and 3000 riders and commuter bus generated between 1500 and 2000 riders. When the ridership is compared to cost, the bus options were much more cost effective: Commuter Bus packages cost less than half for each new transit trip than commuter rail packages ($6 per new transit trip vs. $11 to $13 per new transit trip.) New passenger trips on BRT packages cost about a third less than commuter rail packages ($8 to $9 per trip.) Can a transit connection to Denver International Airport be justified? • Service to DIA attracted approximately 20 percent more riders than transit service to DUS only. Therefore, bus service to DIA was retained as a justified service. Rail service to DIA was not considered, due to the RTD service planned as part of the FasTracks system, and • the comparatively small transit market to DIA compared to DUS. Compared to overall North Front Range travel patterns, only 2-3 percent of all NFR trips travel to the Denver area. An even smaller percent travel to DIA. Whereas 20 percent more ridership on bus was justifiable compared to the cost, 20 percent more on rail was too low to merit the rail extension in a corridor where rail is already being extended. Which commuter rail alignment works best: central or west? • Commuter rail lines along the BNSF and 1-25 attracted similar levels or ridership, but the 1-25 alignment would cost twice as much, largely due to the need for all new right-of-way and the need for all new bridges and other crossing treatments. By comparison, the BNSF line allowed the use of an existing track (halving the cost of a new double-track alignment), and the crossings are already built. Does a commuter rail connection between the northern areas of Denver and Longmont improve effectiveness? • The Longmont/North metro connection did not substantially improve ridership (adding between 10 percent and 20 percent more riders), and compared to its cost likely another 2/3 the cost of the BNSF alignment, was not considered justified. However, stakeholder meetings held at the conclusion of Level Three produced large public interest in an alternative connection to Denver that would not force them to travel through Boulder. Therefore, it was carried into the Draft EIS for additional screening. • Level Three 4-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Can a commuter rail spur to Greeley be justified? • When the Western alignment was selected over the Central alignment, the feasibility of a spur to Greeley decreased substantially due to the additional cost, and the service to a market that is not directly related to the purpose and need. There is a proven transit market between Greeley and Loveland and Greeley and Fort Collins. However, serving that market is secondary to serving the transit demand to Denver. Whereas a bus alternative would travel directly south from Greeley to Denver, a rail alternative would force Greeley passengers to travel out-of-direction to the Western side of the corridor to then go south. The trip demand from Greeley to Denver could be served more directly and more efficiently with a bus service. Where do volumes merit six lanes, eight lanes and /or auxiliary lanes on 1-25? • Travel demand estimates generated using the travel forecasting model during Level Three indicated that six general purpose lanes would be sufficient along much of 1-25 in 2030; eight lanes and/or auxiliary lanes would be required south of SH 52 and through the Fort Collins/Loveland area. Which is better, managed lanes or general purpose lanes? • General purpose lanes are less expensive, better utilized, and have fewer environmental impacts than the managed lanes (limited access lanes, toll, HOT or HOV). However, HOT and HOV lanes enable multimodal travel. Which is better: HOV, HOT, Toll or limited access lanes? • • Of the express-lane alternatives, HOT lanes would provide the most reduction in congestion of the general purpose lanes and would have the highest utilization of the three types of managed lanes considered. Which is better for managed lanes: a single buffer-separated lane or two barrier-separated lanes? • A single buffer-separated express lane would accommodate travel demand in most of the corridor. Two barrier-separated lanes would be necessary to accommodate demand through the Fort Collins/Loveland area. Two barrier-separated lanes would require a wider cross section and would have more potential to negatively impact environmental resources. Barrier-separated lanes would cost more. Where on 1-25 are managed lanes optimal? • Managed lanes have the highest demand and utilization in the Denver metro area and through the Fort Collins/Loveland area. In addition, through the Level Three analyses, the following was determined: • Greeley is best served by an independent Commuter Bus or Bus Rapid Transit alignment, rather than a rail spur. A rail spur would require coordinating operating plans to match the 30 minute service to the FasTracks end-of-line in Thornton. To match the 30 minute service, trains from both Greeley and Fort Collins would have to depart every 60 minutes, • which decreases ridership, or a train from Greeley to the main line would have to depart every 30 minutes, and passengers would have to transfer to the main line. Forcing Level Three 4-32 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. transfers also decreases ridership. By contrast, commuter bus service could leave every 30 minutes along the US85 corridor, or every 30 minutes along the 1-25 corridor, and still be much more cost effective than rail service. • Fort Collins is best served by the western alignment with the northern terminus at the North Transit Center. Because the Central alignment was not selected, a spur to Fort Collins did not require analysis. The North Transit Center is easily accessible by both the street system as well as transit services, and is located immediately south of an existing freight yard which would allow the commuter rail vehicles to turn around easily. • Service to DIA should be retained as it adds ridership to the main line. For Commuter Bus along US 85 services to DIA attracted an additional 500 riders; which equates to an increase in ridership of approximately 20%. 4.4 LEVEL THREE LESSONS LEARNED The following conclusions were drawn and used to help identify the best improvement packages for evaluation in the Draft EIS. • Additional lanes would be necessary on 1-25 regardless of the transit improvements provided. • Regardless of the highway improvement selected, interchanges and structures require improvement along the 1-25 alignment. • • Transit services along 1-25 and either US 85 or US 287 compete for ridership. Either all transit should be concentrated along the central alignment, or transit service would be offered along the western alignment and US 85 alignment. In this way the services avoid drawing riders from similar geographic areas. 4.4.1 Highway Lessons Learned • Limited access lanes would provide capacity comparable to eight general purpose lanes but would not be as well utilized and would cost more than general purpose lanes. Capital cost for the limited-access lanes was $1.44 billion. The comparable eight general purpose lanes were $1.10 billion. Limited access lanes were dropped from further consideration • High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes would experience seven to 14 miles of congestion in the PM peak hour northbound and southbound, respectively. A comparable six general purpose lane cross section would have about half as much congestion. HOV lanes were dropped from further consideration. • For managed-lanes, two barrier-separated lanes may be necessary along sections of the corridor but a single buffer-separated lane in each direction provides adequate capacity along much of the corridor and costs less than a barrier-separated section. • Of the managed-lane alternatives, high-occupancy/toll lanes would provide the most congestion relief and would have the highest utilization of the express-lane options. • Level Three 4-33 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • • Eight general purpose lanes may be necessary in select locations while six lanes would be adequate along much of the corridor. • Package B includes a combination of barrier and buffer-separated express lanes evaluated in the EIS. 4.4.2 Transit Lessons Learned • Western commuter rail attracted similar ridership as well as market share to Denver when compared to central commuter rail, but the transit elements cost less and attracted more riders to Boulder. For these reasons, Western commuter rail was evaluated in the EIS as part of Package A and the Preferred Alternative; the Central Commuter Rail alignment was dropped from further consideration. • 1-25 BRT attracted 30 percent fewer riders than rail alternatives but also cost about 80 percent less, and so BRT along 1-25 was evaluated in the EIS as part of Package B. • 1-25 Commuter Bus attracted the least amount of ridership. Commuter Bus on US 85 attracted the highest ridership, but the commuter bus service on US 287 attracted the least of all the transit components. Therefore, the Western and Central Commuter Bus alignments were dropped from further consideration, but Commuter Bus service along US 85 was evaluated in the EIS as part of Package A and the Preferred Alternative. 4.5 SUMMARY OF SCREENING Table 4-5 summarizes all highway, transit, and congestion management alternatives • considered during the process and lists why they were either screened out or retained. Information is provided in the two columns about the NEPA and USACE practicability screening. These criteria are described below: • NEPA Screening — Responsiveness to criteria that determine how reasonable it is. The definition of reasonable includes whether or not it is practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, whether or not it meets purpose and need, and whether or not it has environmental impacts that are acceptable. • USACE Practicability— Per USACE's 4049b)(1)guidelines, this criterion depends on costs, technical and logistic factors. To be practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall purpose. This column also identifies whether or not an alternative has greater impacts to the aquatic environment. Each alternative retained through this process was evaluated in more detail in the EIS. • Level Three 4.34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. Table 4-5 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered Alternative Description NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary No-Action Alternative Retained. Retained As required by CEQ. Highway Alternatives TAFS recommended Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. highway elements. In conjunction with other In conjunction with other Managed lane/bus lane: improvements, these improvements improvements, these improvements SH 66 to E-470. could address the mobility and could address the mobility and Managed lane/bus lane: multimodal needs in the corridor. multimodal needs in the corridor. E-470 to US 36. Highway Alternatives not along-25 Improve US 287 or US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 with additional lanes Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need or higher roadway because these alternatives diverted because these alternatives diverted classification less than 20%of the needed 55,000 less than 20%of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 and they would not daily trips from 1-25 and they would improve safety on 1-25. not improve safety on 1-25. New highway or parallel Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. arterial Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because these alternatives diverted because it does not replace aging less than 20% of the needed 55,000 infrastructure on 1-25 and it does not daily trips from 1-25 and they would not address safety on 1-25. improve safety on 1-25. • Prairie Falcon Parkway Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Reasonable. Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because these alternatives diverted because these alternatives diverted less than 20% of the needed 55,000 less than 20% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 and would not daily trips from 1-25 and would not improve safety on 1-25. improve safety on I-25. Lane width Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. reconfiguration along Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need 1-25 because it would substantially because it would substantially compromise safety on 1-25 by creating compromise safety on 1-25 by a substandard geometric configuration. creating a substandard geometric configuration. Double deck 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. This alternative was infeasible for This alternative was not practicable implementation because it would cost because it would cost four times the four times the cost of other feasible cost of other feasible highway highway alternatives. alternatives. Express lanes on 1-25: Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. HOV, HOT or toll with a Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need northern terminus near because alternatives would not provide because alternatives would not US 34 connectivity to northern communities provide connectivity to northern or replace aging infrastructure north of communities or replace aging US 34. infrastructure north of US 34. Express lanes on I-25: Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. HOV or toll with a Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need northern terminus of because HOV or Toll alternatives because these alternatives diverted • SH 14 alone diverted less than 20%of the less than 20% of the needed 55,000 needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 daily trips from 1-25 into the new into the new facility. facility. Level Three 4.35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 4-5 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (cont'd) Alternative Description I NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary Highway Alternatives along 1-25(coned) Express lanes on 1-25: Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. HOT with a northern Would divert sufficient traffic from I-25 Would divert sufficient traffic from (- terminus of SH 14 general purpose lanes to be 25 general purpose lanes to be considered for further evaluation. considered for further evaluation. Limited access lanes Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Created more environmental impact Created more environmental impact while providing essentially the same while providing essentially the same mobility characteristics as an eight-lane mobility characteristics as an eight- facility. Wider cross section would lane facility. Wider cross section create a lane balance issue at the would create a lane balance issue at southern project limit that would result the southern project limit that would in operation at or below LOS E. The result in operation at or below LOS cost would be nearly two times more E. The cost would be nearly two than adding two general purpose lanes times more than adding two general to 1-25. purpose lanes to 1-25. Aquatic resource impacts were estimated to be double those anticipated with other 1-25 widening options. Interchanges at new Screened. Not Reasonable Screened. Not Practicable. locations Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because new interchanges reduce because new interchanges reduce effective capacity and safety by effective capacity and safety by • introducing additional weaving areas. introducing additional weaving This could be considered as part of a areas. This could be considered as separate action if there is a need. part of a separate action if there is a need. Additional lanes— Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. 6 lanes and 8 lanes on Six-and eight-lane general purpose Six-and eight-lane general purpose 1-25 from E-470 to cross sections were retained to achieve cross sections were retained to SH 14 a level-of-service (LOS) D or better achieve a level-of-service (LOS)D along the corridor. or better along the corridor. Interchange Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. replacement/upgrade Included with any alternative that Included with any alternative that widens 1-25 to address capacity needs, widens I-25 to address capacity safety concerns, and replace aging needs, safety concerns, and replace infrastructure. aging infrastructure. Horizontal and vertical Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. alignment Included with any alternative that Included with any alternative that improvements widens 1-25 to address capacity needs, widens 1-25 to address capacity safety concerns, and replace aging needs, safety concerns, and replace infrastructure. aging infrastructure. Frontage road revisions Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. Included with any alternative that Included with any alternative that widens 1-25 to address capacity needs, widens I-25 to address capacity safety concerns, and replace aging needs, safety concerns, and replace infrastructure. aging infrastructure. • Level Three 4-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • informon. ooperation. transportation. Table 4-5 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (conatit'cd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Description Highway Alternatives along 1-25(coned) Climbing lanes Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because this alternative diverted less because this alternative diverted less than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 into the climbing lanes. trips from 1-25 into the climbing lanes. Truck lanes Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because this alternative diverted less because this alternative diverted less than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 into the truck lanes. trips from 1-25 into the truck lanes. Transit Alternatives TAFS recommended Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. rail transit elements The rail portion was infeasible due to The rail portion was not practicable multiple alignments that would more due to more than double the cost than double the cost compared to rail compared to rail on BNSF alignment. on BNSF alignment. Automated guideway Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. transit(including This altemative was considered This alternative was considered monorail)in existing infeasible for implementation because infeasible for implementation because highway corridors, its reliability has not been proven in a its reliability has not been proven in a • freight rail corridors, corridor of this length, and it would cost corridor of this length, and it would and/or a new up to 10 times more compared to cost up to 10 times more compared to alignment commuter rail. commuter rail. Personal rapid transit Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. along existing highway Implementation is infeasible because Implementation is impracticable corridors, freight this type of technology has not been because this type of technology has corridors and/or a new proven in revenue service. not been proven in revenue service. alignment Rail Transit Alternatives Rail transport cars in Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. existing freight Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need corridors because this type of technology has not because this type of technology has been proven to carry sufficient vehicles not been proven to carry sufficient to reduce congestion in other corridors. vehicles to reduce congestion in other corridors. Light rail in existing Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. highway corridors, Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need freight rail corridors, because travel time is double and cost because travel time is double and and/or a new would be up to 4 times more compared cost would be up to 4 times more alignment to commuter rail. compared to commuter rail. Heavy rail below Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. grade, elevated, along Implementation is infeasible because Implementation is infeasible because existing highway the cost that would be up to 17 times the cost that would be up to 17 times corridors, in freight rail greater compared to commuter rail, and greater compared to commuter rail, corridors and/or in a land availability does not warrant a fully and land availability does not warrant new alignment grade separated alignment. a fully grade separated alignment. • Level Three 4-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 4-5 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Description Rao Transit Alternatives(cont'd) Super high-speed rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. (>125 mph)in freight Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need rail corridors, a new because limited stations and greater because limited stations and greater alignment, and/or station spacing necessary to sustain station spacing necessary to sustain existing highway speed would not allow connectivity to speed would not allow connectivity corridors many northern communities. to many northern communities. High-speed rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. (79-125 mph) in Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need existing highway because limited stations and greater because limited stations and greater corridors, freight rail station spacing necessary to sustain station spacing necessary to sustain corridors, and/or along speed would not allow connectivity to speed would not allow connectivity a new alignment many northern communities. to many northern communities. North Front Range Rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Loop Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it does not serve travel because it does not serve travel between northern communities and between northern communities and metropolitan Denver. metropolitan Denver. Front Range Rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because planned station spacing would because planned station spacing not allow connectivity to many northern would not allow connectivity to many • communities. northern communities. Commuter rail— Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. Western along BNSF This alignment would serve about twice This alignment would serve about as many people and jobs compared to twice as many people and jobs central rail alignments and cost the compared to central rail alignments least of the rail alignments considered. and cost the least of the rail alignments considered. Commuter rail— Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Eastern along UPRR Eastern alignments caused out-of- Eastern alignments did not meet direction travel, had higher potential for purpose and need because of out of environmental impact to natural direction travel and had higher resources, and would cost more due to potential for environmental impact to 50% more at-grade crossings. natural resources, including aquatic resources, and would cost more due to 50% more at-grade crossings Commuter rail— Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Central alignments Infeasible because central alignments Central alignments would cost up to would cost up to four times more than four times more than alignments alignments along an existing track. along an existing track and had higher potential for environmental impact to natural resources, including aquatic resources. • Level Three 4-38 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • inform . operation transportation. . Table 4-5 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (contation 'cod) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Description Rail Transit Alternatives(cont'd) Commuter rail in a new Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. alignment(entire Infeasible because new alignments New rail alignments would cost up to corridor) would cost up to four times more than four times more than alignments alignments along an existing track. along an existing track and had higher potential for environmental Segments of commuter rail in a new rail impact to natural resources, alignment that could be used in including aquatic resources. conjunction with an improvement in an existing rail corridor were retained for Segments of commuter rail in a new additional evaluation. rail alignment that could be used in conjunction with an improvement in an existing rail corridor were retained for additional evaluation. Bus Alternatives Bus rapid transit in bus- Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. only exclusive lanes Was not considered reasonable Was not considered reasonable because ridership projections did not because ridership projections did not warrant bus service that would be warrant the cost associate with bus frequent enough to merit exclusive service that would be frequent lanes. enough to merit exclusive lanes. • Bus rapid transit in Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. semi-exclusive lanes Semi-exclusive lanes would provide Semi-exclusive lanes would provide along 1-25 sufficient capacity for bus and enable sufficient capacity for bus and fast, reliable travel time to address enable fast, reliable travel time to regional multimodal needs. address regional multimodal needs. Demand responsive Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. bus on existing Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need highways because service is not designed to because service is not designed to meet a regional travel need. meet a regional travel need. Commuter bus Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. In conjunction with highway In conjunction with highway improvements could address regional improvements could address multimodal needs. regional multimodal needs. Other Transit Alternatives Jitney service along Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. existing highway This technology is infeasible for This technology is impracticable corridors implementation because it has not been because it has not been proven in proven in revenue service. revenue service. Congestion Management Alternatives Bike and pedestrian Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. improvements Congestion management alternatives Congestion management Travel demand alone are not sufficient to meet purpose alternatives alone are not sufficient management and need. However, these alternatives to meet purpose and need. Intelligent are retained to supplement the primary However these alternatives are transportation systems improvements. retained to supplement the primary • Transportation system improvements. management Level Three 4.39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • This Page Left Intentionally Blank. • • Level Three 440 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT AND 5.0 REFINEMENT Alternatives evaluated in the EIS were a culmination of three levels of evaluation and screening. This section describes the packaging of improvements that are evaluated in the EIS. 5.1 PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT Packages were developed based on the results of the three levels of screening described previously. The assumptions for highway and transit modes and information about how they fit together to create packages is described in this section. 5.1.1 Highway Assumptions Evaluation of various packaged transit and highway improvements indicated that 1-25 would need to be widened to accommodate future development regardless of the transit improvements provided. 1-25 could be widened in two basic ways: additional general purpose lanes or with express lanes. • Using general purpose lanes, a six-lane cross section is sufficient in much of the area while eight lanes and or auxiliary lanes would be required in select locations. Based on travel demand identified in the previous rounds of screening, the EIS alternatives include a combination of six/eight lanes along 1-25. • • Of the express-lane alternatives, HOT lanes were found to provide the most reduction in congestion of the general purpose lanes and would have the highest utilization. However, the Executive Oversight Committee recommended that the project not limit the potential management options without additional consideration. Based on this, the EIS alternatives include express lanes that could be managed in three distinct ways. The first is to toll all vehicles. The second is to toll single occupant vehicles and allow high occupancy vehicles to use the lanes for free and the third is to toll single occupant vehicles and allow high occupancy vehicles to use the lanes at a discount. • Regardless of the tolling mechanism used, an action of the High Performance Transportation Enterprise (formerly the Colorado Tolling Enterprise) changed the nomenclature of the express lanes to "Tolled Express Lanes" (TEL). Therefore, the EIS will refer to TEL rather than to managed or express lanes. 5.1.2 Transit Assumptions Transit modes were advanced largely based on the number of riders they attracted compared to their costs. • Commuter rail attracted the highest level of ridership, but bus alternatives were the most cost effective. • Commuter rail service along the BNSF was less expensive than building commuter rail along 1-25. It also provided both benefits and potential impacts to the communities. • • It was also found that transit lines on 1-25 competed for riders with proximate transit service along US 287 and US 85. Transit services along US 287 and US 85 do not compete for riders. Package Development and Refinement 5-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • • Bus transit service to DIA attracted substantial ridership and appeared to have the potential to improve the cost effectiveness of bus service. 5.1.3 Congestion Management Assumptions During the EIS development process, several agencies were interviewed to determine how the congestion management elements that were advanced from Level Three Screening would best be applied within the study area. As a result, the congestion management elements were refined, and applied to each Alternative package, as shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Congestion Management Elements Considered in EIS Development Congestion Screening EIS Management Strategies Recommendation Recommendation Re-route local routes to include stops that connect to rail service, INCLUDE in EIS Packages commuter bus service and Local Transit Service express transit service Extend Foxtrot service from INCLUDE in EIS Packages without rail along Loveland to Longmont the BNSF corridor Express Transit Consider a new route from INCLUDE in EIS Packages • Service Greeley to Fort Collins Test in Feeder Bus Networks Include the following in EIS; Initiate discussions regarding Support NFRMPO ridesharing cooperative purchasing; programs Consider providing funds for marketing of vanpooling during construction (e.g. bus passes; satellite parking and transit service) Carpool and Vanpool INCLUDE in EIS Packages Maintain and enhance existing Provide equal or greater carpool lot capacity carpool lots along I-25 and amenities in addition to station area park- and-ride capacity and amenities Consider development of a INCLUDE in EIS Packages Transportation Management Consider providing seed money to support the Organization (TMO) development of a TMO along the North 1-25 project area Telecommuting Support NFRMPO program DO NOT INCLUDE in EIS • Package Development and Refinement 5-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 5-1 Congestion Management Elements Considered in Draft EIS Development (cont'd) Congestion Screening EIS Management Recommendation Recommendation Strategies Include the following in EIS; Initiate cooperative support of Sustainable Support Land Use Support local Sustainable Growth Land Use policies; Policies Growth policies include study of Cumulative Land Use Impacts and Induced Growth in Draft EIS; Consider hosting a two-day conference on land use and transportation Incident Management Adhere to and update existing INCLUDE in EIS Packages Program Region 4 Incident Management Include the capital and operating costs of a Plan courtesy patrol from SH 14 to SH 7 INCLUDE in EIS Packages (US 85—access US 85 from 8th Ave and 8th St management plan implementation and signal Signal Coordination Transit Center to Denver Union coordination) and Prioritization Station; Harmony from South Transit INCLUDE in EIS Package with bus service on Center to 1-25 Harmony Road (Harmony—signal coordination) • INCLUDE in EIS Packages Ramp Metering Include where warranted by volumes and queue lengths Implement as applicable to predicted congestion after build-out Variable messaging signs at all INCLUDE in EIS Packages Commuter Rail and BRT Real Time stations, plus Add VMS to all transit stations; Transportation 8th and 8th, Brighton, 84th Implement Region 4 ITS Plan, Information Street and include all improvements north of SH 66 Regular updates on transit in addition to fiber conduit from 120th Ave to agency website SH 14. INCLUDE in EIS Packages Bicycle/Pedestrian Station areas along transit Facilities alignments Provide links to bicycle and pedestrian facilities surrounding station areas • Package Development and Refinement 5-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5.1.4 Packaging Based on the screening and evaluation, three packages of improvements and the No-Action Alternative were developed for further evaluation in the EIS. Package A distributed improvements across the project area. • On 1-25, one additional general purpose lane would be added in each direction with additional auxiliary lane from SH 402 to SH 60. As general purpose lanes do not provide an operating environment conducive to high quality transit service, this package included transit service to both sides of 1-25. • As the most successful transit alternative in attracting ridership in the US 287 corridor, commuter rail service along the BNSF was advanced for further analysis in the EIS. o Understanding that commuter rail along the BNSF would not serve the eastern project area residents, and that transit service must be carefully spaced to maximize ridership, it was paired with a commuter bus service on US 85. The commuter bus service assumed that vehicles would operate in the general purpose lanes of US 85. (As the eastern side of the study area has the least amount of communities to serve, commuter bus service provides a reliable transit option without providing too much capacity.) o Screening results supported including service to DIA due to the additional ridership it attracts. Therefore, the commuter bus service was planned with two • alternating destinations from Greeley: downtown Denver and Denver International Airport. Package B concentrated improvements along 1-25. • TEL provided the most relief to general purpose lanes, and the highest utilization of the managed lane options. • TEL on 1-25 provide a reliable guideway for a BRT system; therefore this is a natural pairing of highway and transit improvements. o With focused transit service on 1-25 there is no competing service along US 85 or US 287. o In order to directly serve the communities which are offset from the interstate, BRT legs to Fort Collins and Greeley, and to both DIA and DUS were provided. This combination of improvements is referred to as EIS Package B. The Preferred Alternative includes elements of Package A and Package B. It was developed through a collaborative decision making process. • Commuter Rail service along the BNSF and generally paralleling SH 119. o Provides direct service to the largest population centers located along the western side of the study area. o Service connects to both FasTracks Northwest Corridor and North Metro • Corridor rail lines. Package Development and Refinement 5.4 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. • Tolled Express lanes along 1-25 between SH 14 and US 36 provide long-term reliability for buses, HOVs and tolled SOVs. • General Purpose lanes along 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 66 provide necessary congestion relief and improved freight travel. • Mainline reconstruction (without widening) between SH 1 and SH 14 correct deficient horizontal and vertical alignments issues as well as reconstructing substandard interchanges. • Express Bus along 1-25 connecting Greeley and Fort Collins to downtown Denver can be implemented in the near-term and would complement commuter rail service better than BRT. • Commuter Bus service along US 85 traveling between Greeley and downtown Denver provide modal options to residents and employees along the eastern side of the corridor. 5.2 PACKAGE REFINEMENT With the primary mode, facility type, and alignment of the packages determined, details about interchange design, lane configuration, transit station locations, and maintenance facility locations were determined. The next section describes the processes used to determine these secondary elements of the packages. 5.2.1 Interchange Configurations • To complete the interchange screening, seven interchange small groups were established to invite public participation in the interchange alternatives development and analysis process. Initial interchange alternatives were developed based on the initial traffic analysis, initial public input at the first series of small group meetings, as well as environmental and design related factors specific to each of the existing interchange locations. Alternatives considered in the initial analysis included grade changes, access modifications (i.e. half-diamond to full- diamond), configuration types and local access considerations. The initial interchange alternatives were presented at the interchange small group meetings with a discussion of the merits and impacts of each alternative. Public comments on the alternatives were recorded for each of the small group meetings. Based on the public comments as well as the merits and impacts of each alternative, a revised, refined preferred interchange configuration was established through subsequent meetings with each of the small groups. The time requirement and complexity of this process varied for each of the interchanges in this EIS. In some cases, only two or three alternatives were analyzed before a preferred interchange configuration was established in a matter of three months. In some cases six or more alternatives were developed and evaluated, and the process of establishing a preferred interchange configuration took up to 12 months. The process was adjusted according to the complexity, concerns and interests for each of the interchanges. Most 1-25 interchanges in the corridor were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s; these are generally considered functionally obsolete and do not meet current design standards. • Interchanges identified as functionally obsolete were initially evaluated with a standard diamond configuration because this configuration typically provides the most capacity at the lowest cost with the most compact footprint to minimize impacts to environmental resources. Package Development and Refinement 5.5 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Interchanges that have recently been rebuilt were evaluated using their current configuration to determine if they would continue to operate acceptably with 2035 traffic volumes or if they too would require modifications. If LOS D operation was unachievable or impacts to environmental resources were identified, configurations that would provide more capacity or would cost more such as single-point urban, tight diamond, partial cloverleaf, and direct connects were considered. Only in cases where modifying an existing interchange did not result in operation at LOS D or better was a new interchange location considered. Appendix E of the Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2008a) details the interchange planning methodology. Example interchange designs considered are pictured in Figure 5-1. The cloverleaf configuration was not considered the optimal configuration at any location along the corridor because of well-documented concerns with capacity, weaving and safety. For example, design standards necessary to address these issues would create a cloverleaf much larger than the current US 34 interchange and would result in greater impacts to right-of-way and to local businesses located adjacent to 1-25. The partial cloverleaf configuration was still considered a viable option. Detailed traffic analyses of each interchange location are included in the Transportation Analysis Technical Report, (FHU and Jacobs, 2008, 2011c). On a case-by-case basis, consideration also was given to closing an existing interchange. However, in all locations, the existing interchanges were considered necessary to maintain accessibility to the communities in northern Colorado and maintain the economic viability of the businesses located adjacent to the interchanges. There are new interchanges (such as • Sheridan Parkway) that are being considered by others. This project does not preclude their eventual construction at some point in the future if there is a need. Preliminary travel demand forecasting indicated that in most locations interchange traffic could be accommodated by replacing the existing interchanges with a diamond interchange designed to meet current standards. The evaluation of interchange configurations was an iterative process of evaluating various interchange enhancements such as the number of approach lanes and the signal timing to achieve LOS D or better. Input from stakeholders was provided though highway small group meetings held throughout the interchange evaluation process. Table 5-2 presents a summary of interchange screening. This evaluation was conducted using NEPA screening and USACE practicability criteria consistent with those used during project alternative screening. • NEPA Screening — Responsiveness to criteria that determine how reasonable it is. The definition of reasonable includes whether or not it is practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, whether or not it meets purpose and need, and whether or not it has environmental impacts that are acceptable. • USACE Practicability— Per USACE's 4049b)(1) guidelines, this criterion depends on costs, technical and logistic factors. To be practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall purpose. This column also identifies whether or not an alternative has greater impacts to the aquatic environment. • Package Development and Refinement 5.6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-1 Interchange Configurations Considered I' IMMIIIIIr Diamond Direct Connect Ramps : Cross 4_____ Road Cross Road w - - r - _-- 1t 1 I 1, I I l ,t't; 1 9 Cross ' r4 �; 1. ! z Road I Cross Road III 8 ill if i ' Partial Cloverleaf Single Point }. f ( ParClo) Urban Interchange (SPUI ) 7 Cross Road Full Cloverleaf III Package Development and Refinement 5-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-2 Interchange Screening Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location No-Action Confirguration—Screened Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. SH 1 LOS E in 2035. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. replace aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. Mountain LOS E in 2035. Vista New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. replace aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need • Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. E in 2035. New Diamond with Northbound to Screened. Not Practicable. Westbound Flyover—Screened. Not Would not meet purpose and need Reasonable. because it would impede local access SH 14 Would not meet purpose and need thereby reducing accessibility and not because it would impede local access addressing economic growth demands. thereby reducing accessibility and not addressing economic growth demands. New Diamond with Local Access Retained. Improvements—Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, accessibility address safety demand, accessibility address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. concerns, and replace aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. Prospect LOS E in 2035. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. replace aging structure. • Package Development and Refinement 5-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-2 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location No-Action Configuration-Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. LOS E in 2035. No-Action Configuration Enhanced— Retained. Retained. (Package A only) (Package A only) Would enable interchange to operate at an Would enable interchange to operate at an acceptable level of service with potential to acceptable level of service with potential to retain the relatively new structure. Harmony retain the relatively new structure. Road New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. (Package B and Preferred Alternative (Package B and Preferred Alternative only) only) Would accommodate anticipated demand. Would accommodate anticipated demand. No-Action Configuration with Screened. Not Practicable. Northbound to Westbound Flyover— Would cost 50 to 100% more than other Screened. Not Reasonable. comparable alternatives and would result Would cost 50 to 100% more than other in similar operation. comparable alternatives and would result • in similar operation. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. LOS E in 2035. New Diamond Interchange—Screened. Screened. Impacts to Aquatic Not Reasonable. Environmental Resources. constraints (wetlands and bald eagle Environmental constraints (wetlands and roosting activity) in the northwest quadrant bald eagle roosting activity)in the preclude the ability to provide a standard northwest quadrant preclude the ability to ramp and intersection spacing at this provide a standard ramp and intersection location. spacing at this location. Single-Point Urban Interchange— Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 Screened. Not Reasonable. Not Impracticable because it would cost twice reasonable because it would cost twice as as much as a tight diamond configuration much as a tight diamond configuration with with the same area of impact and 10% the same area of impact and 10% greater greater average delay per vehicle. average delay per vehicle. New Tight Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Would improve accessibility, Would improve accessibility, accommodate anticipated demand, accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and replace address safety concems, and replace aging structure. This configuration would aging structure. This configuration would avoid impacting the bald eagle roosting avoid impacting the bald eagle roosting sites and minimize impacts to the • sites and minimize impacts to the wetlands. wetlands. Package Development and Refinement 5-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-2 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location No-Action Configuration-Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below Crossroads because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. Blvd. LOS E in 2035. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. replace aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. LOS E in 2035. Partial Cloverleaf Interchange— Screened. Not Practicable. Screened. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. LOS E in 2035. New Diamond Interchange-Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need • Would not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. US 34 LOS E in 2035. Direct Connect US 34/1-25-Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable.While this configuration While this configuration could could accommodate projected demand, it accommodate projected demand, it would would not meet purpose and need not meet purpose and need because it because it would impede local access to would impede local access thereby economic activity centers. This would reducing accessibility and not addressing reduce accessibility and not address economic growth demands. economic growth demands. Direct Connect US 34/I-25 with Diamond Retained. —Retained. Would provide adequate capacity to meet Would provide adequate capacity to meet demand, retain access to adjacent demand, retain access to adjacent intersections, and replace the aging intersections, and replace the aging structure. structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. 2035. SH 402 New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. concerns, and replace the aging structure. • Package Development and Refinement 5-10 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 5-2 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Location Summary No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would not address the need for it would not address the need for accessibility. CR 16 accessibility. New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. Current Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. SH 60 2035. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because • Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. SH 56 2035. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. CR 34 2035. New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. 2035. SH 66 No-Action Configuration with Retained. Enhancements—Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. • replace the aging structure. Package Development and Refinement 5-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-2 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Location Summary No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. 2035. SH 119 No-Action Configuration with Retained. Enhancements—Retained. Would enable interchange to operate at an Would enable interchange to operate at an acceptable level of service and retain acceptable level of service and retain relatively new 1-25 structures over SH 119. relatively new 1-25 structures over SH 119. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. SH 52 2035. No-Action Configuration with Retained. Enhancements—Retained.Would enable Would enable interchange to operate at an interchange to operate at an acceptable acceptable level of service while retaining level of service while retaining the relatively the relatively new structure. new structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. • Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. 2035. WCR 8 No-Action Configuration with Minor Retained. Enhancements -Retained. Would enable interchange to operate at an Would enable interchange to operate at an acceptable level of service and retain acceptable level of service and retain relatively new structure. relatively new structure. No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in it would operate at or below LOS E in 2035. 2035. New Partial Cloverleaf Interchange— Retained. SH 7 Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and demand, address safety concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. New Diamond Interchange—Screened. Screened. Does not meet the purpose and need Does not meet the purpose and need because it operate at or below LOS E in because it operate at or below LOS E in 2035. 2035. • Package Development and Refinement 5.12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 5-2 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Location Summary No-Action Configuration— Retained. Retained. 144th Avenue Would require minor modification of ramp Would require minor modification of ramp terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing structure. structure. No-Action Configuration— Retained. Retained. 136th Avenue Would require minor modification of ramp Would require minor modification of ramp terminals at I-25. Would maintain existing terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing structure. structure. No-Action Configuration— Retained. Retained. 120th Avenue Would require minor modification of ramp Would require minor modification of ramp terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing structure. structure. No-Action Configuration—Retained. Retained. 104th Avenue Would require minor modification of ramp Would require minor modification of ramp terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing structure. structure. No-Action Configuration—Retained. Retained. Would require minor modification of ramp Would require minor modification of ramp Thornton terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing Parkway structure. structure. • No-Action Configuration—Retained. Retained. 84th Avenue Would require minor modification of ramp Would require minor modification of ramp terminals at I-25. Would maintain existing terminals at 1-25. Would maintain existing structure. structure. 5.2.2 Bus and Rail Transit Station Locations Station locations were developed using a set of criteria that evaluated: • Appropriate station spacing • Future population and activity centers • East/west (north/south) connectivity • Existing infrastructure, land use, and environmental constraints • Public, TAC, and RCC input After determining the general vicinity of station locations, a more detailed evaluation was conducted for each station location. A range of two to ten sites were evaluated for each station location with the exception of the Fort Collins South Transit Center where one site was • evaluated because the City of Fort Collins has an approved plan that identifies this location for a transit center. The South Transit Center is proposed to serve as the end of line for the Mason Street BRT system. In order to maximize ridership and access for the community it is important that the North 1-25 BRT station connect to the proposed Mason Street BRT system. Package Development and Refinement 5-13 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Twenty-two criteria were evaluated for each proposed station location. The primary criteria evaluated were: • minimal neighborhood and environmental impacts • impacts to parks • environmental justice • historic property • hazardous materials • accessibility to vehicles • pedestrian and bicycle connectivity • opportunity for joint development and compatibility with adjacent land use and zoning • compatibility with local plans and ability to provide an opportunity for joint development Impacts to wetlands and threatened and endangered species were considered to be fatal flaws. In addition, if a new development was planned or under construction or if the station could not meet the engineering requirements this would be considered a fatal flaw. Each criteria was rated with either a +, - or 0. These ratings were provided a numerical value and tallied up at the end. The site with the highest total number was recommended to move forward. In some cases a lower ranking station site was moved forward due to • recommendations by the local municipality. During the station screening process the station site analysis was presented at the third transit working group meeting. The group provided input that was incorporated into the evaluation process Table 5-3 summarizes the station screening process for commuter rail along US 287.This evaluation was conducted using NEPA screening and USACE practicability criteria consistent with those used during project alternative screening. • NEPA Screening — Responsiveness to criteria that determine how reasonable it is. The definition of reasonable includes whether or not it is practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, whether or not it meets purpose and need, and whether or not it has environmental impacts that are acceptable. • USACE Practicability— Per USACE's 4049b)(1) guidelines, this criterion depends on costs, technical and logistic factors. To be practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall purpose. This column also identifies whether or not an alternative has greater impacts to the aquatic environment. • Package Development and Refinement 5.14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-3 Package A and the Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail Station/Stop Name and NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Location Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center BNSF and Maple Ave CR-A Retained. Retained. East of Mason St. between However, it is not supported by However, it is not supported by the Maple Ave. and Cherry St. the City of Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins. BNSF and Maple Ave. CR-B Retained. Retained. East of Mason St., north of However, site impacts parks and However, site impacts parks and Cherry St. has hazardous materials has hazardous materials concerns; 5 sites within 100 ft. concerns; 5 sites within 100 ft. (VCP, LUST, UST, AST, and (VCP, LUST, UST, AST, and coal coal gas). gas). BNSF and Maple Ave CR-C Retained. Included in Package A Retained. Included in Package A West of Mason St. between and the Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative Maple Ave. and Laporte Ave. because site does not have park because site does not have park impacts and hazardous material impacts and hazardous material concerns, and is supported by concerns, and is supported by the the City, unlike the other sites. City, unlike the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. Fort Collins Colorado State University Transit Center US 287 and A St. CR-A Retained. Retained. On the BNSF corridor between This site does not contain • University Ave. and W. Pitkin St. wetlands. South Fort Collins South Transit Center BNSF and Harmony CR-A Retained, Retained. Off of US 287 and This site does not contain W. Fairway Ln. wetlands. North Loveland-29th and BNSF 29th St. and BNSF CR-A Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous and north of 29th St. materials concerns; 2 sites materials concerns; 2 sites within within 100 ft. (AST, UST, LUST). 100 ft. (AST, UST, LUST). 29th St.and BNSF CR-B Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous and north of 29th St. materials concerns; 5 sites materials concerns; 5 sites within within 100 ft. (AST, UST, LUST). 100 ft. (AST, UST, LUST). 29th St. and BNSF CR-C Retained. Included in Package A Retained. Included in Package A On the east side of the BNSF and the Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative and south of 29th St. because site did not have the because site did not have the hazardous material concerns of hazardous material concerns of the other sites. the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. Downtown Loveland-US 34 and BNSF BNSF and US 34 CR-A Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous north of US 34 materials concerns; 2 sites materials concerns; 2 sites within within 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 100 ft. (LUST, UST). BNSF and US 34 CR-B Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site would require the However, site would require the south of US 34 purchase of 10+ parcels, purchase of 10+ parcels, • impacting multiple property impacting multiple property owners. owners. Package Development and Refinement 5-15 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-3 Package A and the Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location Downtown Loveland-US 34 and BNSF(cont'd) BNSF and US 34 CR-C Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous south of US 34 materials concerns; 10 sites materials concerns; 10 sites within 100 ft. (UST, RCRA-SQG, within 100 ft. (UST, RCRA-SQG, LUST). LUST). BNSF and US 34 CR-D Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous between 8th St. and 7th St. materials concerns; 1 site within materials concerns; 1 site within 100 ft. (ERNS, LUST, UST). 100 ft. (ERNS, LUST, UST). BNSF and US 34 CR-E Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous between 7th St. and 6th St. materials concerns; 1 site materials concerns; 1 site within within 100 ft. (ERNS, LUST, 100 ft. (ERNS, LUST, UST). UST). BNSF and US 34 CR-F Screened. Screened. On the east side of the BNSF Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. between 7th St. and 6th St. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. BNSF and US 34 CR-G Screened. Screened. On the east side of the BNSF Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. • between 6th St. and 5th St. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. BNSF and US 34 CR-H Screened. Screened. On the east side of the BNSF Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. between 4th St. and 6th St. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. BNSF and US 34 CR-I Retained. Included in Package A Retained. Included in Package A On the west side of the BNSF and the Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative between 4th St. and 6th St. because the site did not have because the site did not have the the hazardous material concerns hazardous material concerns of of the other sites. the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. Berthoud-SH 56 and BNSF BNSF and SH 56 CR-A Retained. Screened. On the east side of the BNSF However, site impacts historic Not Practicable. north of SH 56 property and would require the Site impacts historic property and purchase of 10+ parcels, would require the purchase of impacting multiple property 10+ parcels, impacting multiple owners. property owners. BNSF and SH 56 CR-B Retained. Included in Package A Retained. Included in Package A On the east side of the BNSF and the Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative north of SH 56 because this site did not have because this site did not have the the hazardous materials or hazardous materials or historic historic and property owner and property owner impact impact concerns of the other concerns of the other sites. This • sites. site does not contain wetlands. Package Development and Refinement 5-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 5-3 Package A and the Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location Berthoud-SH 56 and BNSF(cont'd) BNSF and SH 56 CR-C Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous south of SH 56 materials concerns; 4 sites materials concerns; 4 sites within within 100 ft. (RCRA-SQG, 100 ft. (RCRA-SQG, LUST). LUST). BNSF and SH 56 CR-D Screened. Screened. On the east side of the BNSF Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. south of SH 56 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. North Longmont-SH 66 and BNSF BNSF and SH 66 CR-A Screened. Screened. On the east side of the BNSF Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. and north of SH 66 Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. Site need for improved mobility. Site access requires new roadway access requires new roadway infrastructure and would result in infrastructure and would result in out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. BNSF and SH 66 CR-B Retained. Retained. On the east side of the BNSF This site does not contain • and north of SH 66 wetlands. Longmont at Sugar MITI Sugar Mill CR-A Retained. Retained. On the BNSF and near However, site does not provide However, site does not provide Ken Pratt Blvd. close proximity of the platform close proximity of the platform with parking. with parking. Sugar Mill CR-B Screened. Screened. On the BNSF and near Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Ken Pratt Blvd. Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. need for improved mobility. Access to station platform is less Access to station platform is less efficient than other sites. efficient than other sites. Sugar Mill CR-C Screened. Screened. On the BNSF and near Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Ken Pratt Blvd. Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. need for improved mobility. Access to station platform is less Access to station platform is less efficient than other sites. efficient than other sites. Sugar Mill CR-D Screened. Retained. North of SH 119 and east of Not Reasonable. County Line Rd. Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. Bus access requires out-of-direction travel. Has impacts to wetlands. Sugar Mill CR-E Retained. Retained. North of SH 119 and east of However, site does not provide However, site does not provide County Line Rd. close proximity of the platform close proximity of the platform with parking. with parking. • Sugar Mill CR-F Retained. Retained. North of SH 119 east of County However, site impacts wetlands. Line Rd. Package Development and Refinement 5-17 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-3 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location Longmont at Sugar Mill(cont'd) Sugar Mill CR-G Retained. Retained. South of Rodgers and near Included in Package A and the Included Package A and the Ken Pratt Blvd. Preferred Alternative because the Preferred Alternative because the site provides close proximity of the site provides close proximity of platform with the parking, and does the platform with the parking. not impact wetlands. This site does not contain wetlands. Erie at CR-8 1-25 and CR 8 CR-A Retained. Retained. North of CR 8 and west of Site would require the purchase of Site would require the purchase CR 7 10+ parcels; impacting multiple of 10+ parcels; impacting multiple property owners. property owners. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-B Retained. Retained. North of CR 8 and east of CR 7 However, site not compatible with However, site not compatible with Erie's plans. Erie's plans. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-C Screened. Screened. South of CR 10 and east of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. CR 7 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible, because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-D Screened. Screened. • South of CR 10 and west of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible, because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-E Retained. Included in Package A Retained. Included in Package A South of CR 10 and west of and the Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative 1-25 because this site does not have because this site does not have the concerns with impacts to the concerns with impacts to multiple property owners, multiple property owners, compatibility with plans or zoning compatibility with plans or zoning of the other sites of the other sites This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-F Screened. Screened. South of CR 10 and east of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because platform location too close to 1-25 platform location too close to 1-25 requiring an elevated platform. requiring an elevated platform. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-G Screened. Screened. North of CR 8 and east of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because site has no tangent track for the site has no tangent track for the platform. platform. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-H Screened. Screened. South of CR 8 and east of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because distance between CR 8 and CR 11 distance between CR 8 and does not allow for a platform. CR 11 does not allow for a platform. • Package Development and Refinement 5-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 5-3 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location Erie at CR-8(cont'd) 1-25 and CR 8-I Retained. Retained. North of CR 7 and east of 1-25 However, site not compatible However, site not compatible with with Erie's plan. Erie's plan. 1-25 and CR 8-J Retained. Retained. South of CR 7 and east of 1-25 However, site does not meet However, site does not meet zoning, zoning. RCRA SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small Quantity Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank UST Underground Storage Tank AST Aboveground Storage Tank ERNS Emergency Response Notification System VCP Voluntary Clean-Up Table 5-4 summarizes the station screening for commuter bus along US 85. Table 5-4 Package A and Preferred Alternative- Station Site Evaluation • Commuter Bus on US 85 Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Greeley 8th Ave. and D CB-A Retained. Included in Package Retained. Included in Package On the west of US 85 and north of A and the Preferred Alternative A and the Preferred Alternative D St. because the site does not because the site does not impact wetlands and does not impact wetlands and does not have the concern with have the concern with adjacent land use as the other adjacent land use as the other site. site. This site does not contain wetlands. 8th Avenue and D CB-B Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and West of 6th Ave. However, adjacent industrial However, site has impacts to land use is not typically wetlands. supported by transit service. Site has impacts to wetlands. South Greeley US 85 and 19th St. CB-A Retained. Retained. West of US 85 between 18th St. and However, site impacts historic However, site impacts historic 19th St. property. property. US 85 and 19th St. CB-B Screened. Screened. West of US 85 between 19th St. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. 20th St. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because site could not need because site could not accommodate parking; accommodate parking; • therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. Package Development and Refinement 5.19 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 5-4 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary South Greeley(cont'd) US 85 and 19th St. CB-C Screened. Screened. East of US 85 and between 18th St. Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. and 19th St. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because site could not need because site could not accommodate parking; accommodate parking; therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. US 85 and 19th St. CB-D Screened. Screened. East of US 85 between 19th St. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. 20th St. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because site could not need site could not accommodate parking; accommodate parking; therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. US 85 and 19th St. CB-E Screened. Screened. East of US 85 between 20th St. Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. 21st St. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because site could not need because site could not accommodate parking; accommodate parking; therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. • US 85 and 19th St. CB-F Screened. Screened. East of US 85 between 21 St. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. 22nd St. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because site could not need because site could not accommodate parking; accommodate parking; therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. US 85 and 19th St. CB-G Retained. Included in the Retained. Included in the West of US 85 and 24th St. alternatives because this site alternatives because this site did not have the historic did not have the historic property impacts of the other property impacts of the other site. site. This site does not contain wetlands. Evans US 85 and 37th St. CB-A Retained. Screened. West of US 85 and south of 31st. St. However, site impacts Site impacts wetlands. wetlands. US 85 and 37th Street CB-B Retained. Retained. West of US 85 and south of 37th St. However, site impacts parks. However, site impacts parks. US 85 and 37th St. CB-C Screened. Screened. West of US 85 and north of 42nd St. Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because bus access need because bus access requires out-of-direction travel, requires out-of-direction travel, therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. • Package Development and Refinement 5-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 5-4 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Evans(cont'd) US 85 and 37th St. CB-D Screened. Screened. East of US 85 and south of 31st St. Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need because bus access need because bus access requires out-of-direction travel, requires out-of-direction travel, therefore does not promote therefore does not promote improved mobility. improved mobility. US 85 and 37th St. CB-E Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and north of 37th St. However, site has no However, site has no expansion potential. expansion potential. US 85 and 37th St. CB-F Retained. Included in Package Retained. Included in Package East of US 85 and south of 42nd St. A and the Preferred Alternative A and the Preferred Alternative because it does not impact because it does not impact wetlands and does not have wetlands and does not have the concerns with park impacts the concerns with park impacts or lack of expansion potential or lack of expansion potential as the other sites. as the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. Platteville US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-A Screened. Screened. • West of US 85 and north of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility need for improved mobility because bus access requires because bus access requires out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-B Retained. Retained. West of US 85 and north of However, site would require However, site would require Grand Ave. the purchase of 10+ parcels, the purchase of 10+ parcels, impacting multiple property impacting multiple property owners. owners.. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-C Retained. Retained. West of US 85 and south of However, site would require However, site would require Grand Ave. the purchase of 10+ parcels, the purchase of 10+ parcels, impacting multiple property impacting multiple property owners. owners. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-D Screened. Screened. East of US 85 and north of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility need for improved mobility because bus access requires because bus access requires out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-E Screened. Screened. East of US 85 and RR and north of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility need for improved mobility because bus access requires because bus access requires out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. • Package Development and Refinement 5-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-4 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Platteville(cont'd) US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-F Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and RR and north of However, access has a However, access has a Grand Ave. railroad crossing in close railroad crossing in close proximity to major intersection proximity to major intersection causing traffic impacts. causing traffic impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-G Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and RR and south of However, access has a However, access has a Grand Ave. railroad crossing in close railroad crossing in close proximity to major intersection proximity to major intersection causing traffic impacts. causing traffic impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-H Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and RR and south of However, access has a However, access has a Grand Ave. railroad crossing in close railroad crossing in close proximity to major intersection proximity to major intersection causing traffic impacts. causing traffic impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-I Screened. Screened. West of US 85 and north of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility need for improved mobility because bus access requires because bus access requires out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. • US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-J Retained. Included in Package Retained. Included in Package West of US 85 and north of SH 66 A and the Preferred Alternative A and the Preferred Alternative because it does not impact because it does not impact wetlands and does not have wetlands and does not have the concerns with park impacts the concerns with park impacts or lack of expansion potential or lack of expansion potential as the other sites. as the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-K Screened. Screened. West of US 85 and south of SH 66 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible Not technically feasible because it is too small to serve because it is too small to serve the need. the need. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-L Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and RR and north of However, site impacts However, site impacts SH 66 wetlands. wetlands. US 85 and Grand Ave. CB-M Retained. Retained. East of US 85 and RR and south of However, site impacts However, site impacts SH 66 wetlands. wetlands. • Package Development and Refinement 5-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5 4 Package A and Preferred Alternative - Station Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Fort Lupton US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-A Retained. Retained. West of US 85 and north of CR 14.5 However, site impacts However, site impacts wetlands. wetlands. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-B Retained. Retained. West of US 85 and north of CR 14.5 However, site impacts However, site impacts wetlands. wetlands. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-C Retained. Retained. West of US 85 and south of CR 14.5 However, site has a visual However, site has a visual impact. impact. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-D Retained. Included in the Retained. Included in the East of US 85 and north of CR 14.5 Preferred Alternative because Preferred Alternative because it does not have the visual or it does not have visual wetland impact concerns of impacts, and is in close the other sites, and is in close proximity to US 85 compared proximity to US 85. Screened to other sites. Screened for for Package A as Not Package A as Not practicable Reasonable because site is because it is too small. This too small. site does not contain wetlands. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-E Retained. Included in Package Retained. East of US 85 and south of CR 14.5 A because it does not have the This site does not contain • visual or wetland impact wetlands. concerns of the other sites. Screened for the Preferred Alternative because is not close proximity to US 85. • Package Development and Refinement 5-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-5 summarizes the station site evaluation process for BRT stations along 1-25. Table 5-5 Package B- Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary South Fort Collins Transit Center US 287 and Harmony Rd. Retained. Retained. BRT-A This site does not contain West of US 287 and south of wetlands. Harmony Rd. Harmony Road and Timberline Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Retained. Retained. CB-A However, site would require the However, site would require the North of Harmony Rd. and west of purchase of 10+ parcels, impacting purchase of 10+ parcels, impacting Timberline Rd. multiple property owners. multiple property owners. Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B CB-B because this site did not have the because this site did not have the South of Harmony Rd. and west of multiple property owner impact multiple property owner impact Timberline Rd. concerns of the other site. concerns of the other site. This site does not contain wetlands. Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Screened. Screened. CB-C Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Harmony Rd. and east of Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need Timberline Rd. for improved mobility because site for improved mobility because site location would require out of location would require out of direction local bus movement. direction local bus movement. • Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Screened. Screened. CB-D Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of Harmony Rd. and east of Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need Timberline Rd. for improved mobility because site for improved mobility because site location would require out of location would require out of direction local bus movement. direction local bus movement. Harmony Road and Timberline Rd. Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B CB-E because this site did not have the because this site did not have the South of Harmony Rd. and west of multiple property owner impact multiple property owner impact Timberline Rd. concerns of the other site. concerns of the other site. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Harmony Road I-25 and Harmony Rd BRT-A Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B North of Harmony Rd. and west of as it does not have the concerns as it does not have the concerns I-25 with hazardous materials of the with hazardous materials of the other site. Site is existing park and other site. Site is existing park and ride. ride. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Harmony Rd BRT-B Retained. Retained. North of Harmony Rd and west of However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous 1-25 materials concerns;1 site within materials concerns; 1 site within 100 ft. (ERNS). 100 ft. (ERNS). • Package Development and Refinement 5-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary 1-25 and Harmony Road(cont'd) 1-25 and Harmony Rd. BRT-C Retained. Included in Package B in Retained. Included in Package B in North of Harmony Rd. and west of conjunction with site A as it does conjunction with site A as it does 1-25 not have concerns with hazardous not have concerns with hazardous materials of the other site. Site is materials of the other site. Site is adjacent to Site A. adjacent to Site A. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Harmony Rd. BRT-D Retained. Included in Package B in Retained. Included in Package B in North of Harmony Rd and west of conjunction with site A as it does conjunction with site A as it does 1-25 not have concerns with hazardous not have concerns with hazardous materials of the other site. Site is materials of the other site. Site is adjacent to Site A. adjacent to Site A. This site does not contain wetlands. Windsor 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-A Retained. Retained. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and endangered species. endangered species. I-25 and SH 392 BRT-B Retained. Retained. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-C Retained. Retained. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and • endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-D Screened. Retained. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Retained. However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-E Retained. Retained. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and endangered species and impacts endangered species and impacts wetlands. wetlands. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-F Screened. Screened. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site does not meet engineering Site is not logistically possible due requirements due to proximity to to proximity of interchange. interchange so is not feasible. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-G Screened. Screened. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. I-25 and SH 392 BRT-H Retained. Retained. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 However, site is not in close However, site is not in close proximity to residential areas. proximity to residential areas. 1-25 and SH 392BRT-1 Screened. Screened. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. • Package Development and Refinement 5-25 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Windsor(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-J Screened. Screened. North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. I-25 and SH 392 BRT-K Retained. Retained. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 However, site would require However, site would require building relocations. building relocations. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-L Screened. Screened. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site does not meet engineering Not logistically possible for traffic requirements for traffic operations operations due to proximity to due to proximity to interchange so interchange. is not feasible. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-M Retained. Retained. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Included in the Package B Included in the Package B because because this site does not have this site does not have the the concerns regarding threatened concerns regarding threatened and and endangered species, lack of endangered species, lack of proximity to residential areas, proximity to residential areas, building relocations, or wetlands of building relocations, or wetlands of the other sites. the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. • 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-N Screened. Screened. South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. Crossroads Boulevard 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-A Retained. Retained. North of Crossroads Blvd. and However, site does not provide However, site does not provide west of 1-25 opportunity for joint development opportunity for joint development and is not compatible with plans. and is not compatible with plans. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-B Retained. Retained. North of Crossroads Blvd. and However, site does not provide However, site does not provide west of 1-25 opportunity for joint development opportunity for joint development and is not compatible with plans. and is not compatible with plans. Site has visual impacts. Site has visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-C Retained. Retained. North of Crossroads Blvd. and However, site does not provide However, site does not provide west of 1-25 opportunity for joint development opportunity for joint development and is not compatible with plans. and is not compatible with plans. Site has visual impacts. Site has visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-D Screened. Screened. North of Crossroads Blvd. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. west of 1-25 Site does not meet engineering Not logistically possible for traffic requirements for traffic operations operations due to proximity to due to proximity to interchange so interchange. is not feasible. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-E Retained. Retained. • North of Crossroads Blvd. and However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous west of 1-25 materials concerns; 2 sites within materials concerns; 2 sites within 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 100 ft. (LUST, UST). Package Development and Refinement 5.26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Crossroads Boulevard(cont'd) I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-F Retained. Retained. South of Crossroads Blvd. and However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous west of I-25 materials concerns; 2 sites within materials concerns; 2 sites within 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-G Screened. Screened. South of Crossroads Blvd. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. west of I-25 Grade of site exceeds bus Not logistically possible. Grade of operation requirements. site exceeds bus operation requirements. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-H Screened. Screened. South of Crossroads Blvd. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. west of 1-25 Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. Site need for improved mobility. Site access requires new roadway access requires new roadway infrastructure and would result in infrastructure and would result in out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-I Retained. Retained. North of Crossroads Blvd. and east However, site would require However, site would require of 1-25 acquisition of a commercial acquisition of a commercial building. building. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-J Screened. Screened. South of Crossroads Blvd. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. • east of 1-25 Grade of site exceeds bus Site is not logistically possible operation requirements. because grade of site exceeds bus operation requirements. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-K Screened. Screened. South of Crossroads Blvd. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. east of 1-25 Grade of site exceeds bus Site is not logistically possible. operation requirements. Grade of site exceeds bus operation requirements. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-L Retained. Retained. South of Crossroads Blvd. and However, site access requires new However, site access requires new east of 1-25 roadway infrastructure. Site not roadway infrastructure. Site not compatible with local plans. Site compatible with local plans. Site has visual impacts. has visual impacts. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-M Screened. Screened. South of Crossroads Blvd. and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. west of I-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-N Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B South of Crossroads Blvd. and because this site does not have because this site does not have the west of I-25 the concerns regarding local plan concerns regarding local plan compatibility, visual impacts, compatibility, visual impacts, hazardous materials, building hazardous materials, building acquisitions, or shared parking acquisitions, or shared parking agreements of the other sites. agreements of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd. BRT-O Retained. Retained. North of Crossroads Blvd. and east However, site requires shared However, site requires shared • of 1-25 parking agreement. parking agreement. Package Development and Refinement 5-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Berthoud 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-A Retained. Retained. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 However, site has visual impacts However, site has visual impacts and is not compatible with and is not compatible with Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-B Screened. Screened. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible because platform would not be located platform would not be located adjacent to parking. adjacent to parking. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-C Screened. Screened. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Grade of site exceeds bus Not logistically feasible. Grade of operation requirements. site exceeds bus operation requirements. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-D Screened. Screened. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Not reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. Site need for improved mobility. Site access requires new roadway access requires new roadway infrastructure and would result in infrastructure and would result in out-of-direction travel out-of-direction travel. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-E Screened. Screened. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. • Grade of site exceeds bus Not logistically feasible. Grade of operation requirements. site exceeds bus operation requirements. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-F Retained. Retained. South of US 60 and east of I-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's I-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-G Retained. Retained. South of US 60 and east of I-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's I-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-H Screened. Screened. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Grade of site exceeds bus Not logistically possible. Grade of operation requirements. site exceeds bus operation requirements. I-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-I Retained. Retained. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-J Retained. Retained. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. I-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-K Retained. Retained. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. • Site is not compatible Berthoud's I-25 Land Use Plan. Package Development and Refinement 5-28 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Berthoud(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-L North of Retained. Retained. US 56 and west of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-M Retained. Included in Package B Retained.lncluded in Package B North of US 56 and west of 1-25 because this site does not have because this site does not have the the concerns regarding visual concerns regarding visual impacts, impacts, local plan compatibility, or local plan compatibility, or wetlands wetlands of the other sites. of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-N Retained. Retained. North of US 56 and east of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-O Retained. Retained. North of US 56 and east of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-P Retained. Retained. North of US 56 and east of 1-25 However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. Site is not compatible Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. • Firestone 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-A Retained. Retained. West of 1-25 and north of US 119 However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous materials concerns; 5 sites within materials concerns; 5 sites within 100 ft. (LUST, ERNS, RCRA- 100 ft. (LUST, ERNS, RCRA- SQG). SQG). 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-B Retained. Retained. West of 1-25 and south of US 119 However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous materials concerns; 8 sites within materials concerns; 8 sites within 100 ft. (RCRA-SQG, LUST, 100 ft. (RCRA-SQG, LUST, ERNS). ERNS). 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-C Retained. Retained. West of 1-25 and south of US 119 However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous materials concerns; 15 sites within materials concerns; 15 sites within 100 ft. (ERNS, RCRA-SQG, UST, 100 ft. (ERNS, RCRA-SQG, UST, LUST, CoTrust). LUST, CoTrust). 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-D Screened. Screened. West of 1-25 and south of US 119 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. Site need for improved mobility. Site access requires new roadway access requires new roadway infrastructure and would result in infrastructure and would result in out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-E Screened. Screened. East of 1-25 and north of US 119 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site too close to intersection to Site too close to intersection to accommodate a median platform accommodate a median platform • so not feasible. so logistically not possible. Package Development and Refinement 5-29 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Firestone(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-F Screened. Screened. East of 1-25 and north of US 119 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site too close to intersection to Site too close to intersection to accommodate a median platform accommodate a median platform so not feasible. so logistically not possible. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-G Retained. Retained. East of I-25 and north of US 119 However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous materials concerns; 2 sites within materials concerns; 2 sites within 100 ft. (UST, LUST). 100 ft. (UST, LUST). 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-H Screened. Screened. East of 1-25 and south of US 119 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Interchange improvements do not Interchange improvements do not accommodate a station at this site accommodate a station at this site because of traffic operations. because of traffic operations.. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-I Retained. Retained. East of 1-25 and south of US 119 However, site would require However, site would require acquisition of major commercial acquisition of major commercial building. building. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-J Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B East of 1-25 and south of US 119 because it this site does not have because it this site does not have the concerns regarding hazardous the concerns regarding hazardous materials, or building acquisition of materials, or building acquisition of • the other sites. the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. Frederlck/Dacono 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-A Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 because this site does not have because this site does not have the the concerns regarding acquisition concerns regarding acquisition of of buildings, conflicts with ditch, buildings, conflicts with ditch, and and threatened and endangered threatened and endangered species of the other sites. species of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-B Retained. Retained. West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 However, site would require However, site would require acquisition of new buildings. acquisition of new buildings. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-C Screened. Screened. West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 which would be more than which would be more than double double the cost of other sites. the cost of other sites. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-D Screened. Screened. West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 which would be more than would be more than double the double the cost of other sites. cost of other sites. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-E Screened. Screened. West of 1-25 and south of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 which would be more than which would be more than double double the cost of other sites. the cost of other sites. • Package Development and Refinement 5-30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (coned) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Frederick/Dacono(cont'd) I-25 and SH 52 BRT-F Screened. Screened. West of I-25 and South of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site requires the acquisition of Site requires the acquisition of 10+ parcels, impacting multiple 10+ parcels, impacting multiple property owners. property owners. I-25 and SH 52 BRT-G Screened. Screened. West of 1-25 and south of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet the purpose and Does not meet the purpose and need for improved mobility. Site need for improved mobility. Site access requires new roadway access requires new roadway infrastructure and would result in infrastructure and would result in out-of-direction travel. out-of-direction travel. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-H Retained. Retained. East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with ditch. ditch. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-1 Screened. Screened. East of I-25 and north of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site does not meet engineering Site does not meet engineering requirements due to proximity to requirements due to proximity to interchange to accommodate a interchange to accommodate a median platform so is not median platform so logistically is not feasible. possible. • 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-J Screened. Screened. East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site does not meet engineering Site does not meet engineering requirements due to proximity to requirements due to proximity to interchange to accommodate a interchange to accommodate a median platform so is not median platform so logistically is not feasible. possible. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-K Screened. Screened. East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 which would be more than which would be more than double double the cost of other sites. the cost of other sites. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-L Screened. Screened. East of I-25 south of SH 52 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 would be more than would be more than double the cost double the cost of other sites. Site of other sites. Site has wetlands has wetlands impacts. impacts. Site has wetlands impacts. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-M Retained. Retained. East of I-25 and south of SH 52 However, site impacts threatened However, site impacts threatened and endangered species. and endangered species. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-N Retained. Retained. East of I-25 south of SH 52 However, site impacts threatened However, site impacts threatened and endangered species. and endangered species. I-25 and State Highway 7 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-A Retained. Retained. West of 1-25 and north of SH 7 However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with ditch. • ditch. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-B Retained. Retained. West of 1-25 and north of SH 7 However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with ditch. ditch. Package Development and Refinement 5-31 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary I-25 and State Highway 7(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-C Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B West of 1-25 and south of SH 7 because this site does not have because this site does not have the the concerns regarding ditch concerns regarding ditch conflicts, conflicts, local plans, or acquisition local plans, or acquisition of of buildings of the other sites. buildings of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-D Screened. Screened. West of 1-25 and south of SH 7 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Site does not meet engineering Site does not meet engineering requirements because platform requirements because platform would not be located adjacent to would not be located adjacent to parking. parking, so it is not logistically possible. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-E Retained. Retained. East of 1-25 and north of SH 7 However, site is not compatible However, site is not compatible with local plans. with local plans. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-F Retained. Retained. East of I-25and north of SH 7 However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with ditch and would require ditch and would require reconstruction of interchange. reconstruction of interchange. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-G Retained. Retained. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and However, site would require However, site would require • Washington St. acquisition of new buildings. acquisition of new buildings. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-H Screened. Retained. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and Retained. However, site would require Washington St. However, site would require acquisition of new buildings. acquisition of new buildings. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-1 Retained. Retained. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and However, site require acquisition of However, site would require Washington St. new buildings. acquisition of new buildings. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-J Screened. Screened. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Washington St. Site conflicts with traffic operations Not logistically feasible. Site of E-470 so is not technically conflicts with traffic operations of feasible. E-470, so is not feasible. West Greeley US 34 and 83rd Ave. BRT-A Retained. Retained. North of US Business 34 and west However, site zoning is not However, site zoning is not of 83rd Ave. compatible. compatible. US 34 and 83rd Ave. BRT-B Retained. Retained. South of US Business 34 and west However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. of 83rd Ave. US 34 and 83rd Ave. BRT-C Retained. Retained. North of US Business 34 and east However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. of 83rd Ave. US 34 and 83rd Ave. BRT-D Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B South of US Business 34 and east because this site does not have because this site does not have the of 83rd Ave. the concerns with wetlands or local concerns with wetlands or local plans of the other sites. plans of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. • Package Development and Refinement 5-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary US 34 and SH 257 US 34 and SH 257 BRT-A Retained. Included in Package B Retained. Included in Package B South of US 34 and west of because it serves the need as an because it serves the need as an SH 257 existing park and ride. existing park and ride. This site does not contain wetlands. US 34 and SH 257 BRT-B Screened. Screened. South of US 34 and east of A new site is unnecessary, since A new site is unnecessary, since SH 257 Site A, an existing park and ride, Site A, an existing park and ride, serves the need. serves the need. US 34 and SH 257 BRT-C Screened. Screened. South of US 34 and east of A new site is unnecessary, since A new site is unnecessary, since SH 257 Site A, an existing park and ride, Site A, an existing park and ride, serves the need. serves the need. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-A Screened. Screened. North of 7th St. and west of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-B Retained. Retained. North of 8th Street and west of This site does not contain US 85 wetlands. • 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-C Screened. Screened. North of 9th St. and west of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-D Screened. Screened. North of 10th St. and west of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-D Screened. Screened. North of 10th St. and west of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-E Screened. Screened. North of 7th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. • Package Development and Refinement 5.33 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-5 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Greeley Downtown Transfer Center(cont'd) 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-F Screened. Screened. North of 8th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-G Screened. Screened. North of 9th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-H Screened. Screened. North of 9th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-I Screened. Screened. North of 9th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley • Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. CB-J Screened. Screened. North of 10th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-K Screened. Screened. North of 10th St. and east of US 85 Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. RCRA SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small Quantity Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank UST Underground Storage Tank ERNS Emergency Response Notification System Co Trust Complaint sites with no known responsible party • Package Development and Refinement 5.34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 5-6 summarizes the station screening evaluation of express bus service on 1-25, Harmony Road, and US 34. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary South Fort Collins Transit Center US 287 and Harmony Rd Retained. Retained. BRT-A This site does not contain West of US 287 and south of wetlands. Harmony Rd. Harmony Road and Timberline Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Retained. Retained. CB-A However, site would require the However, site would require the North of Harmony Rd. and west of purchase of 10+ parcels, impacting purchase of 10+ parcels, Timberline Rd. multiple property owners. impacting multiple property owners.. Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Retained. Retained. CB-B Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred South of Harmony Rd. and west of Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does Timberline Rd. not have the concerns with not have the concerns with multiple property owner impacts of multiple property owner impacts of the other site. the other site. This site does not contain wetlands. Harmony Road and Timberline Screened. Screened. • CB-C Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Harmony Rd. and east of Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need Timberline Rd. for improved mobility because site for improved mobility because site location would require out of location would require out of direction local bus movement. direction local bus movement. Harmony Rd. and Timberline Screened. Screened. CB-D Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of Harmony Rd. and east of Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and for Timberline Rd. for improved mobility because site improved mobility because site location would require out of location would require out of direction local bus movement. direction local bus movement. Harmony Rd. and Timberline Rd. Retained. Retained. CB-E Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred South of Harmony Rd. and west of Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does Timberline Road not have the concerns with not have the concerns with multiple property owner impacts of multiple property owner impacts of the other site. the other site. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Harmony Road 1-25 and Harmony Rd. Retained. Retained. Express Bus-A Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred North of Harmony Road and west of Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does 1-25 not have the concerns with not have the concerns with hazardous materials of the other hazardous materials of the other site. Site is existing park and ride. site. Site is existing park and ride. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Harmony Rd. Retained. Retained. • Express Bus-B However, site has hazardous However, site hazardous materials North of Harmony Road and west of materials concerns; 1 site within concerns; 1 site within 100 ft. 1-25 100 ft. (ERNS). (ERNS). Package Development and Refinement 5.35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary I-25 and Harmony Road(cont'd) 1-25 and Harmony Rd. Retained. Retained. Express Bus-C Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred North of Harmony Rd. and west of Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does I-25 not have the concerns with not have the concerns with hazardous materials of the other hazardous materials of the other site. Site is adjacent to Site A. site. Site is adjacent to Site A. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Harmony Rd. Retained. Retained. Express Bus-D Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred North of Harmony Rd. and west of Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does 1-25 not have the concerns with not have the concerns with hazardous materials of the other hazardous materials of the other site. Site is adjacent to Site A. site. Site is adjacent to Site A. This site does not contain wetlands. Windsor 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus A However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 endangered species. endangered species. I-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-B However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and • North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-C However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-D However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus—E However, site has threatened and However, site has threatened and South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 endangered species and impacts endangered species and impacts wetlands. wetlands. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-F However, site is not in close However, site is not in close South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 proximity to residential areas. proximity to residential areas. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-G However, site is not in close However, site is not in close South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 proximity to residential areas. proximity to residential areas. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-H However, site is not in close However, site is not in close North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 proximity to residential areas. proximity to residential areas. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-I However, site is not in close However, site is not in close North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 proximity to residential areas. proximity to residential areas. • Package Development and Refinement 5-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Windsor(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 39 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-J However, site is not in close However, site is not in close North of SH 392 and west of 1-25 proximity to residential areas. proximity to residential areas.. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-K However, site would require However, site would require South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 building relocations. building relocations. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-L However, site does not allow for However, site does not allow for South of SH 392 and west of I-25 potential expansion. potential expansion. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-M Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred South of SH 392 and west of I-25 Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does not have the concerns with not have the concerns with distance from residential areas, distance from residential areas, threatened and endangered threatened and endangered species, building relocations, species, building relocations, expansion potential, or hazardous expansion potential, or hazardous materials. materials. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 392 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-N However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous South of SH 392 and west of 1-25 material concerns; 1 site within material concerns; 1 site within • 100 ft. (RCRA-SQG). 100 ft. (RCRA-SQG). Crossroads Boulevard 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-A Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and west Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of I-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because access requires out-of-direction bus access requires out-of- travel. Site not compatible with direction travel. Site not local plans and has visual impacts. compatible with local plans and has visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-B Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and west Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of I-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because access requires out-of-direction bus access requires out-of- travel. direction travel. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-C Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and west Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of 1-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because access requires out-of-direction bus access requires out-of- travel. direction travel. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-D Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and west Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of 1-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because access requires out-of-direction bus access requires out-of- IIItravel. direction travel. Package Development and Refinement 5-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Crossroads Boulevard I-25 and Crossroads Blvd Retained. Retained. Express Bus-E However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous North of Crossroads Blvd. and west materials concerns; 2 sites within materials concerns; 2 sites within of 1-25 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Retained. Retained. Express Bus—F South of However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous Crossroads Blvd. and west of 1-25 materials concerns; 2 sites within materials concerns; 2 sites within 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 100 ft. (LUST, UST). 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-H Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and west Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of 1-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because bus access requires out-of-direction access requires out-of-direction travel. travel. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-I Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and east Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of 1-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because bus access requires out-of-direction access requires out-of-direction travel. travel. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-J South of Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. Crossroads Blvd. and east of 1-25 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need • for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because bus access requires out-of-direction access requires out-of-direction travel. travel. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-K Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and east Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of 1-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because bus access requires out-of-direction access requires out-of-direction travel. _ travel. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Retained. Retained. Express Bus-L However, site access requires new However, site access requires new South of Crossroads Blvd. and east roadway infrastructure. Site not roadway infrastructure. Site not of 1-25 compatible with local plans and compatible with local plans and has visual impacts. has visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Retained. Retained. Express Bus-M Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred South of Crossroads Blvd. and west Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does of 1-25 not have the concerns with not have the concerns with hazardous materials, compatibility hazardous materials, compatibility with local plans, or visual impacts with local plans, or visual impacts of the other sites. of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Retained. Retained. Express Bus-N However, site access requires new However, site access requires new South of Crossroads Blvd. and west roadway infrastructure. Site has roadway infrastructure. Site has of 1-25 visual impacts. visual impacts. • Package Development and Refinement 5-38 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation transportation. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Crossroads Boulevard(cont'd) 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd Screened. Screened. Express Bus-O Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and east Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need of 1-25 for improved mobility because bus for improved mobility because bus access requires out-of-direction access requires out-of-direction travel. travel. Berthoud 1-25 and SH 56/60 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-A However, site has visual impact s However, site has visual impacts South of US 60 and west of 1-25 and is not compatible with and is not compatible with Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. Berthoud's 1-25 Land Use Plan. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-B Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of US 60 and west of I-25 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. I-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-C Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. • 1-25 and SH 56/60 at interchange on and off- ramps. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-D Not Reasonable. Site is not logistically possible South of US 60 and west of I-25 Not technically feasible because because platform would not be platform would not be adjacent to located adjacent to parking. parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off-ramps. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-E Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Retained. Screened. Express Bus-F However, site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 Site is not compatible Berthoud's I-25 Land Use Plan. I-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-G Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands South of US 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-H Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible • platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. Package Development and Refinement 5-39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Berthoud(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-I Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off- ramps. I-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-J Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands. South of US 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off-ramps. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-K Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands South of US 60 and west of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-L Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands • North of US 56 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off-ramps. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-M In conjunction with Site P, included In conjunction with Site P, North of US 56 and west of 1-25 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with not have the concerns with This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-N Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands North of US 56 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 56/60 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-O Not Reasonable. Site impacts wetlands. North of US 56 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Not technically feasible because platform would not be adjacent to parking due to slip ramps located at interchange on and off- ramps. • Package Development and Refinement 5-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Berthoud(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 56/60 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-P In conjunction with Site P, included In conjunction with Site P, North of US 56 and east of 1-25 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with not have the concerns with This site does not contain Firestone wetlands. 1-25 and SH 119 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-A However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous West of 1-25 and north of US 119 materials concerns; 5 sites within materials concerns; 5 sites within 100 ft. (LUST, ERNS, 100 ft. (LUST, ERNS, RCRA-SQG). RCRA-SQG). I-25 and SH 119 Retained. Retained. Express Bus—B In conjunction with Site H, included In conjunction with Site H, West of 1-25 and south of US 119 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with hazardous not have the concerns with materials of the other sites. hazardous materials of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. I-25 and SH 119 Retained. Retained. • Express Bus-C However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous West of 1-25 and south of US 119 materials concerns; 15 sites within materials concerns; 15 sites within 100 ft. (ERNS, RCRA-SQG, UST, 100 ft. (ERNS, RCRA-SQG, UST, LUST, CoTrust). LUST, CoTrust). I-25 and SH 119 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-D Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and south of US 119 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. There is no existing roadway to site. 1-25 and SH 119 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-E Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. East of 1-25 and north of US 119 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 119 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-F Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. East of 1-25 and north of US 119 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. 1-25 and SH 119 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-G However, site has hazardous However, site has hazardous East of 1-25 and north of US 119 materials concerns; 2 sites within materials concerns; 2 sites within • 100 ft. (UST, LUST). 100 ft. (UST, LUST). Package Development and Refinement 5-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Firestone(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 119 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-H In conjunction with Site B, included In conjunction with Site B, East of 1-25 and south of US 119 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with hazardous not have the concerns with materials of the other sites. hazardous materials of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 119 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-I Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. East of 1-25 and south of US 119 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. 1-25 and SH 119 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-J Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. East of 1-25 and south of US 119 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. Frederick/Dacono 1-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. • Express Bus—A Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-B Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. Site zoning is not compatible. 1-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-C Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-D In conjunction with Site K, included In conjunction with Site K, West of 1-25 and north of SH 52 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns not have the concerns This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-E However, site would require However, site would require West of 1-25 and south of SH 52 acquisition of numerous acquisition of numerous • commercial buildings. commercial buildings. Package Development and Refinement 5-42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Frederick/Decono(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-F Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of I-25and South of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. I-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-G Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and south of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-H However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 ditch. ditch. 1-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-I Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. I-25 and SH 52 Screened. Screened. • Express Bus-J Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because frontage road impedes access to frontage road impedes access to slip ramps. slip ramps. 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-K In conjunction with Site D, included In conjunction with Site D, East of 1-25 and north of SH 52 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with acquisition of not have the concerns with buildings, ditch conflicts, wetlands, acquisition of buildings, ditch or threatened and endangered conflicts,wetlands, or threatened species of the other sites. and endangered species of the other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-L However, site impacts wetlands. However, site impacts wetlands. East of I-25 south of SH 52 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-M However, site impacts threatened However, site threatened and East of 1-25 and south of SH 52 and endangered species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 52 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-N However, site impacts threatened However, site impacts threatened East of 1-25 south of SH 52 and endangered species. and endangered species. I-25 and State Highway 7 1-25 and SH 7 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-A Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and north of SH 7 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible • platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. Package Development and Refinement 5-43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary I-25 and State Highway 7(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 7 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-B However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with West of 1-25 and north of SH 7 ditch. Site is not compatible with ditch. Site is not compatible with the City and County of local plans. Broomfield's 2005 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 1-25 and SH 7 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-C In conjunction with Site G, included In conjunction with Site G, West of 1-25 and south of SH 7 in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with not have the concerns with This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 7 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-D Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. West of 1-25 and south of SH 7 Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. 1-25 and SH 7 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-E Site is not compatible with the City Not Practicable. Site not East of 1-25 and north of SH 7 and County of Broomfield's 2005 compatible with local plan. Comprehensive Plan Land Use • Map. 1-25 and SH 7 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-F However, site has conflict with However, site has conflict with East of I-25and north of SH 7 ditch. Site is not compatible with ditch. Site is not compatible with the City and County of local plans. Broomfield's 2005 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 1-25 and SH 7 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-G In conjunction with Site C, included In conjunction with Site C, South of SH 7 between 1-25 and in the Preferred Alternative included in the Preferred Washington St. because this site does not have Alternative because this site does the concerns with not have the concerns with This site does not contain wetlands. 1-25 and SH 7 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-H Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible Washington St. platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off-ramps. 1-25 and SH 7 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-I Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and Not technically feasible because Site is not logistically possible Washington St. platform would not be adjacent to because platform would not be parking due to slip ramps located located adjacent to parking. at interchange on and off- ramps. • Package Development and Refinement 5-44 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary 1-25 and State Highway 7(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 7 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Express Bus-J Not technically feasible because Not Practicable. South of SH 7 between 1-25 and platform would not be adjacent to Site is not logistically possible Washington St. parking due to slip ramps located because platform would not be at interchange on and off- ramps located adjacent to parking. West Greeley US 34 and 83rd Ave Retained. Retained. Express Bus-A However, site zoning is not However, site does not meet North of US Business 34 and west compatible. zoning. of 83rd Ave. US 34 and 83rd Ave Retained. Screened. Express Bus-B However, site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. South of US Business 34 and west of 83rd Ave. US 34 and 83rd Ave Retained. Screened. Express Bus-C However, site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. North of US Business 34 and east of 83rd Ave. US 34 and 83rd Ave. Retained. Retained. Express Bus-D Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred South of US Business 34 and east Alternative because this site does Alternative because this site does • of 83rd Ave. not have the concerns with zoning not have the concerns with zoning compatibility or wetlands of the compatibility or wetlands of the other sites. other sites. This site does not contain wetlands. US 34 and SH 257 US 34 and SH 257 Retained. Retained. Express Bus-A Included in the Preferred Included in the Preferred South of US 34 and west of SH 257 Alternative because as an existing Alternative because as an existing park and ride it serves the need. park and ride it serves the need. This site does not contain wetlands. US 34 and SH 257 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-B A new site is unnecessary, since A new site is unnecessary, since South of US 34 and east of SH 257 Site A, an existing park and ride, Site A, an existing park and ride, serves the need. serves the need. US 34 and SH 257 Screened. Screened. Express Bus-C A new site is unnecessary, since A new site is unnecessary, since South of US 34 and east of SH 257 Site A, an existing park and ride, Site A, an existing park and ride, serves the need. serves the need. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-A Not Reasonable. Does not meet Not Practicable. North of 7th St. and west of US 85 purpose and need for improved Does not meet purpose and need mobility because it does not for improved mobility because it connect to the Greeley Downtown does not connect to the Greeley Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. • Package Development and Refinement 5-45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Greeley Downtown Transfer Center(cont'd) 8th Ave. and 8th St. Retained. Retained. Express Bus-B This site does not contain North of 8th St. and west of US 85 wetlands. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-C Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 9th St. and west of US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-D Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 10th St. and west of US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-E Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 7th St. and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. • Express Bus-F Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 8th St. and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility because it for improved mobility because it does not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-G Not Reasonable. Does not meet Not Practicable. North of 9th St. and east of US 85 purpose and need for improved Does not meet purpose and need mobility because it does not for improved mobility because it connect to the Greeley Downtown does not connect to the Greeley Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-H Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 9th Stand east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need for improved mobility cause it does for improved mobility because it not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-I Not Reasonable. Does not meet Not Practicable. North of 9th St. and east of US 85 purpose and need for improved Does not meet purpose and need mobility because it does not for improved mobility because it connect to the Greeley Downtown does not connect to the Greeley Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-J Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 10th St. and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and for Does not meet purpose and need improved mobility because it does for improved mobility because it not connect to the Greeley does not connect to the Greeley • Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. Package Development and Refinement 5.46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-6 Preferred Alternative - Station Site Evaluation Express Bus on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Greeley Downtown Transfer Center(cont'd) 8th Ave. and 8th St. Screened. Screened. Express Bus-K Not Reasonable. Not Practicable. North of 10th St. and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and for for improved mobility because it improved mobility because it does does not connect to the Greeley not connect to the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. RCRA SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small Quantity Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank UST Underground Storage Tank ERNS Emergency Response Notification System Co Trust Complaint sites with no known responsible party 5.2.3 Maintenance Facility Sites Maintenance facility locations for both bus and rail were developed according to the following criteria: • • Location (proximity to service area) • Size (acres) • Configuration (shape) • Topography • Zoning / use • Access • Availability of utilities • Environmental constraints After some candidate sites were evaluated, additional screening was conducted to evaluate: • Does the site limit non-revenue service? • How well does the site minimize the number of property acquisitions? • Is there committee and stakeholder support? As a result of the screening, two rail maintenance facility sites (Vine and Timberline in Fort Collins, US 287 and CR 46 in Berthoud) and two bus facility sites (Portner Road and Trilby in Fort Collins, 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley) were selected for further analysis. Figure 5-2 depicts potential maintenance facility locations that were evaluated in this EIS. • Package Development and Refinement 5-47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-2 Maintenance Facility Locations Being Evaluated LEGEND , • Potential Bus Operation & Maintenance Facility Locations •---- -,_ Potential Commuter Rail Operation & ;%�� "`tagton Maintenance Facility Locations 4 \• 85 \-:\w Study Corridors !7 /\/ Highways i' Pierce /\/ Arterial Roads i Fort Collin --I J Regional Study Area I �� ‘TfilFe—/ City Boundaries i Ault 257 V Cities & Towns I maw • Severance Eaton I ' 4 I ' ,ter Ilucerne . __ I t Greeley 1 i t N. Garden city lt.:re land . Evans ' 1 / ` ' La Salle Johnstown o • Li Bert 0 Milliken 85 / r i / I i (idcres, i a/ Ill 0 � jAkan •/ i Plattxvrl't [ Longmont ! 1 we Vollmer 0 I / 0 Firestone ii �� Niwot 0 Frederick 4 t - 0 Dacono Fact luptutt' 5 0 GuntsarrolI J i / • 0 Valrnur,l • G Waneniii- 1 t...ar. t 0 la,a�e,. NW 7 lowsville ""� . a Briglrion / tiS:rgena� `•ph\_____,.....� Eastlake ' .ma• y— Brroctieid 0 Henderson-I, .�� / t:athylant Si 36 \\ 0 TFundun ; i . / / L...� \` / 1 Denver 1! �1+J ' ® —..."---"'"---' 0 2 4 6 8 10 / I. ! ' ' I Miles North _ i I k >-,,, --1.--......*\( il Package Development and Refinement 5-48 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE EIS The following section describes the four packages (No-Action, Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) that were developed through the screening process. These packages are fully evaluated in the EIS. A detailed description of the screening and evaluation process used to identify these four packages is described in chapters 2 through 5 of this document. Each of the build alternatives were developed with assumptions about current available technologies. In the future, as projects are implemented, FHWA and CDOT anticipated that newer technologies will be incorporated as appropriate. Examples of assumed technologies that could be upgraded include, by are not limited to, toll collection equipment, transit fare collection systems and tension cable barrier systems. While interim improvements are not identified or evaluated in the EIS, it is possible for interim improvements to be made to improve traffic operations and/or safety as necessary until funding is available to implement the Preferred Alternative. Interim projects that are consistent with and support the decision could take place under the Final EIS ROD. Other interim projects would require a re-evaluation to revise or issue another ROD under the Final EIS or could be completed through a separate action which would require separate NEPA documentation. CDOT and FHWA will determine which course of action should be undertaken on a case by case basis. 6.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE • The No-Action Alternative is a conservative estimate of safety and maintenance improvements that will need to be constructed if the build alternatives are not built. It is presented for comparison with the build alternatives in accordance with NEPA requirements. This alternative could have environmental impacts and costs associated with it. It will be evaluated on the same set of criteria as, and compared against, the build alternatives. No-Action Alternative improvements are described below and graphically summarized in Figure 6-1. Typical cross sections for the No-Action Alternative are illustrated in Figure 6-2 through Figure 6-4. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 6.1.1 Maintenance of Structures CDOT determines eligibility for bridge replacements or rehabilitations based on the structure's sufficiency rating as prescribed by AASHTO and FHWA. Sufficiency rating is the result of evaluating a bridge's fitness for the duty it performs. A rating of 100 is the maximum sufficiency rating a bridge can achieve. In general, a bridge with a sufficiency rating of 50 or less can be considered for replacement; and a bridge with a sufficiency rating of 51 to 80 can be considered for rehabilitation. • For the purposes of determining which bridges within the North 1-25 Corridor will require replacement or rehabilitation before 2035 the following assumptions were made: o Structures will lose one sufficiency rating point every two years due to normal deterioration for a total of twelve points over the next 24 years. o Structures with a projected sufficiency rating of 30 or less will be considered as requiring replacement before 2035. o Structures with a projected sufficiency rating of 31 to 50 will be considered as requiring major rehabilitation before 2035. o Structures with a projected sufficiency rating of 51 to 80 will be considered as requiring minor rehabilitations before 2035. • Based on the above criteria, from US 36 to SH 1, no structures will require replacement, 4 structures will require major rehabilitation and 64 structures will require minor • rehabilitation. These are listed in Table 6-1. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-2 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 6-1 No-Action Structure Replacement/Rehabilitation Description Year Sufficiency Re lace Rehab Rehab Built Rating p Major Minor US 36 WB HOV Ramp over 1-25 SB 1972 55.60 ** US 36 WB Ramp over 1-25 SB 1998 69.20 ** US 36 EB over 1-25 2009 83.40 ** US 36 WB over 1-25 1998 82.80 ** 84th Avenue over 1-25 1959 10.80 * Pedestrian Underpass 1955 78.20 yes 88th Avenue over I-25 1972 53.30 yes Thornton Pkwy over 1-25 1985 80.00 104th Avenue over 1-25 2010 80.00 Pedestrian Overpass 1976 N/A 1-25 over Farmers Highline Canal 1954 55.00 yes Community Center Drive over 1-25 2004 68.20 yes Wagon Rd HOV Ramp R 1992 77.80 yes Pedestrian Underpass 1954 63.40 yes 120th Avenue (SH 128)over 1-25 2006 76.80 yes 128th Avenue over 1-25 2008 81.00 11111 1-25 over Big Dry Creek 1956 66.00 yes 136th Avenue over 1-25 2004 77.90 yes 1-25 over Bull Canal 1956 74.00 yes 144th Avenue over 1-25 2007 82.30 Ramp F Flyover 1-25 SB to E-470 EB 2003 87.20 1-25 NB over Northwest Parkway(NWP) 2002 82.30 1-25 SB over Northwest Parkway(NWP) 2003 82.30 Ramp D Flyover E-470 WB to 1-25 SB 2003 87.40 Ramp H Flyover NWP EB to 1-25 NB 2003 86.30 Ramp B Flyover 1-25 NB to NWP WB 2003 85.50 160th Avenue over 1-25 2003 87.40 SH 7 over 1-25 1987 82.10 1-25 NB over WCR 6 2004 83.40 1-25 SB over WCR 6 2004 85.40 1-25 over Bull Canal 2003 80.00 WCR 8 over 1-25 2004 82.30 Draw 2004 79.70 yes 1-25 NB over WCR 10 2004 74.70 yes 1-25 SB over WCR 10 2004 74.00 yes • *Denotes structures replaced under a separate action. **Denotes structures studied under a separate action. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation III Table 6-1 No-Action Structure Replacement/Rehabilitation (cont'd) Description Year Sufficiency Replace Rehab Rehab Built Rating Major Minor Draw 2004 56.50 yes SH 52 over I-25 1999 81.40 Channel MD-B under 2000 85.30 W Frontage Road Entrance Ramp Channel MD-B under NW 2000 72.50 yes @ l-25/SH 52 Channel MD-B under E Frontage Road 2000 85.30 Lower Boulder Ditch under 1-25& Frontage 2000 57.50 yes Roads 1-25 NB over WCR 20 2006 80.40 1-25 SB over WCR 20 2006 80.40 1-25 NB over SH 119 1998 82.90 1-25 SB over SH 119 1998 85.50 1-25 NB over St.Vrain Creek 2008 78.80 yes 1-25 SB over St.Vrain Creek 2008 82.30 1-25 Service Road over St. Vrain Creek 1999 81.10 1-25 NB over WCR 28 2008 60.00 yes 1-25 SB over WCR 28 2008 76.00 yes • SH 66 over 1-25 2006 85.20 1-25 NB over WCR 32 1961 77.20 yes 1-25 SB over WCR 32 1961 77.20 yes WCR 34 over 1-25 1961 69.70 yes Draw 1961 67.00 yes 1-25 NB over GWRR 1961 79.00 yes 1-25 SB over GWRR 1961 67.70 yes WCR 38 over 1-25 1960 61.60 yes 1-25 NB over Access Road 1961 79.20 es (Valley Dirt Riders) y 1-25 SB over Access Road 1961 77.20 yes (Valley Dirt Riders) 1-25 NB over Little Thompson River 1961 80.80 1-25 SB over Little Thompson River 1961 80.80 I-25 Service Road over 1938 N/A Little Thompson River (historic) SH 56 over 1-25 1961 53.30 yes 1-25 NB over WCR 46 1961 79.30 yes 1-25 SB over WCR 46 1962 77.20 yes * Denotes structures replaced under a separate action. **Denotes structures studied under a separate action. 111 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-4 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 6-1 No-Action Structure Replacement/Rehabilitation (cont'd) Description Year Sufficiency Replace Rehab Rehab Built Rating Major Minor 1-25 NB over GWRR 1961 76.80 yes 1-25 SB over GWRR 1962 76.80 yes SH 60(East)over 1-25 1962 66.70 yes 1 1-25 NB over LCR 14(SH 60 West) 1962 81.70 1-25 SB over LCR 14(SH 60 West) 1962 79.20 yes 1-25 NB over LCR 16 1962 79.60 yes 1-25 SB over LCR 16 1962 79.60 yes Draw 1961 33.00 yes Draw(Service Rd) 1941 48.50 yes 1-25 NB over SH 402 1962 84.00 1-25 SB over SH 402 1962 79.90 yes LCR Underpass (Hillsboro Ditch Access Road) 1963 53.50 yes 1-25 NB over Big Thompson River 1962 81.30 1-25 SB over Big Thompson River 1962 81.30 I-25 Service Road over 1942 82.40 • Big Thompson River LCR 20E over 1-25 1962 70.40 yes GWRR over I-25 1962 N/A US 34 EB over 1-25 1962 63.10 yes US 34 WB over 1-25 1962 63.10 yes Greeley-Loveland Ditch 1947 80.10 1-25 NB over UPRR 1965 78.30 yes 1-25 SB over UPRR 1965 78.30 yes 1-25 NB over Crossroads Blvd. 1965 80.60 (LCR 26/Airport Dr) 1-25 SB over Crossroads Blvd. (LCR 26/Airport Dr) 1965 69.60 yes SH 392 over I-25 1965 59.80 LCR 36 over 1-25 1965 61.40 yes Harmony Road (SH 68)over 1-25 1999 81.70 1-25 NB over Cache la Poudre River 1948 84.20 1-25 SB over Cache la Poudre River 1965 64.10 yes 1-25 NB over BNSF Spur(CSRR) 1966 64.90 yes 1-25 SB over BNSF Spur(CSRR) 1966 84.20 *Denotes structures replaced under a separate action. **Denotes structures studied under a separate action. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation •Table 6-1 No-Action Structure Replacement/Rehabilitation (coned) Description Year Sufficiency Replace Rehab Rehab Built Rating Major Minor Box Elder Creek 1-25 W FR Road AR 2008 68.60 yes Prospect Road over 1-25 1966 52.90 yes Lake Canal 1966 66.70 yes Timnath Ditch 1966 66.70 yes Box Elder Creek 1968 67.70 yes SH 14 EB over 1-25 1966 50.40 yes SH 14 WB over 1-25 1966 48.20 yes 1-25 NB over BNSF 1966 81.70 1-25 SB over BNSF 1966 81.70 LCR 48 over I-25 1966 34.80 yes 1-25 NB over Windsor Res. Canal Ditch 1950 84.60 1-25 SB over Windsor Res. Canal Ditch 1966 84.60 1-25 Service Road over 1966 65.40 yes Windsor Res. Canal Ditch Brewery Road over 1985 83.70 Box Elder Creek Overflow Mountain Vista Drive (Brewery Rd) 1985 87.40 over 1-25 111 1-25 NB over Flood Drainage 1950 83.80 Ramp to 1-25 NB over 1985 79.80 yes Box Elder Creek Overflow 1-25 NB over Flood Drainage 1950 69.20 yes Ramp to 1-25 NB over Flood Drainage 1950 69.20 yes 1-25 Service Road over Flood Drainage 1950 84.40 LCR 52 over I-25 1966 71.80 yes 1-25 NB over Larimer County Canal 1950 84.90 1-25 SB over Larimer County Canal 1966 83.50 1-25 Frontage Road over 1966 71.80 yes Larimer County Canal 1-25 Service Road over 1966 76.40 yes Larimer County Canal LCR 58 over 1-25 1966 65.00 yes 1-25 ML& Service Road over 1989 59.80 yes Box Elder Creek SH 1 over 1-25 1966 54.60 yes *Denotes structures replaced under a separate action. "Denotes structures studied under a separate action. III Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 6.1.2 Maintenance of Pavement Pavement north of SH 66 would need to be replaced by 2035. Replacement of the pavement is assumed to include milling and replacing the top 6 inches of pavement. This pavement maintenance/replacement is included and evaluated as part of the No-Action Alternative. • Table 6-2 summarizes the current pavement condition and action likely needed by 2035. Pavement north of SH 66 is currently rated as poor and fair; pavement between US 36 and 88th Avenue is currently rated fair. Based on these low ratings, replacement of the pavement is assumed to be needed by 2035 and is included in the No-Action Alternative. Replacement of the pavement is assumed to include milling and replacing the top six (6) inches of pavement. Table 6-2 No-Action Pavement Replacement/Rehab 1-25 Segment Length (Miles) Pavement Condition Replace/Rehab by 2035 US 36 to 88th Ave. 2 Fair Yes 88th Ave. to Thornton Pkwy 34 Good No Thornton Pkwy to E-470 8 Good No E-470 to SH 66 15 Good No SH 66 to US 34 14 Poor Yes • US 34 to SH 1 14 Fair Yes Note: Segments with fair or poor pavement conditions as identified by CDOT are considered sub-standard. 6.1.3 Safety Considerations Minor improvements would be necessary to address safety concerns along 1-25. A small amount of improvement can be realized through the installation of traffic signals at ramp terminals that are currently unsignalized. This improvement is included in the No-Action Alternative at SH 1, Mountain Vista, SH 56, and WCR 34. At Prospect Road, widening the 1-25 off-ramps is included to minimize queuing into the 1-25 mainline. A few locations along 1-25 are considered to have particularly unsafe traffic operating conditions today or in 2035. Specifically, any location where ramp traffic backs up into the mainline in 2035 is expected to require some modifications in the No-Action Alternative. These locations include interchanges that currently have a single-lane ramp terminal and/or are unsignalized. Improvements would likely include widening the ramp terminal to provide an additional left or right turn lane, modifying the current signal timing or signalizing a stop-sign controlled ramp terminal. Table 6-3 lists the interchange locations where minor improvements may be necessary to address safety concerns. The US 34/1-25 interchange has been upgraded to address safety concerns as part of an interim separate action. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Table 6-3 No-Action Safety Upgrades I-25 Interchange Single-Lane Ramp Minor Safety Modifications Terminal? Necessary? US 36 No No 84th Avenue No No Thornton Parkway No No 104th Avenue No No 120th Avenue No No 136th Avenue No No 144th Avenue No No E-470 No No SH 7 No No CR 8 No No SH 52 No No SH 119 No No SH 66 No No CR 34 Yes Yes SH 56 Yes Yes SH 60 Yes No • CR 16 Yes No SH 402 No separate action US 34 No separate action Crossroads Yes No SH 392 Yes separate action Harmony Road No No Prospect No No SH 14 No No CR 50 No Yes SH 1 Yes Yes • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure information. cooperation transportation. 6-1 No-Action Alternative t SHII " s111 Fr Elde'Creek LEGEND 1 , 1jCI RIluIIIenatos • Minor Structure Rehab by 2035 I 1 . rill •.rT• ;u Elder C .NB I15 Dta;n3rge • Major Structure Rehab by 2035 ii ttouMainl ta,cR56 A d:i Replace / Rehab Pavement by 2035 H I' 41i t4 A.Al lake c tutuA Da Box Ei er reeve r • Minor Safety Modifications by 2035 ProspectR:d RR Fo`e A lin : CS RR C 85 ', FasTracks Rail Line sit 1 to US 34 I Cache la 11. afg r 1 l CR n u E � RTD BoundaryI ,♦ik,ek I 25 rLall 39 Lucerne allL ' I wlMsor iA iisronroaas ii 34 fl filliilk _t :i. : . „: 7---- -- is- . — rair Int ii : I��:[b"�] r4. (Fdllsbor. A j Stinij n `. . .•MOM f anoY •S Comer f LARIMER : � r 4i�ro - La Sall .rn1'H\SHS€ VJ ski .r ■ r . 80 milCR46 hi 511 56 0 US 34 toSH66 • .111 Cn38GWRR ■ DIEMa q34 WELD 0 F. C'1'' CR 34 66 ' CR3 Plattavl ,o a CR28 ny ont St Vrain H%, r� 119 -71 BOULDER Al � J ra 1 sa WIP O ],44:;,•MP NM - ,-•,L ;: ulcer D' rrib • 3iie48 r" a r, 52 Ill II r o i ° 179 LM Ara• :hoe :Q. tin .me tatiOrw.41,04„ .4,2nrrji '3 A. r re 1 ,1 if►i.� IS :LI /� I :� 4F— — ROOM ftP . ��i. l: �.rrpa-'.. atit . . 2„::+.44,, f ; -1 dmv uat , I - . es .-- . 1/4 Fed �. Northwest ,r�' .� Q — qNl CorHdo —. , 1 ► I2, NortCthr Moro) us 7v ( . 0-l1 n7/ �� - - � � _ri r ale 70 -1. ID , _ Deny r i; 0 4 6 8 10 Unio Station imiew ��Mrles North DENVER Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6-2 No-Action Alternative Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 66 Varies 114' - 156' 10'> < 24' 8' > Median Varies < 8' >1 < 24' > 0> Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr 30' - 72' Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr, Lanes Lanes LTA. Figure 6-3 No-Action Alternative Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 66 to SH 7 Varies 132' - 180' 12' 37' 15' Median Varies 15' 37' 12' Shldr, 3 Travel Lanes Shldr 4' - 52' Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. 0 - 0 Figure 6-4 No-Action Alternative Typical I-25 Cross Section - South of SH 7 Varies 114' - 118' 8'-10' 36' 12' 12' 36' 8'- 10' Shldr,�3 Travel Lanes Shldr. hldr. 3 Travel Lanes hldr 2' rr, re, .>� -7 '.W pan. i a.• Sell a • _ • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 6.2 PACKAGE A Figure 6-5 illustrates Package A. It includes new general purpose lanes, interchange reconstruction/upgrades, a commuter rail line, commuter bus service, feeder bus service, and congestion management measures. These are described in detail in the following sections. The Package Concept Plans (FHU and Jacobs, 2011 b) illustrate the layout of Package A in more detail. 6.2.1 Package A New General Purpose Lanes This package would add one additional general purpose lane from SH 14 to SH 66 for a six- lane cross section and from SH 52 to E-470 for an eight—lane cross section. North of SH 66, widening 1-25 would include reconstructing the entire interstate cross section and rebuilding it to today's standards. This includes improving horizontal and vertical alignment, widening both the inside and outside shoulders, and reconstructing aging interchanges and structures. Design criteria were established by CDOT for the highway improvements. Design guidelines recommend avoiding use of median barrier where practical. Consistent with the existing wide median and rural setting, the design criteria for the proposed highway improvements includes a grass median for 1-25 north of SH 66. South of SH 52, the interstate cross section has recently been rebuilt; additional widening would generally occur within the median in those locations. Table 6-4 lists the interchange improvements included in Package A compared to No-Action Alternative. • Frontage roads along 1-25 would be rebuilt approximately where they exist today. At the interchanges, frontage roads would be relocated east or west away from the ramp terminals to address storage and safety concerns at the intersections. Along the 1-25 mainline, the frontage roads would be offset 40 feet, based on current design standards. Typical 1-25 cross sections are depicted in Figures 6-6 through 6-12. To maintain the ability to accommodate future (post 2035) transportation needs, a grass median would be maintained from SH 52 north. South of SH 52, where the densely urbanized areas abut 1-25, Package A highway widening would occur toward the center using portions of the median. As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with an open median. Avoidance and Minimization Minor shifts in 1-25 interchange ramp and frontage road horizontal alignments were used in conceptual design to minimize impacts to wetlands at the following locations: • SH 14 • Prospect Road • Harmony Road • SH 392 • LCR 16 • SH 56 • WCR 34 1-25 horizontal alignment modifications were also made at SH 402 and SH 56 to improve safety. Minor modifications to the 1-25 vertical alignment were implemented to improve safety at SH 56, SH 402 and LCR 16, and to avoid impacts to a historic ditch north of US 34. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6-5 Package A III g g .1 5 LEGEND SH , 1 New General Purpose Lane We • • on (GPL) in Each Direction 1 Correct geometric �°" ��` V deficiencies ■ a I 1 New General Purpose Lane 4 and replace aging (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each Cs; infrastructure Direction Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center - BNSF and Maple SL • 4 Ault 14 Commuter Rail (C R) CSU - Mason St. between , University Ave. and W. Pitkin St. • Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort f i inns . ProcPcctl 85 US 85 ; ' th Fort Collins Transit Center - all, .:} a s :A:1} s ,t,. 4 T'� Ede. fererance 6 .1.7, Feeder Bus Service Lucerne c92) * Interchange Upgrades e) I"Mds Greeley -US85 , 34 and D St. 0 Number of Lanes i Love nd roswor Blvd 11 North Loveland -BNSF and 29th St. hi South Greeley - - 34 Greele e l e ó 8th Ave and Commuter Bus Station / Stop Downtown Loveland -BNSFand ' , 24th St. approximate( , = ' - - Garden City Q Commuter Rail Station 02 6 + r. Eva a Evans - US S5 cR to R50 and 42nd St. FasTracks Rail Line LAKIMER C so 't'�"�"" La Salle 80 Berthoud - BNSF and SH 56 Mititken O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station ca. 58 G.r® Potential Commuter Rail Operational & Maintenance 6 III Facility ;.......• c R 34 WELD North Longm ♦ IN BNSF and SH Mead Pl.tternl Potential Commuter Bus 47 • 6� Operational & Maintenance Longmont Longmont al SugarMlll - North ' Facility 9 l alignments •• -119 V (( 6 85 i IYBOULDER I Fir es(one 119 .287, I i trick wet —x-452-25 and WCR 8 - 52 �. IF set corner at 1-25 and ► + i a w Ede r - oulder I 8 76 119 ilkL 93 rt. 36 Leuiar ' Sri on Northwest 5 0 . r tr Right-of Way Preservation P Rail Corridor su sno IS old ton Cer." i i• Implement ' st°, 6 nn• . No� Metro E470 Uenrer mo No-Action ' at- Corridor trAeirport Airport Alternative It 4 , 84thA Projects 621, ! • JEFFER ' OP1 �+:. 1/. .r L - — - -' 1/Ws OA lift . 70 -- '-In_ -- ! - &7 40 N .tat,on 0 7N /liras •� `on Den er - sin Ave III 0 2 4 6 8 10 . , ` l i-.S 'I.hi, North Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 6-6 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 14 152' 12' 24' 12' 56' Median 24' 12' <-3.< > <12'3. < > < > Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Lanes Lanes Figure 6-7 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 14 to Crossroads Boulevard 176' 36' 17 56' Median 12' 36' 12' <12'3, < > < > < > t > ( > < > Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. rin 0 Figure 6-8 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - Crossroads Boulevard to SH 60 200' 12' 12' 36' 12' 56' Median 12' 36' 12' 12' Shldr, Aux. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr�,� F Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr. Lane / Lane bsonig Figure 6-9 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 60 to SH 66 176' < > 12' 36' 17 56' Median 12' 36' 12' > icShldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. all Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 6-10 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section (same as No-Action) - SH 66 to SH 52 184' t - , 12' 37' 15' < 56' Median 15' 37' 12' Shldr <3 Travel Lanes > Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. ...� . .t 1111 � 'I Figure 6-11 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 52 to SH 7 184' 12' 48' 12' 40' Median 12' 48' 12' c >< > c ) < >< > c - > c > Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes Shldr.. Shldr, 4 Travel Lanes Shldr. . 7'sr 1111 Figure 6-12 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section -SH 7 to E-470 170' C , 26' Median { 48' 12' 48' 12' 12' < 12') <12', < >< > < 12', c >E >< > Shldr. Aux. 4 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr. Lane Lane 2' 6.2.2 Package A Interchanges A reconstructed diamond interchange that increases capacity and meets current design standards could accommodate projected traffic volumes at most existing interchange locations for the lowest cost. At locations where environmental considerations, traffic volumes, or property impacts were unfavorable for a typical diamond configuration , other configurations were identified . These are described below and illustrated in Figures 6-13 through 6-18. Table 6-4 summarizes the interchange improvements associated with Package A. A more detailed description of the interchange configurations considered and the screening process is included in Section 5.2.1 of this document. For detailed information about each interchange refer to the Transportation Analysis Technical Report ( FHU and Jacobs, 2008 , 2011c), available on request at CDOT Region 4 in Greeley. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.14 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 6-4 Package A Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action Existing Interchange No-Action Package A Location Configuration Improvement SH 1 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Mountain Vista substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 14 substandard partial cloverleaf reconstructed diamond Prospect Road substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Harmony Road standard diamond reconstructed diamond* SH 392 reconstructed tight diamond no improvement Crossroads Boulevard substandard diamond reconstructed diamond US 34 substandard partial cloverleaf dual directional/diamond SH 402 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond LCR 16 substandard off ramps reconstructed diamond SH 60 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 56 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond WCR 34 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 66 standard diamond no improvement • SH 119 standard diamond bridge widening SH 52 standard diamond bridge widening WCR 8 standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 7 standard diamond reconstructed diamond E-470 fully directional no improvement 144th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 136th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 120th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 104th Avenue standard diamond no improvement Thornton Parkway standard diamond no improvement 84th Avenue standard diamond no improvement *Existing structure retained. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation0 SH 14 Figure 6-13 SH 14 Interchange An enhanced new diamond interchange with - m: , it*P northbound to westbound triple left-turnsot t:.o� would accommodate the projected 2030 traffic volumes. However, to minimize Ift - I! impacts to the properties in the southwest I quadrant, special consideration for -way. aid. i ' I .• :_4-it placement of the frontage roads along 1-25 -Ts` and along SH 14 was required . _ "��` • g --As shown in e Figure 6-13, the southwest frontage road _ - 'c amilli '/ � 7' r�.,-- - would be pulled in close to 1-25 and Ai " ; , ? . restricted to one-way southbound `STOP f movement. The SH 14 frontage road/1-25 , , -- I D"_< LEGEND west frontage road intersection just west of _, ". the southbound ramps would be grade- - • • '1 `� C r - 'd Roadway North separated at SH 14. Though Stockton , -- Impact Line Avenue at SH 14 would be signalized , it ', ai *.. •T. -' Structures would be restricted to right-in/right-out ' r r f l I Traffic Signal movement. .•r ,\ • Stop Sign • 3 icc 10 US 34 Figure 6-14 US 34 Interchange As the primary interchange access/egress point for LovelandIli ibisrizalfir: Y' ' ' 'r and Greeley, projected volumes at ' ` this interchange exceed the volumes ---. • � that can be handled by a typical -" CC ri 4.611--z diamond interchange. In order to .r,_ '.. •`.--/ile ,- achieve an acceptable level-of- �'- C service (LOS) and maintain access - 1 9 to the existing and rapidly growing LEGENDF/71 f '' , commercial development centers at Roadway North I ; / • ~ this interchange, a new dual Impact Line i J • - I directional/diamond interchange with Structures I 1 i Traffic Signal single-point urban interchanges at f adjacent intersections is proposed. Stop Sign I Direct-connect ramps are planned for southbound-to-eastbound movement, northbound-to- westbound movement, and westbound-to-southbound movement. As shown in Figure 6-14 these would provide access to trips destined to Loveland and Greeley. The eastbound-to- northbound flyover ramp was eliminated to avoid impacts to a historic property located south of US 34 and west of 1-25. The diamond interchange would include dual left-turn lanes and exclusive right-turn lanes and would provide local access to the developments adjacent to the 0 interchange. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. SH 402 Figure 6-15 SH 402 Interchange A new diamond interchange with additional lanes on the ramps at SH 402 would accommodate anticipated demand . This is shown in Figure 6-15. The interchange upgrade would also include reversing the grade separation between SH 402 and 1-25. Today, . 402 • - . • 25 is on a structure and passes over the top of SH 402. The proposed configuration reverses this so that LEGEND 71 ., SH 402 would pass over 1-25. This 0 reconfiguration would improve the Roadway North vertical alignment and safety of Impact Line I-25at this location . Structures elTraffic Signal IS Stop Sign LCR 16 Figure 6-16 LCR 16 Interchange Similar to SH 402, the profile of LCR 16 would be modified to go over 1-25, thereby improving the vertical alignment of 1-25. In addition , on-ramps that are not included in today's configuration would be added to improve accessibility and operation at this interchange. ;Johns Corner T This is shown in Figure 6-16. LEGEND r Roadway North Impact Line Structures Traffic Signal Stop Sign • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. III SH 56 Figure 6-17 SH 56 Interchange A new diamond interchange with additional lanes on the ramps at SH 56 would accommodate anticipated demand . While the design itself is fairly straightforward , this interchange upgrade also would include reversing • the grade separation between SH 56 and 1-25. Today, 1-25 passes under SH 56. The proposed configuration ' 56 would reverse this so that 1-25 would pass over SH 56, as shown in LEGEND Figure 6-17. This reconfiguration would - Roadway North improve the horizontal and vertical alignment and safety of 1-25 at this Impact Line F ,,,,��, location . Structures 1 slw- a) Traffic Signal V Ci Stop Sign .r SH 7 Figure 6-18 SH 7 Interchange 40 The new SH 7 diamond interchange is - - ' J depicted in Figure 6-18. The City and -- . , 1;. County of Broomfield and the City of : ! , Thornton have expressed a desire for a ! �: . _ . J. , partial cloverleaf configuration (loop l �- . j - * ramps for the westbound-to-southbound ' .1 *" -� and eastbound-to-northbound �� •. : , Fi movements) provided at this location . 0`r n , �, '- To accommodate this request, without LEGEND 17Q substantially increasing the impacts or i expenditure for this project, ramp terminal Roadway North spacing has been increased to 1 , 150 feet. Impact Line This spacing would allow local Structures governments to modify this interchange to I Traffic Signal a partial cloverleaf design in the future ® Stop Sign without major reconstruction of the interchange. Evaluation conducted as part of the Final EIS indicated that a partial cloverleaf design would be needed to accommodate 2035 traffic. The partial cloverleaf configuration is included in the Preferred Alternative. 0 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 6.2.3 Package A Commuter Rail WHAT IS COMMUTER A track design would be built to RAIL? specifications for locomotive hauled coaches to be the most flexible in accommodating different A passenger rail service that often rail vehicles. For planning evaluation purposes, operates within freight rail right-of- diesel multiple units are assumed as a vehicle way and serves regional trips. It may technology. In recognition that rail vehicle use locomotives with passenger cars technology is evolving rapidly, vehicle or self-propelled passenger cars, technologies will be reassessed prior to known as diesel multiple units. implementation of North 1-25 commuter rail. In Commuter rail trains could be diesel- this way, interoperability with FasTracks system powered (most common) or will be maintained. electrically-powered. This package includes a robust double track system for commuter rail to provide an estimate of the ridership potential along the corridor. Because Package A commuter rail includes a double track system, a parallel maintenance road would not be absolutely necessary. Maintenance access would be provided by the second track (see Section 2.3.4.5 for discussion of the maintenance road included in the Preferred Alternative). A regional transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter rail service. CDOT has authority to operate commuter rail service. Funding to operate and maintain the • service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. The commuter rail service would run every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods when demand is highest and every hour in the off-peak periods. Hours of operation are assumed to be 4:00 AM to 1:30 AM. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor; a transfer would not be necessary. Every other North Metro train would operate to/from Fort Collins. To reach Boulder, northern Colorado riders would transfer to the Northwest Rail Corridor at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont. While specific fares have not yet been identified, the typical national average commuter rail peak period fare is $0.22 per mile. Based on this rate, it would cost a rider about $14.00 one way to travel from the Fort Collins South Transit Center to Denver Union Station. Fort Collins to Longmont As part of Package A, a double-tracked commuter rail system would be developed from downtown Fort Collins at University Avenue and Maple Street along the BNSF right-of-way to 3rd Street in downtown Longmont, using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track. New commuter rail track would be added to the east of the existing freight track and both sets of tracks would be used by commuter rail and freight rail. On the alignment's northern end in Fort Collins from Mason Street and University Avenue to Mason Street and Maple Street, commuter rail service would be added to the existing single-track BNSF line. • An additional double-track segment would be constructed in Longmont between the Sugar Mill station and the proposed Northwest Rail Corridor end-of-line at 1st and Terry to allow Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • FasTracks proposed Northwest Rail Corridor service to be extended to the North 1-25 rail corridor. Avoidance and Minimization Retaining walls were added along the east side of the commuter rail alignment to minimize impacts to wetlands along the corridor and avoid impacts to a historic structure north of Prospect Road in Fort Collins. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location — adjacent to a historic residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. This results in bi-directional service along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to the residential property in Longmont. Longmont to Thornton In addition, a new double track commuter rail line would be built from 3rd Street south and east to FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line in Thornton. Nineteen alternatives were analyzed for this alignment in order to identify the best rail connection from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line at 162nd Avenue. The selected alignment follows the BNSF and GWRR tracks from 3rd Street southeast to the Sugar Mill site, then east along the south side of SH 119 to CR 7, where it would turn south along CR 7 to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Once the alignment meets the railroad, it follows the UPRR corridor east across 1-25 and then southeast to the North Metro Corridor end-of-line at 162nd Avenue. This alignment was chosen because relative to other options it: • Avoided sensitive wildlife and water resources associated with St. Vrain and Left Hand • creeks, including two active bald eagle nests. • Avoided two resources on the north side of SH 119, including a community facility which serves as a home for at-risk youth and an eligible historic property, the Dickens House. • Minimized out-of-direction travel, utilized more existing rail corridors and avoided more utilities. • Had 22 fewer residential right-of-way acquisitions and fewer impacts to one existing park, and 2 open space properties and wetlands associated with 5 additional creek crossings. Appendix F of this Alternatives Development and Screening Report provides a detailed, quantitative comparison of the 19 alignments considered between Longmont and Thornton. Low-Cost Rail Options Reduced cost options were considered for the entire commuter rail corridor. This includes single tracking, or jointly using the existing freight rail corridor for passenger service as well as reduced service plans with a minimal number of trains per day. A reduced service plan is consistent with some commuter rail projects that have been implemented across the country, such as in Seattle, Albuquerque, San Jose and San Diego. It is also consistent with portions of the approved Denver FasTracks projects, which have been subject to cost- cutting measures such as single tracking. RTD has developed these types of options for cost-cutting (along with other options such as cutting certain corridors back in overall • length) to provide more limited rail service in a corridor while saving capital costs of building an entire second track and operating costs of scaling back train operations to Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. focus on the peak periods of travel only. Such cost-cutting options were considered by RTD on the Northwest Rail commuter rail corridor, the North Metro commuter rail corridor, the 1-225 light rail corridor and portions of the Gold Line commuter rail Corridor. RTD is already implementing this cost cutting measure on the West Corridor (light rail) for a short section, from the Denver Federal Center to the Jefferson County Government Center end of line. The low-cost options that were considered for the North 1-25 project are fully documented in Appendix I of this report. Two major low-cost options were developed. Both included use of single tracking from the 1st and Terry Station in Longmont to the South Transit Center in Fort Collins. Both assumed fairly limited rail service of three trips per direction in each peak period and no service during the rest of the day. Both assumed a reduced number of stations (four instead of eight.) Both assumed limited passing tracks that would be provided. Both applied only to the Longmont to Fort Collins component of the commuter rail because that is the only component that had operating freight rail service. The difference between the two options was that one option would require a transfer at 1st and Terry to continue into downtown Denver. The second assumed that passengers could get on a train from Fort Collins and continue into Denver via Boulder without needing to transfer to a second train in Longmont. These options were not advanced to full analysis in this EIS because of the very noticeable reductions in ridership that would result. The reductions in ridership would occur due to: • • The substantial reduction in service provided (a reduction from trains running every thirty minutes during peak periods and every hour during off-peak periods to only three trips every peak period and no trains during off-peak periods. This reduction means rather than a train every thirty minutes during a peak period there would be a train every sixty minutes); and • The reduction in travel time because the current freight track rail only allows for a maximum speed of 49 mph; and • The reduction in number of stations. These reductions in daily ridership (from approximately 5,850 with Package A to around 1,000 with one of the options and around 250 with the other option) made the major low-cost options uncompetitive with the other transit options. Because these options would not include constructing a new track adjacent to the existing freight rail track, they would result in substantially less construction and thus result in substantially less environmental impacts. Less right of way would be needed from parks and historic properties, which would reduce impacts to resources protected by the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. At river crossings, since there would be no new track, no new bridges or culverts would be needed, so there would be fewer temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and waters of the US. Noise and vibration impacts would be lessened for residences adjacent to the new track, but about the same as Package A impacts for residences adjacent to the freight rail track. Water quality impacts would not be much different except at station areas, because there would be fewer stations. Wildlife habitat impacts would be lessened with the single track options • because substantially less habitat would be permanently removed due to fill for the new track. From a social standpoint, however, these options would not provide as much service to low income and minority populations and to the general population. It would be more Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • difficult for new riders or transit dependent riders to use the system since stations would be farther apart. The system would also be operating so infrequently that its usefulness as a mode of transportation would be compromised. These two major low-cost options were evaluated and found to not meet the Purpose and Need. The primary reasons these options were not retained for Package A include: • The reduced number of stations did not provide adequate accessibility to the rail system for the communities along the corridor. • The limited number of trains per day did not satisfy the multimodal travel needs of the region. • Single tracking limited flexibility associated with track maintenance that could result in stranding transit dependent population. • Single tracking compromised the train schedule reliability. Single tracking also precludes the ability to expand service with more frequent train service. • Reduced service to downtown Fort Collins, necessitated because of single tracking, did not satisfy the travel demand generated by the area. • It was found that the major low-cost options attracted less than 1,000 riders per day, substantially less than the full service rail system of Package A. Another low-cost option was considered with a less severe reduction in capital investment. This option consisted of single tracking (with passing track), but added back in a full station set and an all-day service plan. This was the same commuter rail configuration and service plan • ultimately included in the Preferred Alternative. For Package A however, this option was still not found to meet the Purpose and Need. The primary reason this option was not retained for inclusion in Package A include: • Single tracking limited flexibility associated with track maintenance that could result in stranding transit dependent population. Single tracking compromised the train schedule reliability. This issue does not affect the Preferred Alternative because of the additional Express Bus service along the I-25 corridor. • Single tracking also precludes the ability to expand service with more frequent train service. • Reduced rail service to downtown Fort Collins, necessitated because of single tracking, did not satisfy the transit travel demand generated by the area. • Single tracking does not respond to the projected transit demand from the Fort Collins area for the I-25 and US 287 corridors. The level of service that could be provided would result in unmet transit demand along these two corridors. • In conclusion, a rail service scenario with only single tracking and no transit service along 1-25 would not meet the project Purpose and Need. The element of purpose and need related to mode choice and meeting projected demand for transit service along both the 1-25 and the US 287 corridors is not met. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Grade Crossings The track design includes grade crossing treatments, as described below. Table 6-5 summarizes the grade crossing improvements included in Package A. The table uses the following terms: • Passive: A crossing with signs and pavement markings as traffic control devices that are not activated by trains. • Gates: A crossing that consists of lights, bells, and moveable barriers on the highway approaches that are activated by trains. • Four quadrant gates with medians: A crossing that includes all elements of the gated crossing plus a raised center divider to further discourage vehicles from entering the crossing. • Grade separation: A crossing that includes constructing a rail overpass or overpass for cars, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians, eliminating the need to cross at-grade. Special consideration has been given to downtown Longmont, where the existing BNSF alignment runs in the median of Atwood Street between 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue. In this area, minor roadway improvements would be made to enable the installation of the second track, and the grade crossings would be upgraded as shown in the grade crossing table. The existing BNSF tracks run in a dense urban / campus area between Harmony Road and University Avenue in Fort Collins. Similar minor roadway and grade crossing • improvements would be made in this area. Between Maple Street and University Avenue, the single BNSF track would be in Mason Street. This area would be maintained as a single track with grade crossing improvements as part of the project. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. III Table 6-5 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments LOCATION EXISTING PACKAGE A BNSF—Maple Street- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Laporte Avenue-Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Mountain Avenue- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Oak Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Olive Street-Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Magnolia Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Mulberry Street-Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF-Myrtle Street-Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Laurel Street- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Old Main/Plum Street-Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—University Avenue- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Pitkin Street- Fort Collins Gates Gates BNSF— Lake Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Prospect Road- Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Drake Road- Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF-Swallow Road- Fort Collins Gates Gates BNSF—Horsetooth Road- Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Harmony Road - Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Trilby Road—SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates ill BNSF—West 57th St. -SE Larimer Co. Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—West 37th Street-Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-West 29th Street-Loveland Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Garfield Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-US 34-Loveland Grade separation Grade Separation BNSF- 10th Street-Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-7th Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-6th Street-Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-4th Street-Loveland Gates Gates BNSF— 1st Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-South Railroad Avenue—SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates BNSF- 14th Street SW-SE Larimer Co. Gates with barrier curbs 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF-28th Street SW/LCR 16-SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates BNSF—42nd Street SW-SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates BNSF—US 287-SE Larimer Co. Grade separation Grade separation BNSF—Berthoud Road/LCR 10E- Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Water Ave/LCR 10- Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Bunyan Avenue-Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Mountain Avenue/SH 56-Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Welch Avenue—Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—LCR 15a—NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF—LCR 15a—NE Boulder Co. Gates Gates • BNSF—LCR 2E—NE Boulder Co. Gates Gates Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 6-5 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments (cont'd) LOCATION EXISTING PACKAGE A BNSF—North County Line Rd.—NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF- North 115th St. —NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF—Vermillion Road—NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF—Ute Highway/SH 66- Longmont Gates Gates BNSF—21st Avenue- Longmont Gates Gates BNSF— 17th Avenue- Longmont Gates with barrier curbs 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Mountain View Ave. - Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—9th Avenue-Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—Longs Peak Avenue- Longmont Gates Gates BNSF—6th Avenue-Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—5th Avenue-Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—4th Avenue- Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—3rd Avenue- Longmont Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF-Emery Street-Longmont Passive Gates BNSF- Main Street-Longmont Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Coffman Street- Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—Terry Street-Longmont Passive Gates BNSF-Martin Street-Longmont Passive Gates • GWR—Sugar Mill Road- Longmont Passive Gates GWR—Sugar Mill Road- Longmont Passive Gates SH 119- Longmont N/A Grade separation East County Line Road—SW Weld Co. N/A 4-quadrant gates with medians SH 119-SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Fairview Street/Sandstone Dr. —SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 3—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 5—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Harbor Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Shoreline Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 20.5—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 20—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive-SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 18—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Lower Boulder Ditch Road-SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 16—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Wyndham Hill Parkway—SW Weld Co. N/A Grade separation SH 52-SW Weld Co. N/A Grade separation WCR 12-SW Weld Co. N/A Gates III WCR 7—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates UPRR-WCR 10—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 6-5 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments (cont'd) LOCATION EXISTING PACKAGE A UPRR- 1-25-SW Weld Co. Grade separation Grade separation UPRR- 1-25 East Frontage Rd—SW Weld Co. Grade separation Grade separation UPRR-Summit Blvd. /WCR 8—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR-York Street/WCR 11 —SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR-WCR 6—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR- East 168th Avenue—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates N/A=Not Applicable 6.2.3.1 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Once the commuter rail alignment was determined, a station site selection process was set in motion. Seventeen potential station locations were identified and evaluated using a set of screening criteria that screened if the potential station location met the following criteria: • Serves a population center • Provides east/west access across the regional study area • Supported by existing transit infrastructure • Has committee and stakeholder support A transit working group that consisted of the general public and municipality representatives • met three times throughout the station design process. At the first transit working group meeting the potential station locations were presented to this group. Stations were added and screened out per their input. As a result of the station site selection process seventeen potential station locations were screened down to nine new stations. After determining the general vicinity of station locations, a more detailed evaluation was conducted for each station location. The primary criteria were: minimal neighborhood and environmental impacts, connectivity, opportunity for joint development, and compatibility with adjacent land use. A more detailed description of the station sites considered and the screening process is included in Section 5.2.2 of this document. As a result, a preferred site(s) was identified at each station to include the platform, park-and-ride and bus activity. Table 6-6 lists the stations included in Package A along the commuter rail alignment. The connection at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont would allow patrons to transfer to FasTracks proposed Northwest Rail Corridor. Patrons remaining on the train would continue southeast, eventually traveling along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor into downtown Denver. While the Package A commuter rail would serve all of the planned North Metro Corridor stations, it does not include any additional improvements at these stations. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Table 6-6 Package A Commuter Rail Stations Station Name Location Parking Spaces Fort Collins Downtown Transit BNSF and Maple Street 100 Center Colorado State University (CSU) On Mason Street between University none Avenue and West Pitkin Street South Fort Collins Transit Center* Mason Street and West Fairway Lane 110 North Loveland BNSF and 29th Street 140 Downtown Loveland BNSF and approximately 6th Street 40 Berthoud BNSF and SH 56 70 North Longmont BNSF and SH 66 30 Longmont at Sugar Mill North of alignment, south of Rogers 150 Road 1-25 and WCR 8 NW corner of 1-25 and CR 8 210 FasTracks North Metro Corridor All planned FasTracks North Metro No new spaces proposed Corridor stations as part of this project *The Mason BRT Corridor was not funded at the time of the Draft EIS Package A design development: therefore, the South Transit Center was designed for commuter rail and did not accommodate the proposed Mason BRT. After release of the Draft EIS, the Mason project was funded so this station was redesigned to function for both Mason • BRT and N 1-25 commuter rail. The typical station layout proposed two side-loaded platforms within the double-tracked alignment, with vertical circulation for pedestrian access across the tracks connecting the platform to the park- and-ride and surrounding community as shown in Figure 6-19 and Figure 6-20. Figure 6-19 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Design . • imionismir : Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E15 information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 6-20 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Cross Section II 19' 8" 5' 4" � ��< 25' 5' 4" 19' 8" PLATFORM n � � PLATFORM )1 -F _ i I r -Jig 1. . ._ _ f r: . a 8' 8' TRACKS TRACKS 50' I 50' PARK-AND-RIDE III 6.2.3.2 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY The layout of the commuter rail maintenance facility would require a minimum of 30 acres, including facilities for vehicle maintenance, cleaning , fueling and storage; track maintenance; parts storage; and vehicle operator facilities . The commuter rail maintenance facility would accommodate an estimated 90 employees. The potential locations are: • Vine Drive and Timberline Road in Fort Collins • LCR 10 and LCR 15 in Berthoud The site identified in Fort Collins is 76. 1 acres, while the site identified in Berthoud is 61 .6 acres. Either could accommodate the necessary uses. They are being evaluated as part of Package A to determine the most favorable location based on impacts to environmental resources, community impacts, and costs. The commuter rail service defined in Package A will serve as an extension of planned RTD services. The RTD commuter rail maintenance facility design process has not proceeded far enough to evaluate the feasibility of using that facility to maintain the additional vehicles required for Package A commuter rail service. In addition , it is probable that an overnight layover facility within the North 1-25 regional study area will be required even if trains are maintained within the RTD area . Hence, it has been assumed that a maintenance facility will be required as part of the North 1-25 process to ensure the independent utility of Package A. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-28 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 6.2.4 Package A Commuter Bus Package A includes a commuter bus service along US 85 WHAT IS connecting Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA. This COMMUTER BUS? service would operate every 30 minutes in AM and PM peak hours and every hour during off-peak periods. Commuter bus service is Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at regional transit service with some signalized intersections, would be included to help limited stops in order to achieve reliable speeds for bus services. operate faster than other bus services. This type of transit Queue jumps typically require modifying an intersection service usually operates on to provide a short lane for the bus between the right-turn roads designated as arterials lane and the through lanes. Signal equipment also would or higher and has park-and- be upgraded to sense the presence of a bus and provide ride facilities located at its a short signal phase where the bus is able to travel stops. through the intersection first, bypassing the queued traffic. Intersection control, traffic volumes, speed limits, road configuration, and community plans were taken into consideration when recommending locations for queue jumps Additional information on queue jump location screening is available in Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). The following queue jump or transit signal enhancement locations are included in Package A along the US 85 corridor: • • 31st Street— • CR 34— • 136th Avenue — Evans Platteville Brighton • 37th Street— • Grand Avenue (CR 32)— • 124th Avenue — Evans Platteville Brighton • 42nd Street— • SH 66- • 120th Avenue— Evans Platteville Commerce City • 1st Avenue— • 168th Avenue — • 112th Avenue— LaSalle Brighton Commerce City • CR 42— • Bromley Lane— • 104th Avenue — Gilcrest/Weld County Brighton Commerce City • Elm Street— • 144th Avenue— Gilcrest Brighton While specific fares have not been identified, a review of commuter bus systems nationwide indicates that a typical fare would be about $0.12 per mile (2009 dollars). Based on this rate, it would cost a rider traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver approximately $6.60 one-way. A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter bus service. However, • in the southern Front Range a similar commuter style service is operated by the City of Colorado Springs in partnership with CDOT and the other communities served. This would indicate that one of the local transit providers in the area (Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins) Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • could operate this service. CDOT also has authority to operate regional transit services. In either scenario, funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three-year demonstration project. 6.2.4.1 PACKAGE A COMMUTER Bus STATIONS AND STOPS Station design for commuter bus assumed that the passenger would access the bus from the proposed park-and-ride or an on-street bus stop with no formal platform. The station site selection process was similar to those applied to the commuter rail stations. Thirteen potential station locations were screened down to five new stations and connections to four existing RTD stations: Brighton, Commerce City, downtown Denver and DIA. No improvements are proposed at the RTD stations as part of this EIS. A range of two to thirteen sites were evaluated for each station location. As a result of the station site evaluation, one preferred site was identified at each location to house the park- and-ride and bus activity. A more detailed description of the station sites considered and the screening process is included in Section 5.2.2. Table 6-7 lists the station sites and stops for the commuter bus service. Table 6-7 Package A Commuter Bus Stations and Stops • Station/Stop Name Description Parking Spaces Greeley US 85 and D Street 40 South Greeley 8th Avenue and 24th Street 80 Evans US 85 and 42nd Street 70 Platteville US 85 and Grand Avenue 60 Fort Lupton US 85 and 14th Street(CR 14.5) 110 Brighton US 85 and SH 7 Existing RTD park-n-Ride Commerce City Colorado Blvd and 72nd Ave. Proposed RTD park-n-Ride Denver Downtown Denver 0 DIA Denver International Airport 0 During the AM peak hours, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the North 1-25 express lanes and go into downtown using 19th Street, turning southwest on Arapahoe and providing stops at 17th and 15th Streets. From there, buses would turn right on 15th Street, left at Little Raven Street, and proceed to Elitch Gardens to layover before making the return trip. Downtown circulation is shown in Figure 6-21. This downtown route is similar to the route of the current Front Range Express (FREX) bus from Colorado Springs to Denver. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed northbound, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the 20th Street interchange, take 20th Street to Arapahoe, and follow the remainder of the route described above. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.30 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6-21 Commuter Bus (and Express Bus) Downtown Denver Circulation f it1871 / p ti\ / Q4 •. ♦ I r ♦ ii I 54 ?l,c5 \ /S •• , /' 1 r-7/ Coors *41' Field A / • 4/7(w. /1 �Oo. f,f di \ e •:' 7 413 ��./, • " . Union di, , :;ff' Station r%� (Amtrak) 7J f t . *p• r a Flitch n: d.- • ,44 64. t 's 04r / e it 11/4 ' 4 eft Gardens ;: ` Jed if: si `� l Pepsi • -�� 'b{� r gyp .H4 >let ..' Center AURARIA CAMPUS of J \ 7N / `s North During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right out of Elitch Gardens onto 15th Street, turning right again to access 14th Street and eventually turning left on Lawrence Street, picking up passengers at 15th and 17th Streets, and proceed to the 1-25 HOV entrance ramp on 20th Street. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed southbound , northbound buses would access 1-25 via 0 the 20th Street interchange. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Planned improvements at Denver Union Station may allow these buses to access and egress the HOV lanes from 18th and 19th Streets and serve Denver Union Station via Wewatta Street. In addition, provided there is enough space, the commuter bus service may also be able to layover at Denver Union Station before making the return trip instead of traveling the extra distance to Elitch Gardens. These possible connections could be further evaluated as planning for Denver Union Station moves forward. 6.2.5 Package A Feeder Bus Four feeder bus routes are proposed to enable riders to WHAT IS FEEDER BUS? access the commuter rail and commuter bus services in Package A. These services would travel: Feeder bus service cAlong SH 257, connecting Windsor and Timnath to the throughonnectsut tthe communities • commuter rail and the commuter bus. major transit ans the m ntto a major investment • Along US 34, connecting Greeley and Loveland to both such as passenger rail or services. bus rapid transit. It provides an alternative to driving • Along SH 60/SH 56, connecting Milliken, Johnstown, alone and improves and Berthoud to the commuter rail. accessibility to transit- • Along WCR 13/WCR 8, connecting the tri-towns dependent passengers. (Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono) and Erie to the commuter rail. These feeder bus services would operate every 30 minutes during AM and PM peak periods • and every 60 minutes during off-peak periods. They have been designed to coincide with commuter rail and commuter bus schedules. A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the feeder bus service. Funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three-year demonstration project. 6.2.6 Package A Bus Maintenance Facility In Package A, two sites were evaluated for the bus maintenance facility: Portner Road and Trilby Road in Fort Collins, and 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley. The site in Fort Collins is 7.8 acres, while the site in Greeley is 4.6 acres. Both sites meet the size requirements for the layout of the facility. The two sites were evaluated to determine the more favorable site based on impacts to environmental resources, community impacts, and costs. The commuter bus maintenance facility would accommodate an estimated 85 employees, including staff for the maintenance and operation of buses for both the commuter bus and the feeder bus routes. 6.2.7 Package A Congestion Management Many potential congestion management measures were considered as enhancements to the packages. Detailed documentation of the Congestion Management Alternative development • and screening process is provided in Section 5.1.3 of this report. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 6-8 summarizes congestion management measures that were identified for Package A. Table 6-8 Package A-Congestion Management Measures Congestion Description of Application Management Strategy Local Transit Service Existing local routes would connect to rail service at the Downtown and South Transit centers in Fort Collins; at US 34 in Loveland; and at Sugar Mill in Longmont. Package A local routes would connect to commuter bus service at 8th Street and D, Greeley South, the Brighton park-n-Ride, and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor rail stations. Carpool Carpool/Vanpool lots would replace and be in addition to the existing carpool/vanpool and lots. They would be paved, have lighting, and have security cameras. These lots would Vanpool be provided along 1-25 at: Location Spaces Location Spaces • SH 1 80 • SH 60 80 • SH 14 150 • SH 56 30 • Prospect Rd. 130 • SH 66 70 • Harmony Rd. 300 • SH 119 90 • SH 392 90 • SH 52 80 • SH 402 340 • SH 7 180 Incident Courtesy patrols-Tow trucks with fuel, coolant, air, etc.would drive up and down 1-25 • Management from SH 14 to SH 7 during peak period travel times(6:15 AM to 8:45 AM and 3:15 PM Program to 6:45 PM). These vehicles would pick up debris, help stalled motorists, and assist with other incidents as needed. Signal Coordination Timing at signals at interchanges along 1-25 would be optimized as part of the and Prioritization interchange design process. Queue jumps, including signal treatments, would be incorporated into the commuter bus design along US 85. Ramp Metering Based on a CDOT Region 6 precedent and policy along the Transportation Expansion (T-REX)corridor, ramp meters would be installed along the freeway in order to prevent trip detouring. At such time when volumes dictate ramp metering along 1-25, ramp meters would be recommended at the following interchanges: • SH 14 • SH 402 • Prospect Rd. • SH 119 • Harmony Rd. • SH 52 • SH 392 • WCR 8 • Crossroads Blvd. • SH 7 • US 34 Real-Time The CDOT Region 4 intelligent transportation plan would be implemented in its entirety Transportation with additional variable message signs northbound and southbound north of SH 14. Information Bicycle/Pedestrian Station areas would be designed to provide pedestrian links to the nearest local road. Facilities A 12-ft. wide multi-use path and 6-ft tree lawn would provide connectivity between the bus drop-off, park-and-ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with • Disabilities Act(ADA). Travel Demand During construction, proactive measures could be taken by the contractor to encourage Measures use of alternative modes. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 6.2.8 Other Package A Features Package A also includes retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage features. Retaining Walls Retaining walls would be used along highway general purpose lanes and commuter rail lines to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and existing commercial buildings or other developments. Water Quality To conform to CDOT's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, roadway runoff would need to be treated within urbanized areas. Using land use projections from the NFRMPO, urban areas were determined and potential treatment locations have been identified in Package A. These would be located along highways and at transit stations, maintenance facilities, and parking lots. Suggested locations for the water quality features are included in the Package A concept plans. Various methods for treating stormwater runoff, such as ponds, vaults, and infiltration basins would be considered during final design. Floodplains and Drainage Features Almost all of the existing drainage structures are undersized; they cannot pass the 100-year storm flows under the rail routes, 1-25, or US 85. Final design would include a detailed • hydraulic analysis for each crossing. This would include addressing allowable backwater and methods for mitigating impacts to the environment. Additional items that would be considered include costs for construction, maintenance, and operations. Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain regulations and CDOT drainage criteria would be followed. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 6.3 PACKAGE B Figure 6-22 illustrates Package B. As shown, Package B includes tolled express lanes (TEL), interchange upgrades, bus rapid transit (BRT), feeder bus service, and congestion management measures. Each of these features is described in more detail below. The Package Concept Plans (FHU and Jacobs, 2011 b) illustrate the layout of Package B in more detail. 6.3.1 Package B New Tolled Express Lanes Package B consists of adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction along the entire WHAT ARE corridor except between Harmony Road and SH 60 TOLLED EXPRESS where two barrier-separated lanes would be added in LANES? each direction. Lane configuration is depicted in Figure 6-23 through Figure 6-28. Design criteria were Lanes separated from general established by CDOT for the highway improvements. purpose lanes by a striped Design guidelines recommend avoiding use of median buffer or a raised median barrier where practical. Consistent with the existing wide barrier. Lanes whose demand median and rural setting, the design criteria for the is managed to maintain proposed highway improvements includes a grass reliable, fast operation even median for 1-25 north of SH 66. The buffer-separated during peak periods. The lanes section would consist of a painted 4-foot strip separating are managed by allowing use • the tolled express lanes from the general purpose lanes. only by single-occupant The barrier-separated section would consist of a raised vehicle drivers willing to pay a concrete barrier separating the tolled express lanes toll or by high-occupant from the general purpose lanes, which would be vehicles. These would be approximately 4 feet high and 2 feet wide. Where similar to the existing High possible, the grass median would be maintained north Occupancy Tolled (HOT) lanes of SH 66 with the exception of the BRT median stations. between 84th Avenue and The median would be used to accommodate median 20th Street in Denver. BRT stations from SH 7 north. South of SH 66, where the more densely urbanized areas abut 1-25, highway widening would occur toward the center using portions of the median. As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with an open median. Frontage roads along 1-25 would be rebuilt approximately where they exist today. At the interchanges, frontage roads would be relocated east or west away from the ramp terminals to address storage and safety concerns at the intersections. Along the 1-25 mainline, the frontage roads would be offset 40 feet, based on current design standards. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 6-22 Package B .l 5 SH1 LEGEND 85 Ni11� Correct geometric 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled ♦ Nokia nvis!s Express Lane (TEL) in Each deficiencies 4 and replace aging Direction X87 infrastructure • l• • 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Ault at 14 Express Lanes (TEL) in Each I Harmony Rd.and Direction Timberline - Fort Collins • + 4/2 South Fort Collins Transit Center. . • Co 1 f• US 34 and SH 257 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route us287andHarmonyRd.,Fort ,. • • •, Hammy Eaton \ (Uses TELs on 1-25) nth5 Serif a`l• West Greeley - US 34 and 1-25 and =' ' Y - 83rd Ave., Greeley c�� Lircr.rn� Feeder Bus Service ® ♦ J Greeley Downtown Transfer .287 Center - 8th Ave. and o Interchange Upgrades CIOSSMIMk Blvd r. 4/4 8thSt., Greeley Lovel nd /4 8th 0 Number of Lanes: General -16 .34 * Greeley I'\ Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes Crossroads Blvd Loveland a:4` , Garden City CrOssroadtavd„itlld,US 3 _ 57 Evans Bus Rapid Transit Station so C Cam •w Mat© La Salle FasTracks Rail Line 1 *_ mina.. — 5e . Q FasTracks / RTD Transit Station iMrtkend G LARIMER w /2 • Potential Commuter Bus —1 `-F Operational & Maintenance r-36 CR34 Facility 7 t Ma .latt.will • 66 !Firestone 125 . ,4ongmont II ,`36 I 85 `'j u L is c 1'i ' Firestone 119 87' rick hot 521 S . 52 •„ iDacono -t-25 1.,, and SH 52 r. Erie 6/2 ;6 # : oulder \ Er • LS yell• i r m t 4r I. • Right-of-Way Preservation ai BreewlleM' e OOMjI , nters ` Ce IP C ee Northwest --, l t :710e Rail Corridor North 72 Metro E47' Denver o/2 IrRornatlenal Corridor Aienti ,2,; ± � .II• I � I 1..1 ./ JEFFER I��i�, ,A,-r L J L . _ S Deny: 70 >- N Union :ration `40' / 6 i Den er • iv: 225 7NIII 0 2 4 6 8 10 l� �\ its_ _. Mu r. North Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Figure 6-23 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 14 152' �< 24' 12' 56' Median 12' 24' 12' Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr, Lanes Lanes Figure 6-24 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 14 to Harmony Rd. 184' E 12' 24' > 12' 12' 56' Median 12' 12' 24' 12' � Shldr 2 Travel TEL Shldr, '`Shldr,r ` ' ` , TEL 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes with with Lanes BRT BRT 4, Buffer i Buffer ' Rl Figure 6-25 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - Harmony Rd. to SH 60 252' > '12' 24' 12' 12' 24' 12' 56' Median > 2' 24' 12' 12' 24' 12' -ghldr 2 Travel Shldr Shldr, 2 TEL Shtdr Shldr. 2 TEL Shldr, Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes 2'} <-- with BRT With B 2' Lanes —3 E rs 2 4, • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 6-26 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 60 to SH 66 184' 12' 24' 12' 12' 56' Median 12' 12' 24' 12' YNIC Shldr 2 Travel TEL Shldr Shldr TEL 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes with with Lanes 4' BRT ` BRT 4' B ff ��/ Buffer Figure 6-27 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 66 to SH 7 184' 12 36' 12' 12' 32 Median 12 12' 36' 12' < >— >e > < >< >< > < >< Shldr. 3 Travel TEL Shldr. Shldr. TEL 3 Travel Shldr. Lanes with with Lanes BRT BRT 4, 4, Buff �— Buffer Figure 6-28 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 7 to US 36 178' 17 12' 36' 12' 12' 12' 17 36' 12' 17 .[ 314 ] <- > t 3t 3• 4 > E--> C > C > 4 > Shldr. Aux. 3 Travel Lanes TEL Shldr Shldr TEL 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr. Lane with with Lane 4' BRT 2' BRT 4' Buffer Buffer J ic 1- e da Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The tolled express lanes would require a transponder for all vehicles. The transponder would be automatically scanned as the vehicle travels in the lane; for single-occupant vehicles the transponders would collect a toll via the credit card on file for that transponder. Transponders registered to HOVs would not be assessed a toll. In some cases video tolling may be applied. Regardless, there would be no toll booths and no cash would be accepted with this video or transponder-required system. The pricing used for evaluation of the system in 2035 is shown in Table 6-9. These tolls would vary by time of day, and will be modified to manage congestion in tolled express lanes and ensure that these lanes would be less congested than the general purpose lanes. Table 6-9 Initial Tolled Express Lane Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle Toll Rates (2009 dollars) Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour on I-25 Southbound Northbound North of E-470 $0.13/mi $0.10/mi South of E-470 $0.75/mi $0.75/mi Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, October 2010. Based on this pricing, it would cost an AM peak-hour traveler $5.33 to use the tolled express lanes from SH 14 to E-470. • Access to the tolled express lanes would be provided via slip ramps connecting the general purpose lanes to the tolled express lanes. Figure 6-29 illustrates the slip-ramp access and egress locations included in Package B. Figure 6-31 illustrates the design of the slip ramps in more detail. A 12-foot inside shoulder is included in the design of the tolled express lanes to enable safe and efficient enforcement along the entire corridor. Avoidance and Minimization In Package B, minor shifts in 1-25, interchange ramps, and frontage road horizontal alignments were included in the conceptual design that would minimize impacts to wetlands at WCR 34, SH 56, LCR 16, SH 392, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and SH 14. 1-25 horizontal alignment modifications also were included at SH 402 and SH 56 that would improve safety. Minor modifications to the 1-25 vertical alignment were included to improve safety at SH 56, SH 402, and LCR 16 and to avoid impacts to a historic ditch north of US 34. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII Figure 6-29 Tolled Express Lanes Access and Egress Locations MATCHLINE MATCHLINE 0 9402 CR8 /I 1 \ > LEGEND Egress • t Access IP a TEL Lanes inomm General Purpose LanesH JN1� r� / on'sCor F�}�(� Access/Egress Egress 0 t Access Mountain Vista. CR 50 I -47 ›.- H-66)H ' Access y it Egress Access V J Egress Egress • t Access 144th Ave I > < > 14 56 ) Access y , Egress 136th Ave Prospect Rd < r///) I 'J CR 34Ill < > Egress Access t 7 Egress g Access 120th Ave. Egress . R Access `\f 1///) Harmony Rd I / Access % r Egress 66 > Egress 0 t Access > lO4thAve Access y • Egress `\\\+ / (39 ) 19e > ) I >1 Thomton Pkwy. Access y I Egress Crossroadsgl > Egress y Access Access y A Egress < 84th Ave. Egress • t Access > I I (52 I ) Access y Access 5A Egress Access ,i Egress 36 > LI MATCHNE VN MATCHLINE Q North NOT TO SCALE 0 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information cooperation transportation. Figure 6-30 Slip-Ramp Design Concept TOLLED EXPRESS LANE ACCESS CONCEPT TOLLED EXPRESS LANE 4 -0, -+ ACCEL INTO TEL -, ♦ -0 -0- GENERAL PURPOSE LANES -Pk ishissismismassaisivisii, , __ Ill TOLLED EXPRESS LANE EGRESS CONCEPT TOLLED EXPRESS LANE --Ilk -4 DECEL FROM TEL INTO GP '-lik: . , - . -- - - GENERALPURPOSELANES ►: ...fr. Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 12-06 Ill Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 6.3.2 Package B Interchanges Preliminary travel demand forecasts indicate that Packages A and B would have similar travel demand in 2035 north of E-470. Therefore, while the design details would be somewhat different to accommodate mainline 1-25, the interchange configurations north of E-470 would be similar between the two packages. Table 6-10 lists the interchange improvements included in Package B. Unlike Package A, Package B includes a new structure at Harmony Road and upgrades south of E-470. The differences in interchange design between the two packages are described below. • Harmony Road. Unlike Package A, the wider cross section of Package B (and the Preferred Alternative) improvements on 1-25 would require replacement of this relatively new structure. A more detailed description of the interchange configurations considered and the screening process is included in Section 5.2.1 of this report. Additional information about the traffic operations evaluation of each interchange is included in the Transportation Analysis Technical Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2008; 2011c), available on request at CDOT Region 4 in Greeley. Table 6-10 Package B Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action Existing Interchange No-Action Package B Location Configuration Improvement SH 1 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Mountain Vista substandard diamond reconstructed diamond • SH 14 substandard partial cloverleaf reconstructed diamond Prospect Road substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Harmony Road standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 392 reconstructed tight diamond no improvement Crossroads Boulevard substandard diamond reconstructed diamond US 34 substandard partial cloverleaf dual directional/diamond SH 402 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond WCR 16 substandard off ramps reconstructed diamond SH 60 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 56 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond WCR 34 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 66 standard diamond no improvement SH 119 standard diamond bridge widening SH 52 standard diamond bridge widening WCR 8 standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 7 standard diamond reconstructed diamond E-470 fully directional no improvement 144th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 136th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 120th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 104th Avenue standard diamond no improvement Thornton Parkway standard diamond no improvement 84th Avenue standard diamond no improvement • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-42 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 6.3.3 Package B Bus Rapid Transit WHAT IS BRT services would operate from Fort Collins and BUS RAPID TRANSIT? Greeley to downtown Denver, utilizing the express lanes along 1-25. The service from Fort Collins would A transit service that combines begin at the South Transit Center and operate along features of a passenger rail Harmony Road in mixed traffic until accessing 1-25 at system with the flexibility of a its interchange with Harmony Road. In addition, BRT bus system. It can travel in an service would operate from Fort Collins to DIA, using exclusive lane along an arterial Harmony Road in shared general purpose lanes to street, or a managed lane, such access 1-25. During the peak period, there would be as the tolled express lanes. three buses per hour, with two going to downtown Denver and one going to DIA. During off-peak hours, buses would depart every 30 minutes with, one going to downtown Denver and one going to DIA. Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street and 8th Avenue Transit Center in downtown Greeley and serve stops along US 34 in mixed traffic. It would access 1-25 at US 34 and access the tolled express lanes via a slip ramp south of US 34. It then would serve the same stations along 1-25 as the service from Fort Collins to downtown Denver. During peak hours, buses would depart every 20 minutes from Greeley to downtown Denver; during off-peak hours, buses would depart every 30 minutes. Stations along 1-25 would be located in the median. This configuration was chosen to make • this BRT service as competitive as possible with commuter rail service. Stops on interchange ramps could instead be considered, which would reduce capital costs. "Queue jumps" (intersection and signal treatments that allow buses to bypass queues) were considered along US 34 and Harmony Road in Package B. Intersection control, traffic volumes, speed limits, road configuration, and community plans for those roads were taken into consideration when recommending locations for queue jumps. No queue jumps were included along Harmony Road because the City of Fort Collins has designated it as an enhanced travel corridor that would include undefined transit amenities. The following US 34 queue jump locations are included in Package B: • 26th Avenue • 39th Avenue • 59th Avenue • 28th Avenue • Country Club Access • 71st Avenue • 35th Avenue • 43rd Avenue • Promontory Parkway • 37th Avenue • 47th Avenue • Promontory Circle Circulation in downtown Denver would be similar to the commuter bus route shown in Figure 6-21 and described below. During AM peak hours, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the North 1-25 express lanes and go into downtown using 19th Street, turning southwest on Arapahoe and providing stops at 17th and 15th Streets. From there, buses would turn right on 15th Street, left at Little Raven and proceed to Elitch Gardens to layover before making the return trip. This downtown route is similar to the route of the current Front Range Express (FREX) bus from Colorado Springs to Denver. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed northbound, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the 20th Street interchange, take 20th Street to Arapahoe, and follow the remainder of the route described above. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right out of Elitch Gardens onto 15th Street, turning right again to access 14th Street and eventually turning left on Lawrence Street, picking up passengers at 15th and 17th Streets, and proceeding to the 1-25 HOV entrance ramp on 20th Street. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed southbound, northbound buses would access 1-25 via the 20th Street interchange. Planned improvements at Denver Union Station might allow these buses to access and egress the HOV lanes from 18th and 19th Streets and serve Denver Union Station via Wewatta Street. In addition, provided there is enough space, the commuter bus service also might be able to layover at Denver Union Station before making the return trip instead of traveling the extra distance to Elitch Gardens. These possible connections could be further evaluated as planning for Denver Union Station moves forward. A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the bus rapid transit service. However, in the southern front range a similar commuter style service is operated by the City of Colorado Springs in partnership with the other communities served. This would indicate that one of the local transit providers in the area (Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins) could operate this service. CDOT also has authority to operate this regional transit service. In either scenario, funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a • three-year demonstration project. While fares have not yet been determined, it is estimated that a BRT fare may be 25 percent higher than a commuter bus fare. This would yield a rate of approximately $0.15 per mile (2009 dollars). Based on this rate, a BRT patron traveling from Fort Collins South Transit Center to downtown Denver would pay $8.70 one-way. A similar fare would be charged for a patron traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver. 6.3.4 Package B Bus Rapid Transit Stations BRT is proposed to travel on arterial roads and on 1-25. When BRT travels on arterial roads, it would function similar to commuter bus. The BRT would load and unload passengers in the park-and-ride or at an on-street bus stop. When BRT travels on 1-25, the BRT would stop at a platform located in the median of 1-25. A pedestrian overpass would be provided from the median platform over I-25to the proposed park-and-ride with the exception of SH 7 where the grade separated cross street would be utilized for pedestrian connectivity. The proposed overpass would only cross one side of 1-25 but would not preclude a municipality or private developer from continuing the connection to the other side of the highway. The station design at the South Transit Center in Fort Collins was developed before funding was committed for the South Transit Center; therefore does not incorporate the Mason Corridor South Transit Center. As detailed engineering occurs for the South Transit Center, the North 1-25 EIS will coordinate with the Mason Corridor to appropriately accommodate both projects. • Conceptual station layouts are shown in Figure 6-31 and Figure 6-32. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-44 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6-31 BRT Station Layout at Windsor (Northbound Lanes with Barrier Separation) Southbound Northbound CPse oc"`aa ^ ll BRT Loading/ BRT Loading/ Managed Lanes Northbound 0 N �o -s—Unloading 'y Unloading / With BRT / 1-25 / at Station at Station • t - 1%%tI$T%\'Ittt�111111111111111NI111111` �1111'hh11111: _ _ ___ . - 1 _rte \ ��`;� �s� /•%144 b N. t SI NN ..% is liiisit N. IllilFigure 6-32 Package B Typical BRT Station Cross Sections 196 17 r 17 17 • 17 17 9 1 if 20 it 1 9 , 17 17 17 17 17 SHOULDER TRAVEL • TRAVEL TOLLED SHOULDER BYPASS BUS PLATFORM BUS BYPASS SHOULDER TOLLED TRAVEL TRAVEL SHO.ADER LANE LANF EXPRESS LANE LOADING LOADIIC LANE EXPRESS LANE LANE LANE LANE t atm" WILIER .URN 4. .7 !:1 : ■iiuIM•MIIi■11ii■ ■iiil■■■11■■nIiii`II 11E Er -- :II _ r • a r:1= - - ::1 - - - - -, `:1.r •- - - --- SOUTHBOUND I-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NORTHBOUND I-25 PARK•AND RIDE WITH BUFFER-SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES 266 17 17 12 I7 17 ¶7 I7 12 9 u 20 N 9 17 17 17 11 - tl I2 17 17 - SHOULDER TRAVEL TRAVEL SHOULDER SHOULDER TOLLED TOLLED SHOULDER BYPASS BUS PLATFORM BUS ^BYPASS SHDIADER TOILED TOLLED S110/4.DER SHOULDER TRAVEL TRAVEL SHOULDER LANE LANE EXPRESS EXPRESS LANE LOADING LOADING LANE EXPRESS EXPRESS LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE sumo T -maw �- wa--.T1.—. 4 T : •unuu �iisuiunnu•iiiiiwiiiii�i 1 I I I I1- Il II_ -II i i1�� R- %1 ON $Qs H 1 fIll ----k.Li 1111 SOUTHBOUND 1-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NORTHBOUND I-25 PARK-AND-RIDE WITH BARRIER-SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Station site selection criteria were similar to those applied to Package A commuter rail and commuter bus stations. Twenty-four potential station locations were screened down to twelve new stations and connections to three existing RTD stations. A range of three to sixteen sites were evaluated for each station location with the exception of the Fort Collins South Transit Center where one site was evaluated because the City of Fort Collins has an approved plan that identifies a location for a transit center. The South Transit Center is proposed to serve as the end of line for the Mason Street BRT system. In order to maximize ridership and access for the community it is important that the North 1-25 commuter rail station connect to the proposed Mason Street BRT system. As a result of the station site evaluation, one to three preferred site(s) were identified at each station to house the platform, park-and-ride and bus activity. A more detailed description of the station sites considered and the screening process is included in Section 5.2.2 of this document. As a result of the screening process, the following station sites were selected, as shown in Table 2-8. While bus rapid transit would serve three sites in the RTD district, no improvements or additional parking spaces are proposed as part of this EIS. Table 6-11 Package B BRT Stations BRT Station/Stop Location South Fort Collins Transit Center* US 287 and Harmony Road- Fort Collins Harmony Road and Timberline Fort Collins 1-25 and Harmony Road Fort Collins Windsor 1-25 and SH 392 • Crossroads Boulevard Loveland Between Crossroads Boulevard and US 34 Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 8th Avenue and 8th Street-Greeley West Greeley US 34 and 83rd Avenue—Greeley US 34 and SH 257 US 34 and SH 257—Greeley Berthoud 1-25 and SH 56 Firestone 1-25 and SH 119 Frederick/Dacono 1-25 and SH 52 1-25 and SH 7 1-25 at SH 7 Wagon Road 1-25 at 120th Avenue Denver Downtown Denver DIA Denver International Airport *Station design will be coordinated with the recently funded Mason Corridor project. With the exception of the station at CSU, all of the stations assumed parking, walk, and bus access for multi-modal accessibility. The stations were sized to reflect multi-modal access and the probable parking turnover during the day. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 6.3.5 Package B Feeder Bus Package B includes four feeder bus routes that would enable riders to access BRT service from the communities located along US 85 and US 287. These services would travel: • Along SH 257, connecting Windsor and Timnath to the BRT • Along US 34, connecting Loveland to the BRT • Along SH 56, US 287, and SH 119, connecting Berthoud and Longmont to the BRT • Along SH 52, connecting Fort Lupton, the tri-town area, and Niwot to the BRT These feeder bus services would operate every 30 minutes during AM and PM peak periods and every 60 minutes during off-peak periods and would be scheduled to coincide with BRT service when possible. A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the feeder bus service. Funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three- year demonstration project. • 6.3.6 Package B Bus Maintenance Facility The two potential bus maintenance facility site locations being considered in Package A also are being considered in Package B. The BRT maintenance facility would accommodate an estimated 90 employees, including staff for the maintenance and operation of buses for both the BRT and the North 1-25 feeder bus routes. Approximately 200 daily trips would be generated to and from this facility, including visitor trips. An estimated 150 bus trips, including BRT and feeder bus trips, would occur to and from the site each day. Bus trips also would be spread throughout the day with little to no bus activity during peak hours, as nearly all buses would be in service during those times. 6.3.7 Package B Congestion Management As with Package A, congestion management measures were developed based on further analysis and coordination with agencies, as well as more specific information about traffic congestion and other conditions associated with Package B. The tolling in the tolled express lanes constitutes the primary method of congestion management with Package B. Table 6-12 summarizes congestion management measures that were identified for Package B in addition to tolling. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 6-12 Package B Congestion Management Measures Congestion Management Description of Application Strategy Local Transit Local routes would connect to BRT at the South Transit Center(Fort Collins), Harmony Service and Timberline (Fort Collins), the Harmony Transit Center, the Downtown Transfer Center(8th and 8th)in Greeley; Crossroads Boulevard (Jitterbug— Loveland); and SH 7 in Broomfield. Carpool and Carpool/vanpool lots would be in addition to and replace the existing carpool/vanpool lots. Vanpool The lots would be paved and have lighting and security cameras. These lots along 1-25 would be provided at: • SH 1 • SH 60 • SH 14 • SH 56 • Prospect Rd. • SH 66 • Harmony Rd. • SH 119 • SH 392 • SH 52 • SH 402 • SH 7 Incident Courtesy patrols—Tow trucks with fuel, coolant, air, etc. would drive up and down 1-25 Management from SH 14 to SH 7 during peak-period travel times (6:15 AM to 8:45 AM and 3:15 PM to Program 6:45 PM). These vehicles would pick up debris, help stalled motorists, and assist with other incidents as needed. • Signal Timing at signals at interchanges along 1-25 would be optimized as part of the Coordination interchange design process. Queue jumps, including signal treatments,would be and included as part of the BRT design along US 34. Prioritization Ramp Metering Based on a CDOT Region 6 precedent and policy along the T-REX corridor, ramp meters must be installed along continuous sections of a freeway in order to prevent trip detouring. At such time when volumes dictate ramp metering along 1-25, they would be recommended at the following interchanges: • SH 14 • SH 402 • Prospect Rd. • SH 119 • Harmony Rd. • SH 52 • SH 392 • WCR 8 • Crossroads Blvd. • SH 7 • US 34 Real-Time The CDOT Region 4 intelligent transportation plan would be implemented in its entirety Transportation with additional variable message signs northbound and southbound north of SH 14. Information Bicycle/ Station areas would be designed to provide pedestrian links to the nearest local road. A Pedestrian 12-ft. wide multi-use path and 6-ft wide tree lawn would provide connectivity between the Facilities bus drop-off, park-and-ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Travel Demand During construction, proactive measures could be taken by the contractor to encourage • Measures use of alternative modes. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-48 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 6.3.8 Package B Parking Parking in Package B would be provided for BRT patrons and for carpoolers. Table 6-13 summarized the number of parking spaces for each travel mode and the total number of spaces at each location that would be included as part of this build package. Table 6-13 Package B Parking Summary Parking Location BRT Station/Stops CarpoolNanpool Total Spaces Spaces Spaces SH 1 at 1-25 N/A 80 80 SH 14 at 1-25 N/A 170 170 Prospect at 1-25 N/A 140 140 South Fort Collins Transit Center 70 N/A 70 Harmony Road and Timberline 40 N/A 40 1-25 at Harmony 30 320 350 Windsor 40 100 140 Crossroads Boulevard 80 N/A 80 Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 0 N/A 0 West Greeley 100 N/A 100 • US 34 and SH 257 40 N/A 40 SH 402 at 1-25 N/A 360 360 Berthoud 160 80 240 SH 56 at 1-25 N/A 40 40 Firestone 350 100 450 Frederick/Dacono 210 80 290 1-25 and SH 7 280 180 460 Wagon Road 0 0 0 Downtown Denver 0 0 0 Denver International Airport 0 0 0 .N/A=Not Applicable 6.3.9 Other Package B Features Package B would also include retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage structures. Retaining Walls Retaining walls were used in the conceptual design along highway general purpose lanes to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and existing commercial buildings/ • developments. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-49 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation transportation • Water Quality To conform to CDOT's MS4 permit, roadway runoff would need to be treated within urbanized areas. Using land use projections from the NFRMPO, urban areas were determined and potential treatment locations have been identified within Package B. These would be located along highways and at transit stations, maintenance facilities, and parking lots. Suggested locations for the water quality features are included in the Package B concept plans. Various methods for treating stormwater runoff, such as ponds, vaults, and infiltration basins would be considered during final design. Floodplains and Drainage Almost all of the existing drainage structures are undersized and cannot pass the 100-year storm flows under 1-25. Final design would include a detailed hydraulic analysis for each crossing. This would include addressing allowable backwater and methods for mitigating impacts to the environment. 6.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative was developed based on the evaluation of Packages A and B , public input received during the Draft EIS and through a series of workshops held with the project's advisory committees. It is a combination of elements included and evaluated in Packages A and B. The Preferred Alternative is described below and illustrated in Figure 6-33. 6.4.1 Preferred Alternative I-25 Improvements The Preferred Alternative would widen 1-25 with general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes (lanes restricted to high-occupant vehicles and tolled single occupant vehicles). Substandard interchanges and frontage roads would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs. A total of 555 lane miles/61 linear miles of 1-25 would be reconstructed and/or widened . This section describes the 1-25 improvements. SH 1 to SH 14 North ofSH 14, up toSH 1 , 128' the Preferred Alternative ' would reconstruct 1-25 to 12' 24' 12' 32' Median 12' 24' 12' improve it to today's design Shldr, 2 Travel Shldr, Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr. standards. This reconstruction Lanes Lanes would correct the horizontal and vertical alignment, and i widen both the inside and �► outside shoulders. The ultimate cross section would utilize some of the existing grass median but retain 32 feet (similar to the existing section of 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 7). As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with a grass median . • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-50 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information cooperation transportation. SH 14 to SH 66 184' ,.The Preferred Alternative would add , � �12' 36' 12' 12' 32' Median 12' 12' 36' 12'T one additional Shldr, 3 Travel TEL Shldr, Shldr. TEL 3 Travel Shldr, general purpose lane Lanes B with Lanes 4' 4' and one buffer- Buffer —' Buffer separated tolled fr-4 ti. express lane in each rt h i , .-.- direction of 1-25 from L -- - - SH 14 to SH 66. The buffer-separated lanes would be separated from the general purpose lanes with a painted four- foot strip. This widening would require reconstruction of the entire cross section to correct the horizontal and vertical alignment, and widen both the inside and outside shoulders. The ultimate cross section would retain 32 feet of the existing grass median (similar to the existing section of 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 7). As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with a grass median. 1-25 vertical alignment modifications would be made at SH 402 and LCR 16 interchanges to improve safety. These modifications would result in SH 402 and LCR 16 traveling over the top of 1-25 rather than 1-25 being bridged over the cross street. At SH 56, this modification would result in 1-25 traveling over SH 56. SH 66 to SH 7 The Preferred Alternative would add one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction II of 1-25 from SH 66 to SH 7. The buffer-separated lanes would be separated from the existing general purpose lanes with a painted 4-foot strip. Because this section of 1-25 has recently been upgraded, the widening does not require reconstruction of the entire cross section. The widening would result in the same cross section shown between SH 14 and SH 66. The existing 32-foot grass median would be maintained . As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with a grass median . SH7toUS36 178 The Preferred Alternative - — - would add one buffer- 12' 17 36' 12' 12' 12' 17 36' 12' 17 separated tolled express lane ' ` ' P P Shldr, Aux. 3 Travel Lanes TEL Shldr Shldr TEL 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr, in each direction of 1-25 from Lane with with Lane SH 7 to US 36. The buffer- 4' EB 2' EB 4 separated lanes would be Buffer —'' Buffer . at ra f separated from the existing r, '• •i general purpose lanes with a painted four-foot strip. The new tolled express lanes would tie in to the existing reversible HOT lanes north of US 36. The widening does not require reconstruction of the entire cross section . However, all the widening would occur to the outside in this section because the existing cross section does not include a median . Similar to the existing cross section, northbound and southbound lanes would be separated with a concrete barrier. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-51 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 6-33 Preferred Alternative zs • LEGEND Reconstruct mainline Tolled Express Lanes ; Express Bus Transit Station warn., • to correct geometric General Purpose Lanes 0 Commuter Bus Transit Station Q deficiencies and replace aging m mmnnn Express Bus 0 Commuter Rail Transit Station N - 28 •" • infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 CR1 • Commuter Rail Il Commuter Rail Operational • 14 Ault & Maintenance Facility Passing Track Fort • CR2 6/2 in Commuter Bus Operational Coll $ i •°ter 85 Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance Facility Et,CR t•s eV O Interchange Reconstruction a FasTracks Rail Line •- ^•*" a.w..no. Eaton 257 Number of Lanes 0 FasTracks/ RTD Transit Station •t R9, °c•►^• General Purpose/ Tolled Express met. ~ t Lov : . nd ,• i• BN° EB7 `B1 y�- -, CR4 a E . •6/2 : i .t- . • EBBri1( 34 •-4.„ _•' 34 " - • Greele �� CR5 • CB TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS . • Garden City ,. ' �S, Evan � Commuter Rail Express Bus LARIMER ca • cR 50 CB3 Collins • CR1 Fort - hasten La SimileEB 1 South Fort Collins Transit •. 60 Transit Center • US 287 and Maple St Harmony Rd Lirli, se +EB9 wait.. CR2 CSU - B +s '•."7 EB2 Timberline - Harmony Rd. , • wad University Ave. and W • and Timberline o St CR3 South Fort Collins Transit EB i HarmonyHRdt Fort 125 and Center - US 287 and ,6/2 Harmony Rd. EP Windsor - 1-25 and SH392 • 36 ' •= R34 Wr ! fl F11 Crossroads - Loveland M• ►au.•w CR4 North Loveland • BNSF and ; 7 29th St. between Crossroads Blvd -- r - 66 • CB4 0 and US 34 CR7 CR5 Downtown Loveland - EE West Greeley US 34 and Longmont BNSF and approio 6th St. SH 257 CRS ?19 t EB 1 u CR6 Berthoud i Eh Greeley - US 34 and 83rd 36 86 , SH 56 Ave. i3 O U L D E R Firestone CR7 North Longmont • BNSF EB8 Greeley Downtown Transfer 119 Center - 8th Ave. and - rick and SH 66 8th St t E811 CB5 CR8 Longmont • Sugar Mill. E89 Berthoud - I-25 and SH 56 • © l 0 • South of Rogers Rd. ere CR9 Erie • 125 and CR B EB1 U Firestone - 1-25 and ` __ ►t°" SH 119 Erie 6/2 "•` ' o FasTracks Rail Slat r Downtown Denver • EB11 SHc 2Dacono 125 = oulder 1 C ` 76 and i1a • E612 Erie 1 25 and CR B ` is tt. F7 :13 � f . •- Commuter Bus EB13 &oomlield • I-25 and SH 7 93 i 36 'slantCR1 Greeley • US 85 O DIA - ,mil Right-of-Way 14414^ 1• • r CB2 South Greeley - 8th Ave. : NorlhweSt . — 24th SL • ' :it Corridor stan•rt' 41ROOMF, tir.ot"e.N- 4 .+ "t•" Preservation CB3 Evans - US 85 and 42nd St. - • -"Ave . coin ' CB4 Platteville - US 85 and Grand • A 4,Ave. _ wo - mn ;E41 CB5 Fort Lupton - US 85 and / • North Metro International CR14.5 6/2 . 2 Corridor A�rQrt Brighton US 85 and SH 7 `� • t in 62, '121`. Colorado Commerce City - 72nd and ler / - _ . --1 r JEFFERS et N •� �� 70 70_ Qo rte wn ✓e Q C, L North / 6 • r• v: 25 6 en er 225 Ill Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-52 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Frontage Roads Frontage roads along 1-25 would be rebuilt approximately where they exist today. At the interchanges, frontage roads would be relocated east or west away from the ramp terminals to address storage and safety concerns at the intersections. Along the 1-25 mainline, the frontage roads would be offset 40 feet, based on current design standards. This is similar to what was included in Packages A and B. Tolled Express Lane Operation The tolled express lanes would only allow high occupant vehicles and tolled single occupant vehicles. All vehicles traveling in the tolled express lanes would require a transponder unless newer technology becomes available when this is implemented. The transponder would be automatically scanned as the vehicle travels in the lane; for single-occupant vehicles the transponders would collect a toll via the credit card on file for that transponder. Transponders registered to HOVs would not be assessed a toll. There would be no toll booths and no cash would be accepted with this transponder-required system. These tolls would vary by time of day, and will be modified to manage congestion in tolled express lanes to ensure that these lanes are less congested than the general purpose lanes. Table 6-14 summarizes the anticipated toll rate by peak direction for traffic volumes anticipated in 2035. Access to the tolled express lanes would be provided via slip ramps connecting the general purpose lanes to the tolled express lanes. A 12-foot inside shoulder is included in the design of the tolled express lanes to enable safe and efficient enforcement along the entire corridor. Conceptual design of the access and egress to the tolled express lanes and a graphic illustrating where access • and egress locations would be provided is included in the description of Package B. The tolled express lanes would connect directly to the existing HOT lanes on 1-25 that end near 84th Avenue. The existing HOT facility is a two-lane, barrier-separated, reversible operation. Both lanes flow toward downtown Denver in the AM peak period and out of downtown (northbound) in the PM peak period. Unlike the existing HOT lanes, the tolled express lanes included in this alternative would be a single, buffer-separated lane in each direction. These lanes would not be reversible in the peak periods. A slip ramp to/from the general purpose lanes is provided for the off- peak direction tolled express lanes traffic to enter or exit the tolled express lanes. Table 6-14 Tolled Express Lanes Toll Rates, Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle (2009 dollars) Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour on I-25 Southbound Northbound North of E-470 $0.075/mi $0.10/mi South of E-470 $0.5/mi $0.75/mi Source: Wilbur Smith Associates,October 2010. Based on this pricing, it would cost an AM peak-hour traveler$8.65 (in 2009 dollars)to use the tolled express lanes from SH 14 to US 36. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.53 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Preferred Alternative Interchanges All substandard interchanges along the corridor would be reconstructed. No new interchange locations have been identified as part of this process. Table 6-15 lists the interchanges and their configuration included as part of the Preferred Alternative. While much effort was taken to develop interchange configurations consistent with each communities' transportation vision during the EIS process, over time the needs of the communities may change. When necessary, communities can work with CDOT and FHWA, at their own expense, to reevaluate alternative interchange configurations and intersection control options to meet their changing needs. Table 6-15 Preferred Alternative I-25 Interchange Configuration Existing I-25 Interchange Location Preferred Alternative Improvement SH 1 reconstructed diamond Mountain Vista reconstructed diamond SH 14 reconstructed diamond Prospect Road reconstructed diamond Harmony Road reconstructed diamond SH 392 ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements Crossroads Boulevard reconstructed diamond US 34 dual directional/diamond SH 402 reconstructed diamond • LCR 16 reconstructed diamond SH 60 reconstructed diamond SH 56 reconstructed diamond WCR 34 reconstructed diamond SH 66 ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements SH 119 ramp and cross-street modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements and express bus station SH 52 ramp and cross street modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements and express bus station WCR 8 no improvements SH 7 partial cloverleaf E-470 ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements 144th Avenue ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements 136th Avenue ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements 120th Avenue ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements 104th Avenue ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements Thornton Parkway ramp modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements 84th Avenue ramp modifications due to l-25 mainline improvements 13 interchanges to be fully reconstructed 11 interchanges to receive ramp and/or cross-street modifications due to I-25 mainline improvements and/or express bus stations 1 interchange requires no improvements(WCR 8) • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-54 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation Table 6-16 illustrates the Preferred Alternative interchange configurations and, where applicable, carpool lots, express bus stations, new structures and water quality ponds adjacent to 1-25. Additional information on carpool lots and express bus stations not located along 1-25 is included in subsequent sections. Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations SH 1 Interchange Mountain Vista Interchange Ill. -1 up "kw :IF i I/ r , y t --1 ,11) : - ittlY Alt j , • .-- isms rt: i • 4. e 4 ,:, i ti - � t\i" . yi i1 "414 IN . , , . ._, . s , SH 1 f Lego„d __ _ New Construrtran _ • �' - .' � New Structures till. i „ Fil!,I ; + Cesspool LoVExpress f _ %1Ift 'IiiiJNffI1 "4 -1 Legend Waterestnan Quatrry Ponds 0 Carpool Lot __ New Construction New Structures I f • t Carpool Lot/Express ,„is I Bus Station • a Express Bus Platform / — Pedestrian Bridge a Water Quality Ponds SH 14 Interchange ...v. Prospect Interchange � J w n4 iii i mural t, ' " ♦ r I _ �' \ , Remove Exlstmg .^/' .. �_� Carpool Lot 0s' .�,: Y . Frontage Road 1 �rM' r j-4;" il F •.a Road Ey�iL . ' rte, - ; ,�. '1r. le ..z. - - it . iii - °y`'i. .,;�, Itffffffffll� Now COn$trUGtiOn // •'r= Legend ` �,- S New Construction "� 'r l New Stnictures / j' C%?+, '. IS . . . t • Carpool Lot/Express • �✓ New Structures I' Bus Station ,.wif -3 Carpool Lot/Express A t f iy Express Bus Platform �` Bus Station frA.' , il. a tillit � Pedestrian Bndgo r , Express Bus Platform r. _ Water Q:ald; Pena≤. i , CIA: — Pedestrian Budge ______a: Water Quality Ponds 0 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-55 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation • Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) Harmony Road Interchange SH 392 Interchange .: t _ _ (No-Action Improvement) ;- 1 Igen:: a• i r a., ; ,; J Or w Construction ` P`, iri 31 • w Structures r T pool LoUEcpress i \ , y SWlan ,� .•.�,ess&.0 Platorm -estrian Bridge ` _ " � y r Water Quality ' "' • E &JTI. Ponds rj e i Ts r `,t r 1,-.14. di / t� ,, fir t Road Hat l es ,, _ ♦ . - ... r • o,-.. - 1 d " a i / e Fl f .b ,' { I itk - tag ---lt•, .# $ r Si , I . . . a. ii .... i , , i.„ cr ,__ ,1 ill t: i ili . •r V' t r 4 . ...04.... o ' •1 ch i,... 41ra 0 MI Legend .4 , aili r New Construction ii4, ' N wo wo New Structures Windsor • ttttt� Carpool Lot/Express 'i • Express Bus Station Bus Station and Carpool Lot Express Bus Platform 's — Pedestrian Bridge S Ill -r •ilb Water Quality Ponds , 101 ill Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-56 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) Crossroads Interchange US 34 Interchange T --: _ it._ . .. 1 -_III A i A--... 1 L . . ; * ior 4 i 1 , 04 4 / �' �. 40 * , _..., ..i:., t: CS -.._,..,... .... k a �, to t ?ei ,i -T \.. .. .._• . _ _h..; ._ 4 11 a. A i 11 Ji "e," Ulii-i: ... , -.6...........- , / 1 i til. T 1` - __ ,Crossroads Bl�rd: i i • - rvoteir#41 i it Lysol . _ lR‘ l‘k' t i :-:- :1".. : r 1 - 418 ' New COl9Vurbor afiiii. . . Im pa Skucturps ;;fi 1 . Ai rot N, : . T Pr 'I EEitnr Pupas 3, Y,47 III i , `"ffI Smelt S a te r 1 a - ligillt hpil III 4 SH 402 L 0 Interchange Legend Crossroads /Loveland ' New Construction �ege "° r Express Bus Station New Consm,ctan I New Structures and Carpool Lot New Structures I Carpool Lot/Express ilkk\ Bus Station Carpool Lot/Express °- Bus Station • Express Bus Platform u Express Bus Platform •"`""i' ' — lik Pedestrian Bridge P �� Bodge . r1 --• ^ . a, PrAesfnan i Water Quality Pon Pr 1s �'`� Water Quality Ponds , r. J 1. . . , _, , .r { Carpool Lot - ' _. at •• ,\I‘I\ I / I \ �- Ali \ iiiii_cs. 0. .. ill Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-57 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation 0 Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) LCR 16 Interchange SH 60 Interchange 11/4 ft le a ii\iii . r . , T iLr ._ ...to , . : . i : 0 ^ All _ _ .. . .. , ____ .. it aii. carpool Lot • ir Legend it, t f Legena New Construction ti New Construction IS New Structures New Structures ti St LOVExpress lir Bus ttttttt� Carpool LOVExpre, Bus Stator Bus Station Egress Bus Platlorm l Express Bus Platform Ira —Pedestrian Bridge , , Express Bridge Water Qua ity Ponds Mit Water Quality Pond, ski) SH 56 Interchange WCR 34 Interchange . 'y i\\\‘\ i -. • Berthoud Express Bus Station Iti and Carpool Lot li ill 4 - iii fL i. 1- t.aa% iiir .,Ap • . ill euend !At ;. tttttttt� New Construction I Construction New Structures Structures -' tttttttw Carpool Lot/Express ol Lot/Express ' - Bus Station tation Express Bus Platform - ss Bus Platform 4 • .1 —• Pedestrian Bodge I,1 strian Bridge I S T... Water Quality Ponds - Quality Ponds . 0 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-58 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation transportation. Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) SH 66 Interchange SH 119 Interchange ..« ` Jw-.. r 7 ""' Legend 1r 4 i • a r Vii' :41:1 New Constructor New or Widened ? Structures t \s k.:A Calmed 1.WE xpre5 WI Bus Station S - �.. Express Bus Platform 1t1'— --- Pedestnan Bridge t+, Water Quality Ponds iiiii • • Firestone rittii ;E� Express Bus Station and Carpool Lot • Legend .._ i n _ s — , a M N C alliiii _ New Constructor One:1 : .. winA. o, r r - New Structures .. ,.'':r I. - '•• - _ j. yr*orarpool Lol?ExpresS Fr+ ? t �,; Bus Station w;:, - ) `I. P AIM C - Express Bus Platform ? 'v if I A C w . i — — Pedestrian Bridge Water Quality Ponds y • r SH 52 Interchange WCR 8 Interchange .., i, aiaMllal ._ , ;-•/,‘,' Legend • �i ,� t „x , Erie Express Bus Station �. New Construction — Commuter Bad Station, •�, 4 ` New or Widened 0 ( and Carpool lot k _-- -' w..!t T . . Q Structures r • r _ :� Carpool Lot/Express FrederidllDacono -r ....H Bus Station 1 yy Express Bus Station - Express Bus Platform '� �4.441••.b. � • and Carpool Lot : , r , . — Pedestrian Bridge . . �''.. i . • R yy t' Water Quality Ponds ii , - . .___� 5- r: �. , (``e�rr�yy - - - - a • a 1 .1111111 �► II 1 - 4 C. I 1 4— al Al ' »i i i • _ iilLegend . 1 _" New Construction New or Widened Structures MINI Carpool LoVExpres, Bus Station Express Bus Flatfoor, ,i:+3 ID ' — Pedestrian Bndar •- J Water Quality r _b Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-59 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationIIIII Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) SH 7 Interchange 144th Avenue Interchange Legend (I rrr c — J r ') eyend ' I. ' New Construction ( I IS New Construction •! t', l New Structures New Structures , ft' , IA igi ;i.! N Carpool L 1t/Express ' 'II fi Carpool Lot/Express r- e i { - Bus Station Bus Station I t i ' ��• Express Bus Platlorm ` % aExpress Bus Platform _ t „ v .t — Pedestrian Bodge ----1 i 11 A, Pedestrian 6ndga i •y' • :�:• /r Water Quality Ponds I -_ l Water Ouauty Ponds tc• � 1l., '„ f et r ;t... sa - a - c s .x. . _ viii , ,.. __...s..... ----Jr.:2 ,e . .taier:flitytti44“440.* (c'' 1;1 • I ' `� it / / Broomfield _ — - Express Bus Station , •a Till.14"Ille. a. -1'•' i, and Carpool Lnt ' , ' - - III 136th Avenue Interchange 120th Avenue Interchange • `i .. V ' A _ 1f 14 w II ?Alii 1 / t - ` SI'1alt t M-� , 1. ' 1 • ��. I•til _ p y . I •. I•j1 '% •1 t �- ru �• , - _ 11 1 it�� . tp ;IS , `•11 -_. cry l... •1 7 f? e `� ,. ' -Ys .-e. t illip% to 136th Avenue ► • _ .fl• ' "' ;'�• a a Inienelly... - - rd OttakVanue arra _ "r l-4 $ Y•�aww. r r x �' 44. 4 egend . •Em ^iew Construction ,�. ~ r" a New Structure t �LL��__ • Aa, ti New l oust uction ` 1 / •r: I f fi el" � New Structures l arpool Lnt/Ewres; -ti rn:r:r_ ' Bus Station 4 -- --- Al, ' " Carpool loVFxpress _ M1 I Express Bus Ptatfor,r, ♦?, ' �,t aip r , \ r ," Bus Stator ' Express Bus Marian — Pedestrian Bodge tit b : i. • 'f - d� '� 1 1 ., ti -,i- — Pedestrian Bnd e i= t^. Water Quality Ponds IA •(, • t 4" 1' i= ,1 - t ' 14, Water Quality Ponds al III Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-60 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS III information, cooperation transportation. Table 6-16 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) 104th Avenue Interchange Thornton Parkway :, :, .7 Legend•4 i - . ? New Carstrucbnn • N ` o - r New Structures < 4 t 1_ am Carpool lot'Express �a `` Bus Station I' - ' ,�, Express Bus Platfoml :7% (25 S. ^ 11 Fir �''1.y4.J: Petlesu>anBndge + �/'- "1,f � _ - ; `�. Water puallty Ponds ��• � 1.1...5 i... L____ L:b. • • Or-I ii • . •A TIME 904th Avenue , -» _ — — , �I r s . . •i r iui , . --7-4 - F f . . ,,,,„,,„, ir • •. Tel • - 1 ' i I. • ti - �, � r ^ ,eve•nn, . : . ._ _ -, kik , ;, . .. .. . - .: ti. ....,,, . ... i , ..... LI i •hornton Parkway -- 44. rd, t*. • - ..ice 1 " i, a. \ , \ it., . - . S . III84th Avenue Interchange / \ ,` e, ,I,2��f - '4'•`'' '• l ;..r . . .,.. • r • . ' r •t ""r' Legend :- R R y New Construction ; r • �" ; • I - r -Z�J1 3 dxA. a New Structures fir.\ - ►r 1 !!� f•y.'s` " I Carpool Lot/Express " • "F1"� ' : ItT ..,. 3 ., Bus Station �' ' Express Bus Platform T . •no _ 1 r — Pedestrian Bridge CI 84th Avenue vj _,`, ,� $6 y -- - :_ Water Quality Ponds L �� • � � ` _ C co, i EE ` >r 1 ,� `�,r,' :� .LC reffgend 1._e . I r . • New Construction a . - •. _ .L 3 `,, ; - _ New Structures f 1 • f_ ° ° _ Carpool LotlExpress - • •a 4 " -- , ' Busstatlon • .A,ri,. rt; .4 !. i_ xi- % , i 4 Express Bus Platform 'is 1 r ti• , 3+ _i rJ W + f Pedestrian Bridge y IR �� 4 ° as , r�' �° Water Quality Ponds • • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-61 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 6.4.2 Preferred Alternative Carpool Lots Carpool lots would be located near many interchanges along the 1-25 corridor to serve H0V users of the TEL. In several locations, the parking facility would be a shared facility with Express Bus stations. The carpool lots are listed in Table 6-17. Table 6-17 Preferred Alternative Carpool Parking Interchange New Carpool Parking SH 1 40 spaces SH 14 150 spaces Prospect Road 112 spaces Harmony Road Included in 350 express bus parking spaces SH 392 Included in 95 express bus parking spaces' Crossroads Boulevard Included in 132 express bus parking spaces SH 402 290 spaces SH 60 90 spaces SH 56 Included in 144 express bus parking spaces SH 119 Included in 380 express bus parking spaces SH 52 Included in 114 express bus parking spaces WCR 8 Included in 185 express bus/commuter rail parking spaces SH 7 Included in 280 express bus parking spaces • Notes: New carpool parking is presented.Two existing carpool parking areas at SH 66, and US 34/WCR 257 will be utilized, but no improvements are planned. 'When this is implemented,coordination will occur with Fort Collins to determine the exact location of this lot. 6.4.3 Preferred Alternative Express Bus Express Bus services would connect northern WHAT IS Colorado communities to downtown Denver and to EXPRESS BUS? DIA, utilizing the express lanes along 1-25. Express bus service is regional transit Service from Fort Collins would begin at the service with limited stops in order to South Transit Center and operate along Harmony operate faster than other bus Road in mixed traffic until accessing 1-25 at its services. This type of service typically interchange with Harmony Road. On 1-25 the bus operates on freeways or would utilize the tolled express lanes when expressways. It has park and ride possible. Throughout the day, a regional route facilities with transit priority amenities would operate at 60 minute headways, serving the such as slip ramps and queue jumps South Transit Center, the Harmony/Timberline stop, to improve travel time over a Harmony Road park and ride, SH 392, Crossroads, traditional regional bus service. When SH 56, SH 119, SH 52, WCR 8, and SH 7 along the available, the service will utilize the way to downtown Denver. During peak periods, an TELs. When adjacent to a freeway, express route would be initiated at the Harmony pedestrian structures provide access Road park and ride and operate on 30-minute to park and rides from either direction headways, stopping only at SH 392, Crossroads, of bus travel to reduce out of direction and SH 7 along the way to downtown Denver. No travel and improve travel time • express service would be operated in the off-peak period. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-62 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS • and information. cooperation transportation. Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street 8th Avenue Transit Center in downtown Greeley and serve stops along US 34 in mixed traffic with queue jumps at most intersections. It would access 1-25 at US 34 and access the tolled express lane via a slip ramp south of US 34, and stop at SH 56 and SH 7 along the way to downtown Denver. This express route would operate on 20-minute headways during the peak periods. Off peak service would be provided via the US 85 commuter bus service described later. A third express route pattern would originate at SH 119 and operate on 30-minute headways during the peak hours, stopping at SH 52 along the way to downtown Denver. A fourth route would connect the commuter rail and express bus station at CR 8 to DIA. This route will operate on 60-minute headways during both the peak and off peak periods. Preferred Alternative Express Bus Stations For each Express Bus station, the location, number of parking spaces, and accommodation of pedestrian movements with an overpass are described in the Table 6-18. Table 6-18 Preferred Alternative Express Bus Stations South Transit Center* Harmony Road and Timberline (Express Bus, Commuter Rail and Mason BRT 0 Spaces Station) No Pedestrian Overpass 130 spaces • No Pedestrian Overpass 1-25 and Harmony Road Windsor(SH 392)** (Expanded Harmony Road Multi-Modal Transfer Southeast quadrant of 1-25 and SH 392 Center) 95 Spaces 350 Spaces No Pedestrian Overpass No Pedestrian Overpass Crossroads Boulevard West Greeley West of 1-25 and South of Crossroads Boulevard- (See illustration at end of table) Loveland South of US 34 and East of 83rd Avenue 132 Spaces 198 Spaces Pedestrian Overpass No Pedestrian Overpass US 34 and SH 257 Berthoud (SH 56) (See illustration at end of table) Northwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 56 interchange (Existing carpool lot improved) 52 Spaces 0 New Spaces Pedestrian Overpass No Pedestrian Overpass Firestone (SH 119) Frederick/Dacono (SH 52) Southeast quadrant of 1-25 and SH 119 Northwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 52 280 Spaces 114 Spaces Pedestrian Overpass Pedestrian Overpass 1-25 and SH 7 1-25 and Weld County Road 8* Southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 7 (Express Bus and Commuter Rail Station) 280 Spaces Northwest quadrant of 1-25 and WCR 8 Pedestrian Overpass 185 Spaces No Pedestrian Overpass • Downtown Denver Denver International Airport (DIA) 0 Spaces 0 Spaces No Pedestrian Overpass No Pedestrian Overpass Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-63 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 6-18 Preferred Alternative Express Bus Stations (cont'd) West Greeley pj US 34 and SH 257 err• 3 � jp W- • ' '.7t4 f/rte - — �.. _. - 4 v I !`!1!111(f ! �.- -' I .t• � +� New Construction , L , ' e ps. / New Structures : r i `j / CarpooiloVExpress r y ' .•S. ::- Bus Station y I �, aa $ Express Bus Platform ' r i t / _Sikeit Pedestrian Bridge M Water Quality Ponds•-iQ,- Y.Ir' JrJ r', A a ' � . 7 J iii ,; i BUS eer Wee st Greeley ,-, , , ° ' - -- ;' - Express Bus Station -- ' • 'T.• and Carpool Lot • * See Table 6-21 Commuter Rail Stations for illustration of this station. ** Will coordinate with Fort Collins new carpool facility at this location A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the express bus service. However, in the southern front range a similar commuter style service is operated by the City of Colorado ID Springs in partnership with the other communities served . This would indicate that one of the local transit providers in the area (Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins) could operate this service. CDOT also has authority to operate this regional transit service. In either scenario, funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism . This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three- year demonstration project. While fares have not yet been determined, it is estimated that a express bus fare may be 25 percent higher than a commuter bus fare. This would yield a rate of approximately $0. 15 per mile (in 2009 dollars). Based on this rate, an express bus patron traveling from Fort Collins South Transit Center to downtown Denver would pay $8.70 one-way. A similar fare would be charged for a patron traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver. Preferred Alternative Queue Jumps Queue jumps would be provided for the Express Bus to improve travel time and reliability along US 34. The queue jumps typically include signal priority upgrades and sometimes include modifying an intersection or island to provide a short lane for the buses to bypass the standing queue of through vehicles. The lane is typically shared with an existing right turn lane . Table 6-19 summarizes the Preferred Alternative queue jump locations and the planned improvement at each location . III Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-64 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 6-19 Preferred Alternative Queue Jumps Queue Jump US 34 Business Eastbound US 34 Business Westbound Summary Promontory Use existing right turn lane as queue Use existing right turn lane as queue jump Circle jump with signal priority with signal priority Promontory Use existing right turn lane as queue Use existing right turn lane as queue jump Parkway jump with signal priority with signal priority 71st Avenue Signal priority only Signal priority only 59th Avenue Island modification to create right turn Island modification to create right turn queue queue jump with signal priority jump with signal priority 47th Avenue Island modification to create right turn Use existing right turn lane as queue jump queue jump with signal priority with signal priority Country Signal priority only Island modification to create right turn queue Club jump with signal priority 43th Avenue Use existing right turn lane as queue Island modification to create right turn queue jump with signal priority jump with signal priority 39th Avenue Use existing right turn lane as queue Use existing right turn lane as queue jump jump with signal priority with signal priority 37th Avenue Use existing right turn lane as queue Use existing right turn lane as queue jump jump with signal priority with signal priority 35th Avenue Island modification to create right turn Island modification to create right turn queue queue jump jump • 28th Avenue Signal priority only Signal priority only 26th Avenue Signal priority only Use existing right turn lane for queue jump Downtown Denver Express Bus Circulation During the AM peak hours, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the North 1-25 express lanes and enter downtown using 19th Street, turning southwest on Arapahoe and providing stops at 17th and 15th Streets. From there, buses would turn right on 15th Street, left at Little Raven Street, and proceed to Elitch Gardens to layover before making the return trip. Downtown circulation is shown in Figure 6-21. This downtown route is similar to the route of the current Front Range Express (FREX) bus from Colorado Springs to Denver. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed northbound, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the 20th Street interchange, take 20th Street to Arapahoe, and follow the remainder of the route described above. During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right out of Elitch Gardens onto 15th Street, turning right again to access 14th Street and eventually turning left on Lawrence Street, picking up passengers at 15th and 17th Streets, and proceeding to the 1-25 HOV entrance ramp on 20th Street. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed southbound, northbound buses would access 1-25 via the 20th Street interchange. Planned RTD improvements at Denver Union Station might allow these buses to access and egress the HOV lanes from 18th and 19th Streets and serve Denver Union Station via Wewatta Street. In addition, provided there is enough space, the commuter bus service • also might be able to layover at Denver Union Station before making the return trip instead of traveling the extra distance to Elitch Gardens. These possible connections could be further evaluated in the future. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.65 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III 6.4.4 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus The Preferred Alternative includes commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. This service would operate every 60 minutes during both the peak and off peak periods. Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations Virtually all Commuter Bus station locations identified in Package A would remain the same in the Preferred Alternative. However, in Fort Lupton , the preferred Commuter Bus station site identified for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative is different than Package A. The Preferred Alternative site was considered too small for Package A and therefore infeasible. The addition of express bus on 1-25 reduced parking demand for the Commuter Bus in the Preferred Alternative making this site (Site D) a viable option for the Preferred Alternative. This site was identified as the preferred location because it is compatible with existing zoning and has good accessibility from County Road 14.5. The stations are illustrated in Table 6-20. Table 6-20 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations and Stops .1 Greeley -s . ;att. . ;..e„ kelgirtUS 85 and D Street- West < - • " »:r.;:.r.,:-i .i.,�,,: of US 85 and north of �y .�... T .L��nrfr�rMFN�i��w , 4 D Street R:ti . . .. *r.--- -:. ; I 14-4 tale . ila 20 Spaces ° ear ° .: - , • i il „it II . , ,. . 4; I . . _ t t - --.1 - • I - - - - '� S' 1 --u D SWEET - . gek 'At .) 7. _ 4 or i ,�E ��.�.� .mow r ti 3 '.:',{�r�� ' I . r.' ttl i_took 4 4' • ] : a. t , 1 4 South Greeley 1B'•_ 1'rf'7• I ` - an - h`snmE. � S . 8th Avenue and 24th f • � , j; 77r; 47;r1.47":1 -: II - N ►'.Street- West of 8th Avenue 4t.4 ; ` " z i and south of 26th Street _ w i~ • --...A . . , 1 30 Spaces • •' . I i I : 1' 2.-.: rSTT II ' _- , .. : is . ' Ilibti 14 . . f , - . .,:- TEll ��.�� Jilin 1. . T 14 is �' ' 'I . 1 • 1;., F . . III Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-66 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information cooperation transportation. Table 6-20 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations and Stops (cont'd) Evans - - . ; ., , t : 4 1 f_ 42nd STREET US 85 and 42nd Street- --- I, b 74 ,m :at .4 -Aang1, East of US 85 and south of ,,�, YI � .�_ , P. * , A or ' ...1. 4 ‘...aricrf 42nd Street ` i___ __ te f ~' ell ; r 30 Spaces • ..' I IT 3 ;Ail 1. ! W } 10-11;1:04.644". d f m �` I :t Q0- ,1 • ' s lail -- 1 : ' tef s'• + ! ' 1 Ito � S. awe siii; `a Platteville - - } •4 s TiT. illf -I . t US 85 and Grand Avenue- a `� ' 'lc � , -� '' r" 1 ',; e North of Grand Avenue li a ; 4 •� i e, and west of US 85 - — r = ! s � � t 20 Spaces 4 ; ..1 . ! A - rr ` ! : s _ ! r f-: .4P • . . r I. • R : *r I i s - t I _, - 66Ill �. I5 Fort Lupton ! • 11\ H US 85 and 14th St. I _ (CR 14.5) - East of US 85 3 is . i_ - - and South of 14th St. /. 1 • sets Zc a.. (CR 14.5) J Sti h / I 20 Spaces ,� «:, a r- .gale ' I. J ( r ill 4 r F . • l / liel '4 444 t It-n•r i I # el Brighton No parking added. Commuter Bus would use existing RTD park-n-Ride. US 85 and SH 7 Commerce City No parking added. Commuter Bus would use proposed RTD North Metro park-n- Colorado Blvd and Ride. 72nd Ave. Denver Downtown Denver bus circulation described in Express Bus section. While specific fares have not been identified , a review of commuter bus systems nationwide indicates that a typical fare would be about $0. 12 per mile (in 2009 dollars). Based on this rate, • it would cost a rider traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver approximately $6.60 one-way. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-67 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter bus service. However, in the southern front range a similar commuter style service is operated by the City of Colorado Springs in partnership with CDOT and the other communities served. This would indicate that one of the local transit providers in the area (Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins) could operate this service. CDOT also has authority to operate regional transit services. In either scenario, funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three- year demonstration project. 6.4.5 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the planned FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor; a transfer would not be necessary. To reach Boulder, northern Colorado riders would transfer to the Northwest Rail Corridor at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont. For planning evaluation purposes, diesel multiple units are assumed as a vehicle technology. In recognition that rail vehicle technology is evolving rapidly, vehicle technologies will be reassessed prior to implementation of North 1-25 commuter rail. In this way, interoperability with FasTracks system will be maintained. A regional transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter rail service. • CDOT has authority to operated rail service. Funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. While specific fares have not yet been identified, the typical national average commuter rail peak period fare is $0.22 per mile (2009 dollars). Based on this rate, it would cost a rider about $14.00 one way to travel from the Fort Collins South Transit Center to Denver Union Station One of the low-cost options examined for Package A, single tracking commuter rail, was also considered for evaluated for the Preferred Alternative. The advantage of single tracking was cost savings and a reduction of resource impacts. Analysis showed that when paired with Express Bus serving Fort Collins and the 1-25 corridor, the commuter rail could be single tracked and still meet the Purpose and Need. The primary reasons for this are: • The addition of bus service on I-25 would provide an alternate form of transportation for transit dependent riders if for some reason one service was not operable (i.e. track maintenance), improving transit service reliability in the region. • The addition of bus service on 1-25 splits travel demand in the region between the rail corridor and the express bus resulting in less demand on the commuter rail system and less long-term expansion need. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-68 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. • Express Bus service would tie into the planned Fort Collins BRT route providing additional regional transit service to meet the travel demand of Fort Collins. • There is inter-connectivity between the US 85 Commuter Bus and the 1-25 Express Bus improving mobility and accessibility throughout the region. In conclusion, the use of Express Bus to complement Commuter Rail service in the Preferred Alternative provides reliable, expandable transit service of sufficient capacity in the I-25 corridor and western communities. Together, these two services provide the reliability, expansion benefit, and capacity comparable to the double track commuter rail system evaluated in Package A. The single tracked line would have passing track in four locations. The length of the passing track is a main factor regarding the ability to accommodate early and late arriving trains. Long passing tracks provide more flexibility. The design of the Preferred Alternative provides the longest passing track possible without impacting sensitive environmental resources. Passing track would be located at the following four locations: • North of the North Loveland Station between 3.0 and 5.8 miles long • North of Berthoud Station between 2.4 and 5.7 miles long • South of the North Longmont Station between 2.1 and 3.8 miles long • North of the I-25/CR 8 Station between 4.6 and 7.7 miles long • RTD has recently purchased the rail ROW beginning north of the North Metro Corridor end-of- line and ending at approximately CR 8 at 1-25. Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Service Plan North of the South Transit Center in Fort Collins, the commuter rail would operate on 60 minute headways during both the peak and off peak periods. Between the South Transit Center and the FasTracks' North Metro end of line, rail service would be provided every 30 minutes during the peak periods and every 60 minutes during the off peak periods. The FasTracks North Metro rail line will operate on 15-minute peak period headways and 30 minute off peak headways. The North 1-25 commuter rail would operate as an extension of the FasTracks North Metro service, with every other North Metro train traveling on to Fort Collins. Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations Stations would be at the same locations as the Commuter Rail service included in Package A, but the number of parking spaces provided has changed somewhat. Table 6-21 specifies the location, number of parking spaces, and the accommodation of pedestrian movements for each commuter rail station. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-69 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationall Table 6-21 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations Downtown Transit n.'� L.; __ � � "`-�� ' i 71.1‘2 : r Center* 5 �� Ma��e St � I.._ ve*Hgraek; , , BNSF and Maple Street - rr ��I ' ' � r� - "- � ♦ • Fort Collins - ! ' N. - __H ._e_iit 60 Spacess. fir• li'�-air - • f �. , No Pedestrian Over J c ' N -71 - r1 Overpass lisor._• . . I r H ly ;I I I Alltili nt LaPorte Ave.• - �' - - '� < 7L �- +. : tn . : - .; f-Tr -- -. 1i :I ft : Mr - ct rd..r .1"rier—LIEnt';,. .. , z , Colorado State 4 A4 •� r d e s , 'tea f University* - _ . 1 r r---- r• On Mason Street south of T • • University Avenue and ,I. 7 •• • lig, i West Pitkin Street i s i* ( 0 Spaces � �• 1 No Pedestrian Overpass I . • ci , ; . I illi • t' Alik • illia a -A... e.- , ii • South Transit Center* ** ;t�' X "` • as •.-'a1•) -: 1,,,— 717 • Mason Street and West s q ' , Fairway Lane - Fort Collins - -r- "- I ` ti' 1 It 130 Spaces ' r, If ; I t, i% a-lit • iit; N.-. No Pedestrian Overpass ;". x 1 I ��il • t� :...:1-t% ,. ' I 1 'N r- iiisC CI) f - , i ; f i r a . tly, irt, = tiniii. - i - h tm.‘tett! North Loveland -•.•..„ _ _ \ , - - ` T ,.gi, • - ii ti F` ; c� _ V. _ BNSF and 29th Street ;.t1' .rk 4- . 9 t� ' 4, , ws, r, : Nita" •Pedestrian Overpass - � T� I �41 z tat ► WOP 120 Spaces , 1 I Li ii > k • . c ' .:. ... , 0 0 Ti '-•A • .4\ Jt . •.. •♦ )11/2441 1 w - _ A \1 _ - I 1 - - .� ,� \. 1 , LI 0 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-70 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS ill information. cooperation. transportation. Table 6-21 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations (cont'd) Downtown Loveland = ,�,� _ - r 7 rat 1 BNSF and approximately t r ' "-'�'c ) ' ---ri t - 6th StreetT9ussr� i s H I r o I 40 Spaces --. -•,_ . - � _, , • 4“ ' Sth St . \ 4 No Pedestrian Overpass • 1 taii y t� a Saihre% - 4 . 4" Berthoud • ' - - r �.�� ~`-• �iIN 111 . `_ I +� 1 East of the BNSF and north 4" Q- 0 Its, 't ' + e i I �.�� t . 'I i 50 Spaces ,t 4I �; i r . r 1�f L is, ; ....___: _____4 !� rim ._..._ _.,;! Pedestrian Overpasst I, I 1, . . __,__ . %. Ti J \\ I . 40 . .. - i. '4: HT-4 ``,-.1.' ,„,... — i .:i !: I* liFilikS •,i 21 I [------Al 4+44 Ill , I al fi _ , - ` - S �s 0 North Longmont -,.f. •• - East of BNSF and north of ii :::aces _ ,1 '. l 4 'FLA- - - -----. „„.......... ."Irsj " , k_ _-i jilt No Pedestrian Overpass >Lri r_y 4, . "4011:. i 1!. • 1 ' . r t, 1 ice- .."....:, . ipt, . Ir. .iiiiiiir Longmont at Sugar Mill j -11 -/-i- - i r It . lic .itis ,� 1 i ii ----f � North of alignment, south of _ . ` . it K _ Rogers Road # Rogers Rd. _______L : __ ' ''�-- 5-cr \,:- -- 90 Spaces =_- -- Aim J — — _ — I wrap u o I I I Pedestrian Overpass l_ J IlaMOW 1No •11-r ,1 'Pr- • r . r _ ._-.. aIk. sa- Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-71 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Table 6-21 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations (cont'd) III WCR 8** I = N1 - -- I • - , _ 1O_ '\. _ `'t t�k NW corner of 1-25 and )1 f -,-.. ...t. : . I - - ` 11 - _„: „..,,, )CR R 840 . x ' It '* _ a I � ` a a __ - �',� ,185 Spaces t ., ., r D ,. G 9 . No Pedestrian Overpass " `- l a o v ` ' 4 4 -- --- -� F 5 la j'4/ 'I-, \sib '2, i -‘ -- -1 4 . k. ,J r, . ' `- -` -41- - •M ... - - :.±:;;;;°*;.: - /7 al tilai 4 L S / FasTracks North Metro Corridor Stations No new spaces proposed as part of this project * Station design will be coordinated with the recently funded Mason Corridor project. **Station will serve both the express bus and commuter rail service. Preferred Alternative Grade Separated Crossings Four new grade separated crossings would be provided for the commuter rail service. Other 0 intersection treatments would include gates or four-quadrant gates with a median . The following locations would be provided grade-separated railroad crossings of roadways: • 1-25 south of CR 8 (replaces a previous crossing) • SH 52 and Wyndham Hill, west of 1-25 • SH 119 near 3rd Avenue in Longmont • US 287 north of Berthoud • US 34 in Loveland (existing crossing) A comprehensive list of grade crossings and the treatments recommended as part of the Preferred Alternative is included under the description of Package A and Table 6-5. Preferred Alternative Maintenance Road The BNSF railroad is requiring that commuter rail facilities utilizing BNSF track upgrade BNSF facilities to include a maintenance road where maintenance access is not available. The Preferred Alternative design includes a maintenance road parallel to the BNSF line between Longmont and Fort Collins. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF right of way does not include a maintenance road. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-72 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 6.4.6 Preferred Alternative Maintenance Facilities A bus maintenance facility serving both the 1-25 express bus and the US 85 commuter bus would be located at 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley. The facility would include staff for the maintenance and operation of buses for the US 85 commuter bus service, 1-25 bus service, and the feeder bus routes. The recommended commuter rail maintenance facility site included in the Preferred Alternative is located at LCR 10 and LCR 15 in Berthoud. The commuter rail maintenance facility would require a minimum of 30 acres, including facilities for vehicle maintenance, cleaning, fueling and storage; track maintenance; parts storage; and vehicle operator facilities. The commuter rail maintenance facility would employ an estimated 90 workers. 6.4.7 Preferred Alternative Feeder Bus Local bus service would be provided to enable local riders to access the commuter rail and express bus regional services. The feeder services would operate hourly, timed to meet the regional services. Four routes would operate as follows: • Along SH 257 and SH 392 connecting the Windsor and Timnath communities to 1-25 Express Bus • Along SH 60 and SH 56 connecting the Milliken, Johnstown and Berthoud communities to Express Bus on 1-25 and Commuter Rail in Berthoud • • Along SH 52 and SH 119 connecting the Fort Lupton, Dacono, Frederick, Firestone and Longmont communities with Express Bus on 1-25 and Commuter Rail in Longmont • Along CR 8 connecting the Erie and Broomfield communities with Express Bus on 1-25 and Commuter Rail in Erie CDOT has the authority to operate this service, but a transit operator has not been identified to operate the feeder bus service at this time. Funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three-year demonstration project. 6.4.8 Preferred Alternative Congestion Management As with Package A and Package B, congestion management measures were developed based on further analysis and coordination with agencies, as well as more specific information about traffic congestion and other conditions associated with the Preferred Alternative. The tolling in the TEL constitutes the primary method of congestion management with the Preferred Alternative. Table 6-22 summarizes congestion management measures that were identified for the Preferred Alternative in addition to tolling. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-73 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 6-22 Preferred Alternative Congestion Management Measures Congestion Management Description of Application Strategy Local Transit Local routes would connect to the Express Bus at the South Transit Center(Fort Collins), Service Harmony and Timberline (Fort Collins),the Harmony Transit Center, the Downtown Transfer Center(8th and 8th) in Greeley; Crossroads Boulevard (Loveland); SH 7 in Broomfield; and Sugar Mill in Longmont. Carpool and Carpool/vanpool lots would be in addition to and replace the existing carpool/vanpool lots. Vanpool The lots would be paved and have lighting and security cameras. These lots along 1-25 would be provided at: • SH 1 • SH 60 • SH 14 • SH 56* • Prospect Rd. • SH 119* • Harmony Rd.* • SH 52* • SH 392* • WCR 8* • Crossroads Blvd.* • SH 7* • US 402 *Carpool lot combined with express bus station parking. Incident Courtesy patrols—Tow trucks with fuel, coolant, air, etc. would drive up and down 1-25 Management from SH 14 to SH 7 during peak-period travel times(6:15 AM to 8:45 AM and 3:15 PM to Program 6:45 PM). These vehicles would pick up debris, help stalled motorists, and assist with • other incidents as needed. Signal Timing at signals at interchanges along 1-25 would be optimized as part of the Coordination interchange design process. Queue jumps, including signal treatments, would be and included as part of the Express Bus design along US 34. Prioritization Ramp Metering Based on a CDOT Region 6 precedent and policy along the T-REX corridor, ramp meters must be installed along continuous sections of a freeway in order to prevent trip detouring. At such time when volumes dictate ramp metering along 1-25, they would be recommended at the following interchanges: • SH 14 • SH 402 • Prospect Rd. • SH 119 • Harmony Rd. • SH 52 • SH 392 • WCR 8 • Crossroads Blvd. • SH 7 • US 34 Real-Time The CDOT Region 4 intelligent transportation plan would be implemented in its entirety Transportation with additional variable message signs northbound and southbound north of SH 14. Information (Detailed locations to be developed.) Bicycle/ Station areas would be designed to provide pedestrian links to the nearest local road. A Pedestrian 12-ft. wide multi-use path and 6-ft. wide tree lawn would provide connectivity between the Facilities bus drop-off, park-and-ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Travel Demand During construction, proactive measures could be taken by the contractor to encourage • Measures use of alternative modes. Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6-74 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 6.4.9 Other Preferred Alternative Features The Preferred Alternative would also include retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage structures. Retaining Walls Retaining walls were used in the conceptual design along 1-25 to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and existing commercial buildings/developments. Water Quality To conform to CDOT's MS4 permit, roadway runoff would need to be treated within urbanized areas. Using land use projections from the NFRMPO, urban areas were determined and potential treatment locations have been identified within the Preferred Alternative. These would be located along highways and at transit stations, maintenance facilities, and parking lots. Suggested locations for the water quality features are included in the Preferred Alternative concept plans. Various methods for treating stormwater runoff, such as ponds, storm ceptors, and infiltration basins would be considered during final design. Floodplains and Drainage Almost all of the existing drainage structures are undersized and cannot pass the 100-year storm flows under 1-25. The Preferred Alternative final design will include a detailed hydraulic analysis for each crossing. This would include addressing allowable backwater and methods • for mitigating impacts to the environment. • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.75 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • This Page Left Intentionally Blank • • Alternatives Evaluated in the EIS 6.76 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A collaborative decision making process was used to develop consensus among the 45 communities and agencies (including CDOT and FHWA) on the elements in the Preferred Alternative. A collaborative decision making process was used because of the need for broad community support and limited financial resources available for transportation improvements in the region. Broad community support sets the stage for local agency participation, partnerships, and commitment to implementation through policies, zoning, adoption of complementary land use and transportation plans. Broad community support is also more likely to attract funding. The collaborative decision making process is the mechanism for achieving broad community support for a Preferred Alternative which addresses Purpose and Need in a manner that FHWA and CDOT can take responsibility for and implement. The process that led to the Preferred Alternative entailed several steps. First the stakeholders identified the goals and values important to their respective communities or agencies. Next the stakeholders considered these values in relation to the major transportation system components under evaluation in the EIS. In support of this effort, data describing the components was distributed to the stakeholders. For example, the information included safety effectiveness of the components. The next series of meetings formed an iterative discussion process with the stakeholders requesting additional information, and subsequent provision of data as the stakeholders revisited the importance of their respective community values. • In this way the stakeholders developed a recommended Preferred Alternative. The recommended Preferred Alternative was brought to the Executive Oversight Committee for consideration and review. Upon receiving direction from the EOC, the stakeholders finalized the recommended Preferred Alternative and all participants indicated their support for the Preferred Alternative, thus establishing consensus. The Preferred Alternative meets the project purpose and need to a greater extent than the other two build alternatives as described below: The Preferred Alternative was identified based on the Purpose and Need. In addition to meeting the elements of the Purpose and Need, a number of other factors support identification of the Preferred Alternative. These other supporting factors included land use, system benefits, livability, and cost. Each new or revised element of the Preferred Alternative has been carefully considered and either has the same or reduced impacts compared to the comparable component analyzed in the Draft EIS or creates only minor new impacts. The following discussion characterizes the ability of all the alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need and other factors supporting the identification of the Preferred Alternative. 7.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ELEMENTS The Preferred Alternative meets the project purpose and need to a greater extent than the other two build alternatives. • Identification of Preferred Alternative 7.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 7.1.1 Need to Address the Increased Frequency and Severity of Crashes All three build alternatives have been designed to be safe. All three build alternatives would reduce the frequency and severity of crashes on 1-25, when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Considering only 1-25 in 2035, Package B would result in fewer crashes (4,061 average per year) than the Preferred Alternative (4,399) and fewer average crashes per vehicle miles traveled (1.32)than the Preferred Alternative (1.37). However when considering the entire regional system, the Preferred Alternative has the greatest reduction of crashes because of the reduced daily VMT on arterials compared to Package A or Package B. This reduced VMT is a result of the higher capacity provided by the Preferred Alternative on 1-25 making 1-25 a more attractive route than the adjacent arterial network. The crash rate on arterials is higher than the crash rate on access controlled facilities such as 1-25. This results in improved safety under the Preferred Alternative for the entire regional transportation system because of the transfer of VMT from arterials to 1-25. The Preferred Alternative would result in only 11 average annual transit injuries compared to Package B, which would have 24 average annual injuries on transit. Package A would result in the fewest transit injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service at 0.15; the Preferred Alternative is very similar with 0.16 injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service. Package B would result in the highest transit injury rate at 0.32 injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service. 7.1.2 Need to Address the Increasing Traffic Congestion on • I-25, Leading to Mobility and Accessibility Problems The Preferred Alternative provides the most efficient operations for 1-25 compared to Packages A and B. A comparison of the traffic elements of the mobility portion of the purpose and need demonstrates that the Preferred Alternative provides the highest benefit: • Its remaining congested miles on 1-25 general purpose lanes in the PM peak hour would be noticeably less at 17 miles, compared to 45 miles with Package B and 44 miles with Package A in 2035. • In the AM peak hour, its remaining congested miles on general purpose lanes are only 11, compared to 30 with Package B and 16 with Package A in 2035. • In 2035, it has the fewest number of interchange ramp merge/diverge locations operating at LOS E or F. The Preferred Alternative would have 13 of these in the AM peak period and 26 in the PM. Package B would have 34 in the AM and 52 in the PM. Package A would have 30 in the AM and 34 in the PM. • It has the fastest highway travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the general purpose lanes (107 minutes compared to 117 minutes with the other two alternatives in 2035). • It has the fastest travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the tolled express lanes in 2035 (64 minutes compared to 65 minutes with Package B and 102 minutes with Package A (which only uses a short section of existing tolled express lanes in the Denver metro area and the remaining trip is in general purpose lanes). • It provides the most travel choices on 1-25 allowing a motorist to pay a toll or carpool to avoid • congestion, or choose to travel toll free in the general purpose lanes, or choose express bus. Identification of Preferred Alternative 7-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. • It has the fastest bus transit service from the South Transit Center to 20th Street at 63 minutes for an express bus, compared to 70 minutes for BRT with Package B. • Similar to Package B the tolled express lanes provide an opportunity to maintain reliable travel time for buses, HOVs and toll paying users in perpetuity. • Because the Preferred Alternative would have the best level of service in the general purpose lanes, it would have the best overall mobility for freight traffic. • It would serve the highest number of users on 1-25 at over 990,000 users (number of vehicles entering this length of 1-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy. See Section 4.2.5 Highway Users for an explanation of the calculation). • It captures the second highest percentage of transit market share between the northern front range area and the downtown Denver CBD at 50 percent in 2035. Package A captures the highest percentage at 55 percent and Package B captures 45 percent. • It has the second highest ridership with 6,500 daily riders while Package B captures the highest ridership at 6,800 daily riders as a result of its frequent and robust BRT service. Package A captures the fewest riders with 5,850 daily. • Regional vehicle hours of travel are the least with the Preferred Alternative at 1.68 million compared to1.69 million with Package B and 1.70 million with Package A in 2035. • It produces the highest amount of vehicle miles of travel at 52.81 million as a result of its higher capacity than the other two packages. Package B produces the least amount of regional VMT at 52.62 million and Package A produces 52.76 million. • • Its regional average speed (including freeways and other facilities) in 2035 is the highest (31.4 miles per hour) compared to 31.1 with the other two build alternatives—a notable increase considering the magnitude of the number of miles and number of hours in the region used to calculate average miles per hour. 7.1.3 Need to Replace Aging and Functionally Obsolete Infrastructure The Preferred Alternative and Package B both provide the most new structures which replace aging structures: 94, compared to 87 with Package A. All of the alternatives would replace all of the pavement that has exceeded its useful life. 7.1.4 Need to Provide Modal Alternatives The Preferred Alternative provides the most opportunity for improved mode choice throughout the regional study area. In addition, it allows the ability to implement transit service with minimal initial infrastructure investment. Overall the Preferred Alternative addresses this element of purpose and need in the following ways: • The Preferred Alternative would provide the most opportunity to use multiple modes of travel, since two or more modes would be provided along three separate corridors: commuter rail would be provided on the US 287 corridor; express bus and carpooling on TELs on 1-25; and commuter bus service would be provided on US 85. Package A would provide multiple modes on only two corridors and Package B would provide multiple modes on only one corridor. • • The express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could be fairly easily implemented and implemented in phases, providing near term multimodal options to commuters traveling the North 1-25 and US 85 corridors. BRT service provided as a part of Identification of Preferred Alternative 7-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Package B would be harder to implement in phases because stations are located in the median, requiring reconstruction oft-25. • Given the uncertainty of the schedules for the FasTracks North Metro and Northwest Rail corridors, express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could provide an additional mode choice that would first supplement and then complement the FasTracks commuter rail corridors. • It would attract the highest level of special event ridership (transit trips to sporting events, the theater and other activities in downtown Denver), due to the range of transit options that can accessed for these discretionary trips. 7.2 OTHER SUPPORTING FACTORS In addition to meeting the elements of the Purpose and Need, a number of other factors support identification of the Preferred Alternative. These other supporting factors included land use, system benefits, livability, and cost. These are described below. 7.2.1 Land Use The three build alternatives meet the goals of the community land use plans to varying degrees. Western communities generally have a desire to revitalize and concentrate growth in the central core areas of their towns. This goal is reflected in the master plans for Larimer County and the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud and Longmont. Some of these same communities are also supporting development along the 1-25 corridor in addition to within the • core areas generally along the US 287 corridor. The eastern communities, although more dispersed, also have goals to revitalize growth along US 85. The Preferred Alternative provides transit services along all three major corridors. The location of new transit stations, particularly for commuter rail and to a lesser extent for express bus and commuter bus, will focus growth in proximity to the station. This will help communities realize plans for downtown redevelopment or higher density, mixed use development. For this reason it best supports the land use goals of the communities. While Package A also includes commuter rail along the BNSF corridor thus supporting the western communities land use plans and commuter bus along the US 85 corridor, it does not support goals for higher density, mixed use development along 1-25 because it provides no transit service along 1-25. Package B focuses all improvements along 1-25 and therefore does not support land use goals of revitalizing downtown areas within the western communities or along US 85. Package B could have a detrimental effect on downtown areas, tending to pull growth away from them and focusing it along 1-25. 7.2.2 System Benefits There are a variety of system benefits: regional connectivity, regional safety, and travel reliability. An assessment of the three build alternatives demonstrates the difference among system benefits. • Identification of Preferred Alternative 7-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 7.2.3 Regional Connectivity Regional connectivity to the greater Denver metropolitan transportation system is most improved with the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative: • Connects to two planned RTD rail lines serving DUS as a hub for the entire metropolitan area. • Extends the managed lane facility from US 36 on 1-25 to the northern Colorado communities increasing travel options and improving travel reliability. • Provides commuter bus service on US 85 connecting the eastern communities to the RTD transit system thereby increasing connectivity to employment and activity centers in the Denver metro area. • Provides reliability through inclusion of multiple transit lines connecting the northern Colorado communities to the Denver metropolitan area. • Provides multiple avenues to expand transit service as demand warrants. Package A connects to the two RTD rail lines; but does not extend the managed lane facility north from US 36. Package B extends the managed lane north from US 36. However, it does not provide any connection to the RTD rail lines nor does it improve the multimodal connections on US 85. • Package B focuses all of the improvements along 1-25 and therefore has less system wide benefits. 7.2.4 Regional Safety Regional safety is improved the most with the Preferred Alternative. Accident rates are higher on the arterial street system than on controlled access facilities. Under the Preferred Alternative VMT on the arterial system is less than the other two build alternatives. Therefore, there will be fewer system wide crashes with the Preferred Alternative compared to Package A and Package B. For the same reason, the Preferred Alternative will result in less congestion on the arterial system. Package A and Package B also reduce travel on the arterial network but to a lesser degree. 7.2.5 Travel Reliability The Preferred Alternative also provides reliable travel times through 2035 and beyond because of the inclusion of both commuter rail and the managed lanes. The commuter rail is not affected by highway congestion nor inclement weather. Managed lanes can also maintain a high level of service through pricing and vehicle occupancy requirements. In contrast, travel time reliability is not guaranteed on general purpose lanes beyond 2035. Package A offers travel time reliability through the commuter rail system but not on the highway. In contrast, Package B offers travel time reliability only on the managed lanes. 7.2.6 Livability • Livability concepts refer to the synergy between transportation, land use and the environment. A livability evaluation of the three build alternatives accounts for the mobility issues surrounding Identification of Preferred Alternative 7.5 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • transit dependent populations, the need for sustainable land use patterns, potential higher fuel prices, decreased availability of fossil fuels, and green house gas emissions. The three alternatives address these concepts to varying degrees. The Preferred Alternative provides the greatest mix of transportation improvements in support of the livability concepts. In addition to traditional highway travel, the Preferred Alternative provides choices including commuter rail, commuter bus, express bus, carpooling, vanpooling, and tolled travel options. The livability concepts are addressed through the depth of alternative modes offered by the Preferred Alternative. In addition, these modal alternatives support the goals of the land use plans across the regional study area. Package A also provides commuter rail and commuter bus travel options. However, it only provides general purpose lanes on 1-25 and therefore does not provide an incentive for carpooling and vanpooling. In addition, it is geographically more limited than the Preferred Alternative for accessibility to transit dependent users. Package B provides advantages for using express bus service, carpooling, vanpooling via the managed lanes. All of these improvements are focused on 1-25 and is therefore far more geographically limited than Package A and the Preferred Alternative. This limits accessibility for the transit dependent population and requires more supporting transit service be provided by the local communities feeding the BRT on 1-25. In addition, it does not support goals for land use plans of the western and eastern communities. Energy consumption is a key livability concept. Over time (after 2035) it would be expected • that the rail components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption because train capacity could be readily expanded. The transit stations associated with the rail would serve as a stimulus to transit oriented development. This is also true of the Package B BRT stations along 1-25 to a lesser degree. This transit oriented development would potentially reduce energy consumption due to mixed use and higher density development, which would reduce trips. 7.2.7 Cost A tabulation of costs for the three build alternatives shows that the Preferred Alternative is more than the other two build alternatives. Package A capital cost is $1.96 billion, Package B capital cost is $1.72 billion and the Preferred Alternative is $2.18 billion. However, the Preferred Alternative provides benefits that the other two alternatives do not. The Preferred Alternative: • Better improves regional safety compared to the other two build alternatives • Reduces congestion more effectively than Package A or Package B • Is similar to the other alternatives in replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure • Is superior to the other alternatives in providing modal options • Better addresses goals of the land use plans in the northern Colorado communities • Achieves system wide benefits that Package A and B do not provide such as regional connectivity and travel reliability • Better supports livability concepts than Package A and Package B by providing a more • comprehensive multimodal system of transportation improvements Identification of Preferred Alternative 7-6 NoRTH 1-25 • EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX A Project Termini Memoranda • • Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 • EIS intonmtion cooperation. transportation. North I-25 EIS Northern Terminus Assessment As defined in the Scope of Work for the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement, the study area includes the area from SH 7 in the south to SH 14 (Mulberry Road) in the north. The eastern boundary was defined as SH 85, and the western boundary was defined as SH 287 and the Diagonal Highway between Longmont and Boulder. A map of previously identified study area is shown on the following page. As part of the initial assessment of current and future conditions and needs, an evaluation of the northern terminus of the study area was undertaken to identify whether the northern terminus of the study at State Highway 14 adequately encompasses the needs of this area. This assessment included a review of travel patterns, roadway volumes, land use, and population and employment growth, and the ability to meet project goals. The project team identified three potential terminus options: • • Wellington Interchange • City of Cheyenne • SH 14 Wellington Interchange The Wellington Interchange (Colorado 1 & 1-25) is located approximately 8 miles north of the SH 14 interchange near Ft. Collins. The Town of Wellington currently has a population of approximately 3,000. Forecast projections, as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2 do not show significant population or employment densities by 2025. However, significant traffic congestion is forecast in 2030 along 1-25 to Wellington, as shown on Figure 3. Population and employment data are not yet available for 2030. It is recommended that the population and employment data for 2030 be reviewed to evaluate demand for trips north to the Wellington Area when it is available. Cheyenne Cheyenne, Wyoming is located 45 miles north of Fort Collins. Cheyenne has a current population of over 54,000 and a 2025 forecast population of 61 ,000. Figure 3 does not show significant congestion between Ft. Collins and Cheyenne along 1-25, even though 1-25 serves as a secondary truck • route in Eastern Colorado. Future traffic forecasts for 2020 indicate that l- 1 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS •information cooperation transportation Northern Terminus Assessment 80, 1-76, and I-70 will function as the primary truck routes through Colorado (Eastern Colorado Mobility Study, CDOT& FHU, April 2002). In addition, the NFRMPO Household Survey conducted in 2002, indicates that only 0.1 % of all daily trips from Northern Colorado communities are destined for Cheyenne. As a result, it is not recommended that the study area for the North I-25 Front Range EIS be extended to Cheyenne. • • 2 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I--25 111 EIS information. cooperation transportation Northern Terminus Assessment /LEGEND . StudyArea • = Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ast - - - — = Great West, rn Railroad87 j1 ' I• /'i ' - -— -— = Union Pacific Railroad f�''%m •.� Au - ---- = Abandoned Railroad ROW S Q t�, r. I '' 1 e -- = US or Intert;,ta,9 Highway Ft. downs \ = State High►ioy v� , }�T _ 85} ma Atli - oni, [re 1 J. 257: �' 352; Lucerne . , 267 U�4 �yr11_ Whitlow ' Love►knd -• .. „� — 34 Greeley Pita_ X402 ■ ill\-\S `� ,ifet '�� S Evans fi -\att LARIMER 4Cam • t1"fro..;r„ = L, Sall �r v 1741. ..-.lafj ii! . • • Mk . a 1 nett.rm 0 ' ;110... a ii r •'s ery �. - a • - a 36 ' ,' Zr Ia 1-;)-1185 i 19 1 •, , - t __ 1s ,. Ire •ne ;87 . ys d hoot -- - '-- - r S2 it�t� er e I 52 } ' II , ,sec v 11 7 ley rt7 iv. apahoe 25 7. � �1 � I' ' -_• _ ;: . a - . �] �. L. 93 •, 1� 1 ..-36 ellls .--I J � ' t�rl s Su �r• ^ - Tlornton i - ti �- _ ,r LI COG , (72 • Ort g1e ' 1 aster � 1 ,(E470, L J JEFFERSON `, v n __- -- APPROXIMATE SCALE - yI 1 • e... r� - 7U U 5mdes lUmdes -- nio Stahon — 40 V �= 11 1 VN Q 0 •.. " FELSSURG MOLT & ULLEVIG CARTER - BURGESS PRACO North ill Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS •information cooperation transportation Northern Terminus Assessment SH 14 SH 14 serves Fort Collins, the northern most major traffic generator in the North Front Range. Forecast population and employment concentrations, as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2 would be well served by transportation options to and near SH 14. Ability to Serve Project Goals In addition to the key indicators described above, terminus options were assessed within the context of serving project goals. The five project goals established early in the project were: 1 . Improve safety 2. Improve regional mobility between communities and metro Denver 3. Provide a multi-modal transportation system 4. Replace aging infrastructure 5. Support local and regional land use plans Crash data was evaluated to determine if any safety improvements may be warranted to meet the first goal. The Weighted Hazard Index (WHI) for • the segment between SH 14 and Wellington shows a WHI that is much higher than most other segments, indicating possible safety concerns. The second goal of the project is to improve mobility between communities and metro Denver. The area north of SH 14 to the Wyoming border contains very little population. In addition only 0.1 % of all daily trips from Northern Colorado communities are destined for Cheyenne. Options that provide connections between population concentrations south of SH 14 may meet this goal most effectively. Providing a multi-modal transportation was also identified as a goal. Taking into consideration travel patterns and population centers, alternatives that reach as far north as SH 14 will serve the majority of trip needs Replace aging infrastructure is an additional goal. The CDOT bridge inventory shows that the 1-25 and SH 14 interchange is both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The conditions of structures along the segment from SH 14 to the Wellington Interchange have not been assessed. However, structures along the segment were constructed in 1966 or 1950 and are likely to be deficient. An assessment of the • 4 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information cooperation. transportation Northern Terminus Assessment infrastructure north of SH 14 will be undertaken as part of the existing conditions effort. Support of local and regional land use plans was also identified as a project goal. According to Fort Collins City Plan, compact development as well as retaining an urban growth boundary are primary objectives. Providing transportation options that serve the core versus outlying undeveloped areas would better serve local land use plans. Based on the ability to serve project goals, three of the five project goals can be met with a terminus at SH 14. The goal of improving safety indicates that extending the study area beyond SH 14 may be warranted. The ability to meet the goal of replacing aging infrastructure will be determined based on further data collection, however initial data collection indicates that aging infrastructure replacement is warranted to the Wellington Interchange. Recommendation • The following table shows whether each measure of need is adequately served by a terminus at SH 14 or Wellington. Based on information currently available, it is recommended that northern boundary of the study be extended to the Wellington interchange. Once 2030 population and employment forecasts, as well as updated travel demand forecast information, accident data, and an inventory of 1-25 physical conditions is completed, it can be determined whether alternatives developed as part of the EIS process should extend to the Town of Wellington. • 5 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS •information cooperation transportation Northern Terminus Assessment Table 1 Terminus Evaluation SH 14 Terminus Wellington Interchange Terminus Serve Travel Patterns X Alleviate Congestion X Improve safety X Improve regional X mobility between communities and metro Denver Provide a multi-modal X transportation system Replace Aging X Infrastructure Support local and X • regional land use plans • 6 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation Northern Terminus Assessment Figure 1 2025 Population Density S Wellington ---„ren\ - 11111 Fo Collins 1 Harmony R o o_ 5 m 0) rt ID D C -r, N Greeley Lo vil•n d loth St 8th St r •O �' Hill St C 1< m� • Hwy 66 Population per Acre 'N by TAZ Ay ;irk} c 1 1 - 5 5 - 10 f > 10 7 Final EIS August 2011 JR NORTH 1-25 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Northern Terminus Assessment Figure 2 2025 Employment Density \ \ 1 I Wellington --,M\ It / Fort chins Harm ony R ‘ti IP o_ 5 0 Ka ID D Greeley Lovel nd N 'loth St 8th St p an„ \ Hill St \ m ID I I —� 41 G3 I i A Hwv I6 Employment per Acre by TAZ "►'d Ay Cl � 1 - 5 f I t 5 - 10 A > 10 N • Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 0 EIS information cooperation. transportation Northern Terminus Assessment Figure 3 v 2030 Roadway Congestion I / r . I - __,[-____• -\, \ I1 _ , I , c lb, r efting •L 1 hJ - Th.rreSitlinr-‘1 -H.M.. 1(___ ) ' , 11c_! t IN _ y �4 ,, aars,.. . nineID I\ . Fort C 4 IIi!t- - __ N M� 3IlF' -u- " rTh " ralar-1 alar I \ ftir i Lti .. k D I 1gcr� at, liii__9 - A 3. lPc . I rfr it 2 L Greele ; eve . A1/4 . 1- -•c "f C.-- -� till A kaiak a I f if 4%a.,4 fit. I ->_,- I I " all pg. ,e Yr I I- s' �� r lily. v. r"' •t ^ J . r \\ { _ f I P / Volume/Capacity Ratio NO - 0.6 ti, ��w - r I A/0.6 - 0.6 rnn-There: CDOT RTP :taset �.,. '`.� irji - � for2030 Version November 2003 t -� ,h _? is . 1 -� ' - " -- N 0 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 II Southern Terminus EIS • Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 Introduction This paper summarizes data used for identification of a logical southern terminus for the alternatives being considered in the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. The Federal Highway Administration paper"Transportation Decisionmaking The Development of Logical Project Termini", November 5, 1993 and the project's combined DRCOG and NFRMPO travel demand forecasting model were used as a basis for verifying an appropriate southern terminus. The North 1-25 EIS Purpose and Need statement identifies the following needs: improving safety, replacing aging infrastructure, addressing mobility and accessibility issues, and providing multimodal transportation options. The purpose of the North 1-25 EIS has been identified as "improving mobility between the northern Colorado communities and the Denver metropolitan area". A key element to improving mobility between northern Colorado and Denver is providing connectivity to the metropolitan area. E-470 is the northernmost high-capacity roadway connection to 1-25 that provides connectivity throughout the entire metropolitan area including major destinations such as the Denver International Airport, Broomfield, Boulder, the Denver Technological Center and Aurora. Freeway alternatives along 1-25 from northern Colorado to E-470 have the ability to address the safety concerns on 1-25, • the aging infrastructure on 1-25 and the mobility and accessibility issues identified in the Purpose and Need statement. To provide multimodal transportation options, transit alternatives would need to connect into a major destination or to a location where riders can transfer to another transit service to complete their trip within the metropolitan area. This memorandum will use FHWA's logical termini paper to verify that E-470 is a logical southern terminus for freeway alternatives and to analyze potential southern termini for managed lanes and transit alternatives. Background The regional system is a part of the consideration when identifying a logical southern terminus. Two key regional improvement projects are RTD's FasTracks transit plan and 1-25 widening identified in DRCOG's Metro Vision. RTD's planned FasTracks transit lines are shown in Figure 1. Three of these lines, North Metro, US 36 and the East corridor, are within or adjacent to the North 1-25 EIS study area. The NEPA process for the North Metro line will begin in the next year and construction is expected to be complete in 2015. The US 36 commuter rail line is currently undergoing a NEPA process and construction is expected to be complete in 2014. Construction of the preferred transit alignment for the East Corridor line is also scheduled to be completed in 2014. DRCOG's 2030 Metro Vision identifies widening of 1-25 from US 36 to SH 7 with one general purpose lane in each direction and HOV/BRT lanes. DRCOG's fiscally Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Jr10325107 EIS.TERMJNIIsomhern ierminodSon,hern Ternrinns E470112805,•4.doe Page 1 Finalized May 17,2006 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 MI • Southern Terminus EIS Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 constrained 2030 Regional Transportation Plan includes an initial portion of this corridor improvement, the general purpose widening between US 36 and Thornton Parkway. Identification of E-470 as the project's southern terminus may eventually necessitate a slight alteration of the recommendation in DRCOG's Metro Vision to extend improvements to E-470 instead of to SH 7. The southern terminus of E-470 would not however, preclude these identified, long-range improvements. Principles for Selecting Termini To identify a logical terminus, the Federal Highway Administration regulation 23 CFR 771.111 (f) outlines three general principles that are to be used to frame a project: 1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; 2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e. be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonable foreseeable transportation improvements. • In addition, the courts have determined that another aspect to consider when evaluating related transportation improvements is that the project should not irretrievably commit federal funds for closely related projects. The following section addresses the three general principles and the courts consideration for related projects in relation to identification of a logical southern terminus for the North 1-25 EIS. 1. Connect Logical Termini Logical termini are defined as 1) rational end points for a transportation improvement and 2) rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts. Specifically, the paper identifies points of major traffic generation as a common terminus. Rational End Points for a Transportation Improvement Numerous endpoints were considered to determine the best terminus for general purpose lane alternatives. E-470 was identified as the northernmost, high-capacity connection that provides accessibility to the greater metropolitan area. E-470 provides continuity of interstate and tollway travel through the metropolitan area and does not create an abrupt reduction in capacity along the 1-25 freeway which could create a potential bottleneck. US 36/84th Avenue is the northern terminus of the existing HOV facility on 1-25. It is the closest high-capacity connection to a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and is the proposed terminus for high-occupancy vehicle lane and high-occupancy/toll lane Federal Highwai Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J_'03775417.£IS'TERMWIIsoud,ernternunusSouthern TernUnns E47011805,4.doc Page 2 Finalized May 17,2006 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 PIN Southern Terminus EIS • Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 alternatives. Connecting to the existing HOV lane would provide continuity of travel into downtown Denver for high-occupancy vehicles. Rational end points for transit improvements would include major activity centers or a transit center where users could transfer to another transit system to complete their trip. Potential southern terminus locations for the transit alternatives are Denver Union Station, the north end of a FasTracks line, or the RTD Wagon Road park-n-Ride at 120th Avenue and 1-25. Rational End Points for Environmental Review Rational end points as they relate to environmental issues are points which would retain the ability to address environmental matters on a broad scope. This is to ensure that transportation improvements are not developed in such a manner as to force an environmental impact on a resource that is just outside the study area. In the case of the North 1-25 EIS, improvements may be made to 1-25 south of E-470 in the future. However, similar to the North 1-25 EIS project to the north, the horizontal alignment of l- 25 improvements near E-470 would be directed by the location of the recently constructed directional interchange at 1-25 and E-470. This interchange was completed in 2003 and was designed to accommodate the widening of 1-25 without reconstruction. There are no plans or funds in the foreseeable future to reconstruct this interchange. In general, a corridor length in excess of 40 miles, as with the North 1-25 EIS, is clearly • sufficient to address environmental matters on a broad scope. 2. Independent Utility A southern terminus which provides independent utility will be usable without additional improvements and will be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made. General-Purpose Lanes To examine the viability of E-470 as a southern terminus that provides independent utility to potential improvements, two tests were performed with the travel demand forecasting model. The first model tested only the No-Action Network improvements to 1-25. The No-Action Network includes widening 1-25 to six general-purpose lanes from SH 66 to SH 52 and widening to 1-25 to eight general-purpose lanes from Thornton Parkway to US 36'. In addition to these improvements, the second test model widens l- 25 to 8 lanes between SH 14 and E-470. The results of these tests are described below and summarized in Table 1. The comparison of these two models was used to determine if improvements to 1-25 north of E-470 would negatively impact 1-25 south of E-470. No-Action Memorandum,May 5,2006 describes projects included in the No-Action Alternative and the No-Action Network in more detail. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation '0322547 EIS',1ERM/NP.coohenIernrinucSouthmn Terminus 5470 112805 r4.doc Page 3 Finalized May 17,2006 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Mg • Southern Terminus EIS Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 As shown in the table, improving 1-25 north of E-470 would have little influence on 1-25 between Thornton Parkway and E-470. The largest difference is seen on the 1.5-mile segment immediately south of E-470 where the volume-to-capacity ratio would increase from 1.15 to 1.20 and from 1.08 to 1.13 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These are still approximately 15% lower than those experienced farther south on 1-25 either with or without improvements north of E-470. The difference in volume-to- capacity ratio and speeds diminishes at Thornton Parkway; the model indicates no change in volume-to-capacity ratios or speeds due to widening north of E-470. For perspective, the increase in volume would equate to an increase of approximately one minute of travel time or less between E-470 and Thornton Parkway. Travel time between E-470 and Thornton Parkway would be approximately 20 minutes southbound in the AM peak hour and would increase to 21 minutes with 1-25 improved north of E- 470. Based on these data, improvements to 1-25 north of E-470 are not expected to negatively impact 1-25 operation south of E-470. Tablet. 2030 No Action vs. E-470 Terminus Southbound 1-25 Segment Characteristics No Action 8-Lanes to E-470 VOC comparison SPEEDS comparison • AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Difference Difference VOC Speeds VOC Speeds Absolute % Absolute E470 1.15 31 1.2 26 0.05 4.3% -5 -16.1% 144th 1.06 41 1.08 39 0.02 1.9% -2 -4.9% 136th 1.18 27 1.19 25 0.01 0.8% -2 -7.4% 120th 1.26 20 1.27 19 0.01 0.8% -1 -5.0% 104th 1.38 12 1.38 12 0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% Thornton Pkwy Northbound I-25 Segment Characteristics No Action 8-Lanes to E-470 VOC comparison SPEEDS comparison PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Difference Difference VOC Speeds VOC Speeds Absolute % Absolute E-470 1.08 39 1.13 33 0.05 4.6% -6 -15.4% 144th 1.01 46 1.03 44 0.02 2.0% -2 -4.3% 136th 1.10 35 1.12 33 0.02 1.8% -2 -5.7% 120th 1.18 27 1.19 26 0.01 0.8% -1 -3.7% 104th 1.34 14 1.34 14 0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% Thornton Pkwy • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of TransportationJx0322?h07.EJS'.TERMINTsouthernternlnnx Southern Terminus E470 111805 14.doc Page 4 Finalized May 17,2006 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 PURI Southern Terminus EIS • Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 Managed Lanes While high-occupancy vehicle lane alternatives would still be usable with an E-470 southern terminus, terminating HOV lanes at E-470 would leave a large gap between the existing HOV facility at US 36 and E-470. To provide continuity for high-occupancy vehicle travelers, to ensure that this alternative has independent utility, and to ensure that selection of an HOV or HOT alternative does not force this improvement on the section of I-25 between US 36 and E-470, a US 36 southern terminus for HOV/HOT alternatives is considered a more logical choice. Transit To provide independent utility for transit alternatives, the southern terminus for transit improvements must be located at a major activity center(downtown Denver) or at a transit transfer location (North Metro end of line, US 36 end of line or Wagon Road park- n-Ride). To determine which of these potential southern terminus options would operate best and, therefore, be a reasonable expenditure and not require additional transportation improvements in the area, the 2030 travel model was run to determine the impacts of a forced transfer at the north end of a rail FasTracks line or at the 1201h Avenue/I-25 park-n-Ride lot where RTD operates express bus service. Data from the model indicate that a forced transfer to an express bus at the Wagon Road park-n-Ride would result in a 70% reduction in regional transit ridership from northern Colorado when • compared to ridership on a route directly into Denver Union Station. A cross platform transfer' at the north end of either of the two FasTracks lines would result in a smaller, but also substantial, reduction in ridership of about 50%. These data indicate that the best ridership would be obtained with a southern terminus at Denver Union Station. 3. Consideration for Other Reasonable Transportation Improvements Foreseeable transportation improvements include bus and/or rail service and highway widening along the corridor and into Denver. The choice of E-470 as a southern terminus for highway improvements does not preclude or restrict consideration of other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements along the corridor. 4. Evaluating Related Transportation Improvements The courts have determined that a project should not irretrievably commit federal funds for closely related projects. The North 1-25 EIS is considering transportation improvements to accommodate growth in population and employment between Denver and Fort Collins in the year 2030. The size of the study area and the planning horizon year set the stage to ensure that recommended improvements provide a long-term solution for transportation in northern Colorado and will not irretrievably commit federal funds to closely related projects. ]A cross platform transfer refers to a rider transferring at a station from a commuter rail line in northern Colorado to a different rail line within the Denver Metro area such as the North Metro line or the proposed US 36 commuter rail line. Federal Aighwar Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • I.10 317 5 10 7EISTERM]N1�romhern terminus Southern Terminus E470 112805 v441ot. Page 5 Finalized May 17,2006 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 MI • Southern Terminus EIS Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 Summary Based on the analysis of data and the project's Purpose and Need statement, the southern terminus for all freeway alternatives (except HOV and HOT lanes) is recommended to be E-470. It is further recommended that HOV and HOT lane improvements extend south to connect into the planned reversible HOT lanes at US 36. It is recommended that transit alternatives extend south to Denver Union Station, to reduce the negative impact of a forced transfer and to best address the project purpose, thus providing a one-seat ride to downtown Denver for northern Colorado travelers. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 10311)7.ENTER M/Ni'.mvhe,n terminamSmnhern Terminus E47011805,y.doc Page 6 Finalized May 17,2006 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 MI Southern Terminus EISIII Technical Memorandum information. cooperation. transportation. November 28, 2005 v6 Figure 1 . FasTracks Rapid Transit Map Lynns Longmont Central Corridor Twin Peaks Mar e.+.... '2)=1 �;^. Negated Highway O Jamestown Nlwot Erie Ward M. C..-. • .. Boulder - Lafayette o • _ ._ O I 1. Nederland 'Laulsvffe r"'.• .. .+y.�+.. table M _ - T _ - )_`,, 40p, <rrw Superior I US 36 Corridor J Brighton Broomfield I Narfhgleb ` r " WesWVlgfl .i R.ad `� . Si PnR• ` ? Federal < . Heights S A 1 CI Commerce 1 _coy III Arvada Wardto a she' 1 �.. I It • Wheal Ridge Mountain • — Aurora Golden dear/ion w S ' lake vemment Edgewater /r Denver — \� �CwWnt r! Glendale J •Lakewood Southwest. _ i 'i ' Morrison C • t _- . Englewood t ` !i /t t ) "sedan • Cherry Hilh O _ _ ( -. ~}- Evergreen BOW Mar Village •.t { Con'$doi Greenwood Il Village t Columbine ' ' Valley . - e Littleton 3'• Centennial t C•470/ Lucent Blvd -.....r•...,......J Lone TIC Legend: lidgeGa Highlands • Station without Parking Ranch Parkway t Station with Parking Castle Rock Parkera Light Rai (LRT) --- LRT Existing/ Under Construction ® a Commuter Roil/DMU N Mk Bus Rapid Transit Not to Scale February 2, 2004 Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation 411 J:103225107. EISITERMINIIsouthern terminuslSouthern Terminus E470 112805 v4.doc Page 7 Finalized May 17, 2006 N oRm 1-25 • EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX B Congestion Management Alternative • • Final EIS August 2011 • NORTH 1-25 " EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Environmental Impact Statement CONGESTION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE A Technical Report to Accompany Level 2 Screening Analysis • Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation By: Jacobs Carter Burgess In association with: Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig February 2006 Final Report • Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS • Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Congested Facilities 5 3. Congestion Management Strategies 9 3.1 Transportation Demand Management(TDM) 10 3.2 Transportation System Management(TSM) 12 3.3 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 13 4. Screening Analysis 14 4.1 Feasibility Screening Analysis 14 4.2 Effectiveness Screening Analysis 16 5. Findings 22 6. Bibliography 24 List of Figures Figure 1 Methodology Flow Chart 4 • Figure 2 AM Peak Volume to Capacity 2030 Ratios 7 Figure 3 PM Peak Volume to Capacity 2030 Ratios 8 List of Tables Table 1 2030 North 1-25 AM And PM Volume/Capacity Ratios 6 Table 2 Feasibility of Congestion Management Methods by Congested Location 15 Table 3 Congestion Management Strategies Measures of Effectiveness 16 Table 4 Trip Reduction Due to Express Transit Service 17 Table 5 Trip Reduction Due to Carpooling 18 Table 6 Trip Reduction Due To Vanpooling 19 Table 7 Trip Reduction Due to Telecommuting 20 Table 8 Trip Reduction Due to Combined Congestion Management Methods 21 Table 9 Recommended Congestion Management Strategies as Complementary Improvements 23 Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summaries Appendix B: Sustainable Growth • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 2 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS • 1. Introduction The Federal Planning Regulations require that highway projects consider congestion management as part of the NEPA alternatives evaluation within attainment/maintenance areas for air quality. Congestion management can be defined as a series of low cost tools used to reduce travel demand or better accommodate existing traffic volumes without building additional physical capacity into the roadway network. Each application of congestion management concepts can use different tools to achieve the overall goal of reducing congestion. The overall congestion management toolbox consists of various elements such as local transit improvements, carpool and vanpool systems, signal modifications, and intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements. Because the focus of the congestion management report was the North 1-25 facility, the analysis focused on reducing congestion on North 1-25 only. Within the state of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has developed a Transportation Demand Management Toolkit1 that outlines many of these strategies and how they may apply within the state. Interstate-appropriate congestion management strategies were selected from the CDOT Toolkit, and analyzed as part of Level 2 Screening for the North 1-25 EIS. The strategies have been analyzed both independently and in a group, referred to as the Congestion Management Alternative. This alternative assumes that applicable strategies are only implemented on the • 1-25 facility. In later stages of the project analysis, the strategies may also be recommended on other roads within the study corridor. At this point, however, this analysis depicts the Congestion Management Alternative's potential to advance as a stand-alone alternative in the Level 2 Screening of 1-25. Figure 1 outlines the methodology used to develop the congestion management recommendations for the North 1-25 EIS. Refer to the appropriate chapters for more information. As shown in the flowchart, the final recommendations are reflected in the last chapter of this technical report. • 1 Transportation Management Demand Toolkit Colorado Department of Transportation,October 2002. Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 3 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Figure 1 Methodology Flow Chart CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 Define Define Congested Toolkit of Locations Measures CHAPTER 4 Assess Match Practicable 4'� Practicability Measures for North I-25 to Locations i Calculate • Potential Benefits / \ Evaluate CHAPTER 5 Evaluate Potential Potential Stand-Alone Complimentary Congestion Congestion Management Management Alternative(s) Alternative(s)\Ilk i Recommendations • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 4 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS 2. Congested Facilities A key element of congestion management tools is that they address specific congestion issues. In order to apply them to a project, congested locations need to be identified. For the purposes of the North 1-25 EIS, the team identified congested locations using the project's 2030 regional travel demand model. The travel demand model is a tool used to forecast future travel within a defined area (including the project's study area), and estimate future volumes on roadways and transit systems. The No-Action transportation network was assumed as the future scenario for the analysis of congested locations. Congestion was defined as roadway segments that exhibited a volume-to-capacity(V/C) ratio of 0.90 or greater, based on results from the travel demand model. Volume-to-capacity ratio is a traffic engineering measure that relates the amount of traffic on a roadway(the"volume")with the available lanes on the facility(the"capacity"), resulting in a ratio. As the ratio increases, the traffic fills more and more of the roadway, until there is no more room for additional vehicles at a v/c ratio of 1.00. Typical industry-wide practice dictates that v/c ratios below 0.70 are considered acceptable, operations at v/c ratios between 0.70 and 0.90 are beginning to deteriorate, v/c ratios between 0.90 and 1.00 typically indicate congestion, and v/c ratios over 1.00 indicate situations where demand volume exceeds available capacity. As shown in Table 1 and in Figure 2 and Figure 3, according to the regional travel model, AM and PM • peak hour directional volume to capacity ratios on I-25 in 2030 will generally exceed 0.90; the congested segments have been highlighted for further analysis. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 5 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS al Table 1 2030 North 1-25 AM And PM Volume/Capacity Ratios 'E 1"v. ",f,� m ,7667,7" x 1 ,.s �"� 1 I Z i;TT-.uM i ,Iii?.;1,214 ¢,,_ay, ta' i FMS e:14 t r s `X' +7 Jig "'I �'" az t . t R o hA §k k Y', 'M, •d�+.�� •�h § of 3 NORTH OF SH 1 0.43 0.32 0.49 0.31 MOUNTAIN VISTA TO SH 1 0.28 0.44 0.38 0.32 SH 14 TO MOUNTAIN VISTA 0.47 0.79 0.66 0.55 SH 14 TO SH 68 0.99 0.89 0.95 0.96 SH 68 TO SH 392 1.36 1.01 1.07 1.19 SH 392 TO SH 34 1.26 1.00 1.06 1.15 SH 34 TO SH 402 1.41 0.76 1.07 1.25 SH 402 TO SH 60 1.22 0.88 1.02 1.14 SH 60 TO SH 60 1.22 0.88 1.02 1.09 SH 60 TO SH 56 1.22 0.97 1.03 1.07 SH 56 TO GREAT WESTERN 0.94 0.98 1.02 1.01 GREAT WESTERN TO SH 66 0.86 1.03 1.02 0.94 SH 66 TO SH 119 0.57 0.71 0.66 0.62 SH 119 TO SH 52 0.69 0.90 0.84 0.80 • SH 52 TO UNION PACIFIC 0.79 1.09 1.02 0.93 UNION PACIFIC TO SH 7 0.93 1.22 1.15 1.03 SH 7 TO E-470 1.27 1.19 1.02 1.24 E-470 TO 120TH AVENUE 1.07 1.12 1.05 1.05 120TH AVENUE TO US 36 0.97 1.39 1.28 1.11 US 36 TO I-70 1.03 1.14 1.19 0.97 1-70 TO DENVER UNION STATION 1.01 1.10 1.15 1.03 • Congestion Management Plan ___ FINAL Page 6 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS 0 information ooCImaa trOnSpp,atc't transportation environmental study Figure 2 AM Peak Volume to Capacity 2030 Ratios 1 1 II It � 1 1. � Wy , Y I is r 1 I. 1 1 a ' I LARIMER FORT COLLIN - • 04 1 i e h i ar r . _,.."--4, Cl) --6 ryn ` ) 0) so ,• ,v W; --ems /O•MltTC t/l M > ITI41,r♦, I W r O a, !t, WELD C .-4 / O 0 O ;,� I II LC -Q nONT >; ass , , .a.4.T /O� J 4,,, O BOULDERi . / r .« _ r Z •urrow n . -__ , , • r ' _T • 11l1 I .' r-- - f — ' sl • 11T III L ;el --, r II M ADAMS f" 1- -# J LI i • . T/' p^ � • _ r \ . ILPIN JEFFERS N i ,. reLii;-; `' lI ~ ' 'Z. T Year 2030 Southbound Ii J tr V E�• _ Year 2030 Northbound Ise AM Peak V/C Values Jo t -- , • .._. AM Peak V/C Values a ala K woo , 'b an r ,ii O� O� O�x p� pcc= �ac • 92• o 5 1U, 1 1 0 Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 7 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS mtnmatun coroeratm trsnportatf transportation environmental study • Figure 3 PM Peak Volume to Capacity 2030 Ratios ----\Mer,fi----“,..,),... \ I 7 rsccii: .\ -z- LARIMER FORT COLLIN S \ . n .r.wo. La i Irt rr -- ''\�y� LOV ,. p I. O ,., ,; • C13 1 x»«•rcwn N f/ G, W• I a utc. C., O a I L0N .O )NT "' z ', C . 0 , _ _ I O O •CI CO C aria 'Hann-nose / . SKI O --�Mwe ruwc Anti, nt R '/ 4-- 2 lL✓7/ acesis: ...,‘.-- 11: anon r.� ---:..• • - r / fasto YR. - " ` 1 , "" Ir‘� reo# LOCHS . • R • • LD ,x " r 11 w / ADAMS — N. .- a. I gm' t. M r 'CJ \ w e , w ;�J 1 r r I ILPIN la • I ----L.•_t JEFFERS N ► l� � !- ---t t . 1 ,) � t tl Ir "tr.....,;::,; Year 2030 Southbound i - PM Peak V/C Values e` �t - � Year 2030 IC Values Northbound a . PM Peak V!C Values i ', DEN ER Q Cbt Ok O• e° O (>y O O C%Ox u Gca • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 8 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS 3. Congestion Management Strategies Managing congestion can include several approaches: reducing the overall level of trips, implementing signal timing changes and other low cost capital improvements, and reducing the level of delay that results from incidents. This section presents the various congestion management strategies applicable to an interstate facility only; (but there are additional congestion management strategies that could be considered for other signalized facilities.) They have been grouped into three overall categories: ➢ Transportation Demand Management(TDM) ➢ Transportation System Management(TSM) ➢ Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) The following sections provide a description of each kind of congestion management alternative, as well as the applicable methods that can be selected for implementation. For more information, see CDOT's Transportation Demand Management Toolkit. Transportation Systems Management, Travel Demand Management and Intelligent Transportation Systems methods are often defined and grouped interchangeably. For this technical report, they have been defined and classified to reflect the purpose and approach specific to this study. • As part of the process of developing specific congestion management strategies, the project team had eight meetings with twelve jurisdictions in the study area. Appendix B documents the input obtained from each of the jurisdictions. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 9 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS 3.1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Definition: 1. "TDM refers to various strategies that change travel behavior (how, when, and where people travel) in order to increase transportation system efficiency and achieve specific objectives, such as reduced traffic congestion, road and parking cost savings, and increased safety." 2. "A wide range of programs and services that provide options to driving alone; improved mobility for non-drivers, energy conservation and pollution emission reductions." Purpose: Decrease total trips and/or VMT overall and during the peak periods. Typical conditions: ➢ Diminishing level of service (LOS)on local and regional roads and highways; • ➢ Public interest in alternative modes of travel to work or other destinations; Business, neighborhood, and employer interest in ease of access; ➢ Parking shortages; Increased complaints about mobility, safety, or driving conditions; ➢ Need to maximize the effectiveness of a new transportation investment. Methods: Public transit: Passenger service using bus or rail vehicles offered to the general public with the following characteristics: predetermined schedules, standard fares and local or regional service. (In this case, bus service would be assumed, as it would not require any physical expansion of existing facilities.) Express service: runs in large arterial streets or freeways and stops infrequently, providing a travel time advantage over local bus service. With the addition of park-and-ride facilities, it can expand the capture area of transit service from within a quarter mile up to anywhere within five miles of the service route. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 10 Final EIS August 2011 Noun 1-25 Eis Ridesharing: Formal or informal agreements between neighbors or co-workers to share a vehicle and driving responsibilities from an agreed upon formal or informal park-n-Ride facility to their common destination. Several ridersharing programs are already sponsored by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization as part of the SMART Trips program, and are described below. Carpools are agreements between two or more people to ride to their common destination together. Carpools can form and be sustained without formal assistance, or rideshare"matches" can also be made through a ridesharing database of willing participants managed by a regional transportation agency. There are over 1600 participants in the carpool matching database with an average 5% match rate and a VMT savings of almost 600,000.2 Vanpools are more formal agreements between groups of 6-15 participants to lease a van from the regional transportation authority, designate a driver, and use the van to reach their common destination. Vans are procured and maintained, and participants can be matched and organized by regional transportation agencies. The VanGO vanpool program, currently runs more than 30 vans and saves more than five million VMT annually.3 Telecommuting: Arranging the capability to telecommute, thereby avoiding driving during peak-hour traffic, or perhaps avoiding having to make the trip to work at all. • Land Use Policies: The implementation and enforcement of land use policies intended to encourage/require development to increase mobility for residents and businesses by creating land use- transportation connections (creating a range of housing choices; creating walkable neighborhoods; encouraging community collaboration;fostering distinctive, attractive communities; making development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective; mixing land uses; preserving open spaces; providing a variety of transportation choices; and strengthening and directing development towards existing communities.) More information about these techniques is included in Appendix A. 2 North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Congestion Management System: Transportation Demand Management . Program."p. 36 'Ibid. Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 11 Final EIS August 2011 NORTI I 1-25 EIS • 3.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Definition: Roadway-based solutions that decrease delay during the peak periods. Purpose: Reduce delay from high traffic volumes or obstructions within the roadway network. Typical conditions: ➢ Increasing trip times ➢ Increasing complaints about delays ➢ Increasing accident rate and complaints about safety ➢ Rapid growth that outpaces transportation facilities expansion and/or improvement Methods: • Reversible lanes: Conversion of a general purpose lane to a special purpose or restricted access lane based on peak hour traffic flows. The lane may be designated as a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, a limited access lane, a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, or some combination of the three. Having been designated, the lane is open to peak hour traffic that meets its usage criteria. The lane is operated in the peak hour direction and reverses each peak period to serve the dominant flow of traffic. Incident management program: A program developed to reduce delay by removing obstructions caused by incidents (accidents, debris, stalled vehicles, etc.) through the use of a comprehensive incident management service, including towing, alternative route designation, call boxes, traffic control, etc. Ramp metering: Signals can be placed at freeway ramps to regulate the flow of traffic accessing a highway facility. This reduces delay along the roadway by reducing merging and weaving traffic movements. (HOV, Toll, or HOT bypasses to ramp meters can also be constructed, if warranted and/or applicable to the lane-types on the freeway.) Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 12 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS • 3.3 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Definition: The use of technology to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system. Purpose: Reduce delay; improve passenger experience by providing real-time information on vehicle location; and improve service efficiency or roadway throughput by coordinating signal timings. Typical Conditions: ➢ Implementation of a fixed guideway or enhanced passenger transit system • Significant traffic volume differences between peak and non-peak hours ➢ Designation of a priority thoroughfare for enhanced peak hour/peak direction efficiencies • Methods: Real Time Transportation Information: Can include static or dynamic information related to traffic condition, real-time transit service or information on trip planning and transportation options accessible to the public through a variety of media including radio,websites, or variable messaging signs. Dynamic information relies on global positioning satellite (GPS)transponders, cameras, and other networking devices to relay information back to the site where travelers can access it. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL �� Page 13 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH l 1-25 EIS 4. Screening Analysis This chapter evaluates the congestion management tools defined in Section 3 both qualitatively and quantitatively. First, the congestion management strategies were evaluated using qualitative questions to assess their feasibility. Then, the congestion management tools were matched with congested locations, based on the feasibility results. Finally, a quantitative measure of effectiveness was applied to each congestion management method to try and determine the benefit it could produce if it were implemented. 4.1 Feasibility Screening Analysis With the exception of carpooling, vanpooling and telecommuting strategies, each of the congestion management methods presented was evaluated according to its feasibility of deriving a benefit compared to the cost involved if the measure were implemented on congested locations of 1-25. Carpooling, vanpooling and telecommuting are not location-specific solutions because communities that encourage ridesharing or telecommuting may not be proximate to the congested location. In addition, because there are already existing ridesharing and telecommuting programs within the North Front Range, sponsored by the NFRMPO, it can be assumed that the programs are feasible. Evaluating each strategy's feasibility was the first step in determining the most likely congestion • management measures for each congested location. The next screening step will determine the potential effectiveness of the congestion management measures. The screening questions are presented below for each potential congestion management method. Express/Regional Transit Service: Are the congested locations on a roadway that accommodates limited stops and higher travel speeds? Land Use Policies: Are the congested locations in areas that are planned for new or redevelopment that could incorporate strategic land use and transportation linkage principles? Reversible Lanes: Does the congested location experience increased traffic volumes, especially during the peak hour in the peak direction? Incident Management Program: Are the congested locations subject to non-recurring congestion due to incidents at rates higher than normal? Ramp Metering:Are the congested locations within the vicinity of interchanges? Real Time Transportation Information: Is there more than one interchange within the congested segment that could provide commuters with access to additional travel routes? Table 2 summarizes the results of this screening step. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 14 . In • co f0 a) 0 N N N 0 N N N co N O_ O y �. O y O O N O p N m O m N m _ N Z >_ Z } )_ Z r >- >- Z >- >- } a r t O « z to ! O N 000000 00 00000 N coy Z y Z y i Z � ^ y > z r r ≥ Co 7 2 a, 2 ow 02000 N N 0 O 7 M N N o N N N = r Z >_ Z >_ )_ Z N Cj } } Z } } } O CO O_ Q • O O J O N N Cl a) U) U) —� O O C N a) O 0 U) N d = y } } Z } } } o v > } } Z } } } o Co w W Q 0 a) rn 0 c c O o U "pe O N 0 N 00 U " N- N N O N N N .a = Z } Z } } Z Sv } } Z } } } -0 w co US in US 11.1 0 0 t o t p It C {a N N 0 N N co C O p N N 0 N N N CA • M = } } Z } } } u C a YH } } z _) } } • E my 7a < CD a) a) Z H V co c a g'r N CO A do C V (a 03 0 O N O N N 0 H C N O F O N O N N 0 M = y Z } Z } } Z x � 3 Z } Z } } Z e o N o H N N et E co �j ma yy } } Z } } } 0 0 en Z } Z } } } r >, > 7) at y at u.., c. lL W O V. a) r a) CO E E Co E E 0 0 • ° c as I c E o c E o c a) a) a ° a a s co of C N A U C (a O_ N N E a 2 co N N E o a) C .N 0 C 0) 0) C C •' 15 C CO CO Co C) co p C O a7 CO cC p C O a1 CO C N 0) (q N y N a J m -c I % N J H C w y ,' C I— a) °� 2 a) d o k- as a) m aa, a) co 3 O N N n 2 E a N N E 2 {a inN C N D O C C N D `) C C C = N W 0 0 O a) d ~ 0 a a) O. H O U n C > :� E m 0 n. c > -0 E m .N • ft W 2 x J 2 K w W J oc ec C z 0 0 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS .. _ _,a..,,....,<...,�.,......��, ,....._. v.w.4...._. .. N.,......__ ,..,�,..a..�.... ,�.,..a , i :n»� , ^ups' • As a result of the feasibility screening, reversible lanes were screened out because North 1-25 does not exhibit a peak period, peak direction spike in traffic volumes; traffic is almost evenly split in both the north and south directions. Therefore, reversible lanes would not be effective on North 1-25. 4.2 Effectiveness Screening Analysis Table 3 presents the potential level of effectiveness associated with different congestion management methods and alternatives according to regional data, CDOT data and third party research. Table 3 Congestion Management Strategies Measures of Effectiveness Strategy Method Options Typical Effectiveness Measure Public Transit Express Service 2 to 3%share of all trips Transportation Ridesharing Carpools 11.5% work trips Demand Vanpools 5% work trips Employer Management Programs Telecommuting 4.7% work trips Land Use Policies 3% reduction in VMT4 Transportation Systems Incident Management Program 5% reduction in delays • Management Intelligent Transportation Real Time Transportation Information 22% reduction in VHT6 Systems Public transit, ridesharing and telecommuting strategies can consistently reduce single occupant vehicle trips during the peak period, which can directly reduce the volumes associated with congestion. Potential land use policies, commonly called "Sustainable Growth,"can reduce overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by co-locating common trip destinations. Appendix A contains more information on Sustainable Growth. An incident management program can decrease freeway delay by 5 percent. Because travel speeds are related to volume to capacity (V/C) ratios, this has the same effect as if volumes were reduced by 5 percent. However, by definition, incidents are haphazard, and the time savings will See Appendix 1 for more information. 5 Time savings are only realized if there has been an incident;this is not a consistent time-saving strategy due to the haphazard nature of incidents. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems,Final Report. Cambridge Systematics for FHWA,July 19,2004. 6 Time savings are realized only when there is delay; this is not a consistent time-saving strategy due to the changing nature of freeway conditions. Litman,Todd. Guide to Calculating Transportation Demand Management Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL _ _ Page 16 Final EIS August 2011 NORTII I-25 EIS occur only on a case by case basis. Similarly, Real Time Transportation Information decreases VHT,which has the same effect as if volumes were decreased. However, it is better applied to the facility as a whole rather than to individual segments, and is also only effective when incidents occur that cause a need for information on alternative routes. Therefore, because Incident Management and Real Time Transportation Information do not reduce trips overall, but either move them out of the peak, or decrease the delay associated with them, their potential effectiveness was not calculated. Because they both represent benefits to commuters, they were retained as recommended measures in cooperation with other Congestion Management or Build Alternatives. The potential benefit of congestion management measures is calculated by applying the measure of effectiveness to the total number of trips passing through the congested locations. This represents the maximum savings the congestion management strategy could have. Then, after each strategy has been evaluated individually, they are combined to estimate the effectiveness of a comprehensive Congestion Management Alternative: the combined trips reduced from transit, ride- sharing, and telecommuting. The potential benefits, and associated change to volume to capacity ratios, are shown in Table 4 through Table 7. Table 4 Trip Reduction Due to Express Transit Service • Total Average Existing Average Peak AM Peak Average V/C Hour Benefit Still Location Hour Trips (North and New V/C* (North and (North and South congested? South) South) Trips Reduced) SH 14 to SH 68 7,600 0.95 227 0.92 Yes SH 392 to SH 34 8,800 1.12 264 1.09 Yes SH 402 to SH 60 8,400 1.07 252 1.04 Yes Union Pacific to SH 7 12,100 1.08 363 1.05 Yes SH 7 to E-470 13,000 1.18 390 1.15 Yes E-470 to 120th Ave. 11,700 1.07 351 1.04 Yes 120th Ave. to US 36 12,900 1.19 386 1.16 Yes US 36 to 1-70 18,700 1.08 561 1.05 Yes 1-70 to DUS 15,900 1.07 477 1.04 Yes Result of calculating the incremental benefit as a percentage of peak hour tips and subtracting that value from the numerator of the V/C ratio. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL �.._M. Page 17 % , _ -7: | k 0 77; IJ | { g | 7 . o , , , , _ CO , | ■ % » { a a a / » | . § ( } A , ` , 3 | I6 CO0 , , , , vol-= 'CCr iii : ! Ct � if 2 �� \ IC � ol } iii ; (III) I( co ) k 7 ( J ! 47 COt a w rif) r e «CO rt.- [ ( 3 7 � oJ 8 s e a _ 2 e US @ |E _ &> C _ m . . . . . . { ] | {i CI % i ce < w - � - it— at 0000000c i DI|J 0! $ CO , r r , aCO r TO: 0 Uis ` � � a ) ` a.co o a) \ ) Cr)\ \ \ \ /\ � C \ / \ / } } 3 { \ ( `iii 15 k \® • ili CO 0) \ \ j \ \ \ \8 | \ } } \ ' )\ / Ill \ | \ E. | CL \ 0 -.-- — i / / / / / / f / ( C \ ( , \ ui ( J ( co . m = = = ® f co 0 � /! 8 &� 2 -ca / < O cu f ` k a & $ 05 / wrrrrr -= co CD CD Bea ] 1 # m 2 1— j }f \ \ / q \ % @f % \ » ; aa : \7. « 2 ? s r 0o . tag% rr.- -rr22 < t `0 ! I . , ) \ i ( ) §i � G \ $ { more \ a r ( \ 3 ) [ l ( . (N0Q2 <co r 2p :f 7 c0k \, \ \ \O1 \ CW .-D c 2 \ g © }, | ® u- 4 \ j | / ; a I --- cu E. \ 0 N f EL B � / / / / / / / k | , { _ , \ \ ( \ A 8 | 1 � - - rr_ z )01 2 I �3 ) ) „ _ , 03 | � ` � � _� . Ail ( | / ■ at } | ( « I ! � k - - / tar rrmrre ! a) &4] an 1 | co y la 4:2To |} < O � u _ ate = , \ II | ] &� § 2 . 77 % 74 % } ae fx 0 =t0 Zs co s <I— x in Z � � \ < 0z § \ ( { \ a CU 0 co / 2 5 E ; 2 : 2 ! c [ CON ) \ } ` \ \\ § W1 / \ N f. m , , & ® IIWWrDJ.! en - ! 2 / CO \ 0 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS According to the data presented in Table 4 through Table 7, none of the individual congestion management strategies, even at their maximum effectiveness, can reduce the volume to capacity ratio to the point of alleviating the congestion. Table 8 presents the combined effect of the congestion management strategies on the congested locations. Table 8 Trip Reduction Due to Combined Congestion Management Metlods Estimated Peak Still Location Hour Incremental New V/C congested? Benefit SH 14 to SH 68 227 Trips 0.92 Yes SH 392 to SH 34 824 Trips 1.03 Yes SH 34 to SH 402 125 Trips 1.11 Yes SH 402 to SH 60 252 trips 1.04 Yes SH 52 to Union Pacific 161 Trips 0.94 Yes • Union Pacific to SH 7 962 Trips 1.00 Yes SH 7 to E-470 1,217 Trips 1.09 Yes E-470 to 120'h Avenue 1,096 Trips 0.98 Yes 120`"Avenue to US 36 1,203 Trips 1.10 Yes US 36 to 1-70 1,751 Trips 0.99 Yes 1-70 to Denver Union Station 1,489 Trips 0.98 Yes • Congestion Management Plan _ _ _ __ FINAL _.. _. Page 21 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 ' EIS • 5. Findings Although the congestion management strategies, both individually and grouped together, can help address congestion, they will not address the 2030 travel demand on 1-25, and additional capacity is warranted. Congestion management strategies have a limited range of influence in addressing congestion on a regional facility like North 1-25. Although some methods can provide additional capacity to roadways by decreasing trips or hours of delay, congestion management methods are targeted to work within only the existing transportation network and cannot improve the physical system or substantially add to its capacity to meet future traffic demands. Congestion management methods cannot completely optimize travel conditions given the constraints built in to the existing system and would not meet purpose and need as a stand-alone alternative Based on the analysis presented, it is not recommended that the congestion management methods be advanced as a stand-alone alternative. The potential benefits cannot meet the future traffic demand, and will not substantially enhance connectivity or direct travel within the corridor. However, the congestion management methods described can reduce trips, VMT, and VHT. As a result, they are recommended as complementary solutions to be implemented alongside any Build • alternative that is selected. In addition, because of its applicability to the growing areas that will help contribute the traffic volumes on 1-25, Sustainable Growth measures should continue to be encouraged and coordinated among each of the communities. These measures are documented more thoroughly in Appendix A. Other community-supported strategies are documented in Appendix B. Table 9 summarizes the congestion management strategies that should be considered to enhance the selected stand-alone alternative. • Congestion Management Plan FINAL �� Page 22 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Table 9 Recommended Congestion Management Strategies as Complementary Improvements In Local CONGESTION MANAGEMENT Along 1-25 Communities Local Interest* STRATEGIES (Enhancing Access to I-25) NFRMPO, Longmont, Express Transit Service NO YES Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley Carpool YES YES NFRMPO Vanpool YES YES NFRMPO Telecommuting YES YES City/County of Denver Land Use Policies YES YES City/County of Denver, NFRMPO Thornton, Incident Management Program YES YES Northglenn, Adams County Ramp Metering YES NO • City/County of Denver Real Time transportation Broomfield Information YES YES Thornton, Northglenn, Adams County 'Source:Appendix B:Summary of Stakeholder Interviews • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 23 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 • EIS • 6. Bibliography Litman, Todd. Guide to Calculating Transportation Demand Management Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999 North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Congestion Management System: "Transportation Demand Management Program." Traffic Congestion and Reliability:Linking Solutions to Problems, Final Report. Cambridge Systematics for FHWA, July 19, 2004. Transportation Management Demand Toolkit, Colorado Department of Transportation, October 2002. QLL0RRAINE\Carter&Burgess\North I-25\NI25_CM v12.doc • • Congestion Management Plan FINAL Page 24 NORTH I-25 PAII • EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX C Station Design Strategy • • Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum - NORTH I25 • Station Design Strategy EIS For DEIS Purposes information. cooperation. transportation Date: January 26, 2007 By: Jennifer Merer Subject: Transit Design Team — Station Design Strategy for DEIS Transit Station Siting To start the station site selection process an evaluation was conducted to determine the general locations of stations on the BNSF rail, 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Potential station locations were identified and evaluated using a set of criteria that screened if the potential station location met the following criteria: • Serves a population center • Provides East/West Access • Supported by existing transit infrastructure • Serves an activity center • Has committee support • Has stakeholder support • Provides end of the line connectivity The station evaluation process is documented in more detail in the Station Selection Process • Criteria, January 2007 which can be found in the appendix of this document. As a result of this process 9 commuter rail stations, 12 BRT stations and 5 commuter bus stations were recommended to move forward for evaluation in the Draft EIS. Transit Station Site Selection After determining the general vicinity of station locations a more detailed evaluation was conducted for each station location. Numerous sites were identified at each station to house the platform, park and ride and bus activity. The preferred station locations were chosen based on the following primary criteria: • Minimal neighborhood and environmental impacts • Connectivity • Opportunity for joint development • Compatibility with adjacent land use The evaluation process is described in detail in The North 1-25 EIS Station Alternatives and Evaluation Report, January 2007 which can be found in the appendix of this document. Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Station Design Elements Each station with the exception of the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Station would be equipped with 2 side loaded platforms that are 25' wide x 400' long. A pedestrian overpass would be provided to connect the two side loaded platforms. The pedestrian overpass would be 23'-0" to the bottom of the bridge and 27'-10" to the top of the bridge and accessed by elevators • and stairs. Figure 1 illustrates a typical cross section of the commuter rail station and Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum — Level 3 and DEIS NORTH 125 Station Design Strategy Page 2 of 14 EIS 1111 information. cooperation. transportation. pedestrian overpass. At all stations a 12'-0" wide multi-use path and 6'-0" tree lawn would provide connectivity between the platform , park and ride and connectivity to the closest road . All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Platforms were located to accommodate 100'-0" tangent track on both sides of the platform and 300'-0" clearance from the end of platform to the nearest intersection . The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center and the Downtown Loveland stations were exceptions to the required 300'-0" clearance because the platforms were located in the downtown grid and would require closing major roads. The platform would be located 5'-9" from the existing and proposed rail with the park and ride being proposed as close to the platform as possible. Each platform would include standard amenities: • 1 low block with shelter • 2 windscreens • 1 overhead shelter • minimum 200 foot-candles lighting (approximately 8 lights at 50'-0" spacing ) • 3 trash receptacles • 4 benches • electrical outlets • wet tap • 2 security cameras • 400 lineal feet warning strip • signage • 1 variable message sign • 1 telephone • 1 commuter Rail schedule information sign • 1 ticket vending machine • 2 elevators • 1 stair Figure 1 Park and rides would include parking for commuter rail patrons, bus drop off and kiss S°' 5° and ride. A kiss and ride is a passenger drop BNSF ROW BNSFROW off area for private cars. Each park and ride I 19. 8• 25' '4 ,9 would include standard amenities: PLATFORM PLATFORM I I • lighting j • 1 ticket vending machine • 1 rail information sign �i==� ■�1■■■■■■■■� ? _ • bike racks (2% of parking ) i ki • 2 newspaper racks • benches/ shelter (depends on number 1 j 23.8' of parking spaces and bus bays) • signage 8 _ 8' TRACKS TRACKS • electrical outlets • telephones COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARK AND RIDE • security cameras • landscaping (in accordance with local landscape ordinances) Final EIS August2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS *€' . Station Design Strategy NORTH 1-25 , • Page 3of14 EIS information cooperation. transportation Commuter Rail Stations The following describes the general location and the program for parking, bus service and kiss and ride service at each commuter rail station. The Station Alternatives maps and the Station park and ride maps provide a visual map of the proposed and preferred station sites and can be found on the prl site. The table below summarizes the program for each station. Commuter Rail on BNSF Bus Land STATION Location Platform Transfer Parking Acquisition Plaza Adjacent to Mason Fort Collins 100 surface or Downtown Transit Street between 1 platform At- 1 bus bay structure Yes Maple Ave and Grade Center Cherry Street spaces On the BNSF 2 Side loaded Colorado State corridor between platforms No bus bays No Parking No University University Ave and At-Grade W Pitkin St Off of US 287 and 2 Side loaded Yes-coordinate South Fort Collins W. Fairway Lane platforms 2 bus bays 110 surface with FC who • Transit Center At-Grade spaces owns land North Loveland On the east side of 2 Side loaded 140 surface the BNSF and platforms 1 bus bay p Yes south of 29`n Street At-Grade s aces On the west side of 2 Side loaded Downtown the BNSF between 40 surface Loveland 4th Street and 6th platforms 3 bus bays spaces Yes Street At-Grade On the east side of 2 Side loaded 70 surface Berthoud the BNSF north of platforms 1 bus bay spaces Yes SH 56 At-Grade On the east side of 2 Side loaded 30 surface North Longmont the BNSF and platforms No bus bays spaces Yes north of SH 66 At-Grade Longmont at Sugar On the BNSF and 2 Side loaded 150 surface Mill near Ken Pratt platforms No bus bays Yes Boulevard At-Grade spaces North of County 2 Side loaded 1-25 and Weld Road 8 and west of platforms 1 bus bay 210 surface Yes County Road 8 1-25. At-Grade spaces Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Station (existing) The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center station would be located at Mason Street and Maple Street in the jurisdiction of the City of Fort Collins. This station is the exception to the standard • station layout. There would be one track at the Fort Collins Downtown station, therefore there Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS ` Station e n Design NORTH 1-25 . Station Strategy v�k' Page EIS information cooperation transportation would be 1 platform located to the east of the existing BNSF track with no pedestrian overpass. The program for the commuter rail station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 100 surface or structure parking spaces. There are two station sites under consideration, Site A and Site C. Final site selection would depend on public input, additional evaluation of engineering and availability of land. For the two station sites under consideration, the platform would be located at grade in the center of Mason Street east of the existing BNSF tracks between Maple Street and Laporte Avenue. Despite the recommended 300'-0" safety distance to an intersection both Cherry Street and Laporte Avenue will remain open in order to maintain the Fort Collins city grid. The platform is approximately 80'-0' from Maple Street and 120'-0"to Laporte Avenue. Site A is located east of Mason Street between Maple Street and Cherry Street. Site A assumes a surface parking lot and that bus loading/unloading would occur at the existing Downtown Transit Center. Site C is located west of Mason Street between Maple Street and LaPorte Ave. This site is currently utilized by the City of Fort Collins as a surface parking lot for their municipal building. Site C assumes a shared parking structure which would replace the existing parking for the City of Fort Collins Municipal Building and an on street bus stop on Maple Street. The City of Fort Collins has stated their preference for Site C. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Ft Collins Downtown Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. • Colorado State University Station The Colorado State University station is located on the BNSF corridor between University Avenue and W Pitkin Street in the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. This station is proposed to be a walk up station to serve the Colorado State University campus with no parking, kiss and ride or bus bays. Since this station is only adding a platform, no site has been identified for evaluation. The platform would be located at grade adjacent to the current BNSF track and the proposed commuter rail track. The City of Fort Collins has been very specific on where they would like the platform to be located, as a result the platform is very close to University Avenue. Due to the length of the platform and the 300'-0" recommended safety distance to an intersection, University Avenue would no longer cross the BNSF tracks. The Colorado State University running track to the east of the BNSF is considered historic and has just completed an expansion to the west. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Ft Collins CSU Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Fort Collins South Transit Center (New) Station The Fort Collins South Transit Center station is located off US 287 and W. Fairway Lane in the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. The program for the commuter rail station would require 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 110 surface parking spaces. There is one site, Site A proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site A is owned by the City of Fort Collins and identified as a transit facility in the Mason Transportation Corridor. The platform is at grade with the BNSF tracks. Bus loading/ unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. Coordination with the Mason Transportation Corridor is required to not preclude the additional • parking that would be needed for the Mason Corridor BRT. Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS Station Design Strategy NORTH 1-25 • Page 5 of 14 EIS information cooperation transportation. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Ft Collins South Transit Center Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. North Loveland Station The North Loveland station is located on the BNSF and 29th Street in the jurisdiction of the City of Loveland. The program for the commuter rail station would require 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 140 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site C proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site C is located on the east side of the BNSF and south of 29th Street. Loveland anticipates significant development to occur in the future near 29th Street. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Loveland 29th St Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Downtown Loveland Station The Downtown Loveland station is located on the BNSF between 4th Street and 6th Street in the jurisdiction of the City of Loveland. The program for the commuter rail station requires 3 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 40 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur on street. There is one site, Site I proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site I is located on the west side of the BNSF between 4th Street and 6th Street. This site is owned by the City of Loveland and is currently used for parking. Despite the recommended • 300'-0" safety distance to an intersection both 4th Street and 6th Street will remain open in order to maintain the Loveland city grid. The platform is approximately 80'-0' from Maple Street and 120'-0" to Laporte Avenue. Site I would serve the downtown of Loveland and provide an opportunity to reinvigorate the historic downtown core. There are two existing rail related historic structures in close proximity, the RR Depot on the northeast corner of 4th Street which is currently being used as a restaurant and the Feed and Grain Building at 1st Street. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Loveland Downtown Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Berthoud Station The Berthoud station is located on the BNSF and SH 56 in the jurisdiction of the Town of Berthoud. The program for the commuter rail station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 70 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site B proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site B is located on the east side of the BNSF north of SH 56. Site B is the preferred site of the Town of Berthoud. Initial environmental analysis revealed that there are potential impacts to a detention pond and hazardous materials. Site B is in close proximity to downtown Berthoud. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Berthoud Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. North Longmont Station The North Longmont station is located on the BNSF and SH 66 in the jurisdiction of the City of Longmont. The program for the commuter rail station requires no bus bays, a kiss and ride and . 30 surface parking spaces. Kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS gStrategy NORTH 1-25 Station Design rt.. Page 6 of 14 EIS * • information cooperation transportation. one site, Site B proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site B is located on the east side of the BNSF and north of SH 66. The City of Longmont has plans for a commercial development to occur in this area. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Longmont SH 66 Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Longmont at Sugar Mill Station The Longmont at Sugar Mill station is located on the BNSF near Ken Pratt Boulevard in the jurisdiction of unincorporated Boulder County and the City of Longmont. The program for the commuter rail station requires no bus bays, a kiss and ride and 150 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There are three station sites under consideration, Site A, Site E and Site G. Final site selection would depend on public input, additional evaluation of engineering and environmental impacts and availability of land. Site A is located south of the BNSF and Sugar Mill Road and north of Ken Pratt Boulevard. Site A would require an at-grade pedestrian crossing of Sugar Mill Road. Site E is located north of SH 119 and west of County Line Road. Site G is located north of the BNSF and south of Rogers Road. Site A has been identified in the Longmont Diagonal Rail Feasibility Project as the preferred site for the Northwest Rail. However, the current FasTracks plan does not have funding to reach this station. • Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Sugar Mill Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. I-25 and Weld County Road 8 Station The 1-25 and Weld County Road 8 station is located at the intersection of 1-25 and Weld County Road 8 in the jurisdiction of Erie, Dacono and Broomfield. The program for the commuter rail stations requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 210 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site E proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site E is located north of Weld County Road 8 and west of 1-25. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the WCR 8 at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Commuter Bus Commuter Bus Station Design Elements Commuter bus would stop in the park and ride to load and unload passengers. At all stations a 12'-0" wide multi-use path and 6'-0" tree lawn would provide connectivity between the bus drop- off, park and ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 1111 Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS - NORTH 12.5 '` T" . Station Design Strategy • Page 7 of 14 ' EIS reformation cooperation, transportation. Park and rides would include parking for commuter bus patrons, bus drop off and kiss and ride. A kiss and ride is a passenger drop off area for private cars. Each park and ride would include standard amenities: • lighting • bike racks (2% of Parking) • 2 newspaper racks • benches/ shelter(depends on number of parking spaces and bus bays) • signage • electrical outlets • telephones • security cameras • landscaping Commuter Bus Stations The following describes the general location and the program for parking, bus service and kiss and ride service at each commuter bus station. The Station Alternatives maps and the Station park and ride maps provide a visual map of the proposed and preferred station sites and can be found on the prl site. The table below summarizes the program for each station. Commuter Bus on US 85 • STATION Location Bus Transfer Parking Land Plaza Acquisition West of Business US 85 and north of D Greeley Street and south of Cache La Poudre 2 bus bays 40 surface spaces Yes River South Greeley Off of 8th Avenue between 26th Street 2 bus bays 80 surface spaces Yes and US 34 Evans East of US 85 and south of 42n°Street 2 bus bays 70 surface spaces Yes Platteville West of US 85 and north of SH 66 2 bus bays 60 surface spaces Yes Fort Lupton East of US 85 and south of CR 14.5 2 bus bays 110 surface Yes Greeley Station The Greeley station is located on Business US 85 and D Street in the jurisdiction of the City of Greeley. The program for the commuter bus station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 40 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site A proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site A is located west of Business US 85 and north of D Street and south of Cache La Poudre River. Site A was recommended by the City of Greeley as the end of the line for commuter bus. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Greeley D Street Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. South Greeley Station The South Greeley station is located off of 8'" Avenue between 26th Street and US 34 in the jurisdiction of the City of Greeley. The program for the commuter bus station requires 2 bus • bays, a kiss and ride and 80 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS NORTH 125 �* Station Design Strategy •Page 8 of 14 EIS ,t information cooperation transportation. services would occur in the park and ride or on-street. There is one station site, Site G and two stop locations under consideration. Final site selection would depend on public input, additional evaluation of traffic modeling, environmental impacts and availability of land. A stop is considered an on-street bus stop with no associated parking, kiss and ride and bus transfer activity. Stop 1 is located on 8th Avenue between 19th Street and 20th Street. Stop 2 is located on 8th Avenue between 21st Street and 22nd Street. Site G is located west of 8th Avenue between US 34 and 26th Street. The two proposed stops would serve the UNC campus and Site G would allow for a park and ride in southern Greeley. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the South Greeley Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Evans Station The Evans station is located off of Business US 85 and 42nd Street in the jurisdiction of the City of Evans. The program for the commuter bus station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 70 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site F, proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site F is located east of US 85 and south of 42nd Street. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Evans Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. • Platteville Station The Platteville station is located off of US 85 and SH 66 in the jurisdiction of the Town of Platteville. The program for the commuter bus station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 60 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site J, proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site J is located west of US 85 and north of SH 66. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Platteville Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Fort Lupton Station The Fort Lupton station is located off of US 85 and CR 14.5 in the jurisdiction of the City of Fort Lupton. The program for the commuter bus station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 110 surface parking spaces. Bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site E proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site E is located east of US 85 and south of CR 14.5. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Ft Lupton Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. • Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS NORTH 1-25 Station Design Strategy • Page 9 of 14 EIS information cooperation. transportation. BRT BRT Station Design Elements BRT is proposed to travel on arterial roads and 1-25. When BRT travels on arterial roads, it would function similar to commuter bus. The BRT bus would load and unload passengers in the park and ride or at an on-street bus stop. When BRT travels on 1-25, the BRT bus would stop at a platform located in the median of 1-25. Each station would be equipped with 1 center loaded platform that is 20' wide x 300' long. A pedestrian overpass would be provided from the median platform over 1-25 to the proposed park and ride with the exception of SH 7 where the grade separated cross street would be utilized for pedestrian connectivity. The pedestrian overpass would be 17'-6" from the top of road to the bottom of the bridge. The proposed overpass would only cross one side of 1-25 but would not preclude a municipality or private developer from continuing the connection to the other side of the highway. Figure 2 illustrates a typical cross section of the BRT station and pedestrian overpass. At SH 7 where the cross street is utilized, connectivity would be provided to both the east and west sides of 1-25. Stairs, elevators and ramps would be provided at each platform and park and ride to meet the vertical separation of the pedestrian overpass or cross street. At all stations a 12'-0" wide multi-use path and 6'-0" tree lawn would provide connectivity between the bus drop-off, park and ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Each platform would include standard • amenities: • 2 elevators • 1 stair • 4 windscreens • 2 shelters • 8 benches • minimum 200 foot candles Lighting (approximately 6 lights at 50'-0" spacing) • 4 trash receptacles • electrical outlets • wet tap • 2 security cameras • 300 lineal feet warning strip • signage • 1 variable message sign • 1 pedestrian overpass • 1 telephone • 1 signage BRT schedule information • 1 ticket vending machine • Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum — Level 3 and DEIS NORTH I 25 Station Design Strategy Page 10 of 14 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2 17 17 12' 12' 12' 9' 14' 20' 14' 9' 17 12' 12' 12' 12' LDE TRAVEL TRAVEL GE SYPASS BUS _ PLATFORM BUS BYPA 3NOUl.WEAIYIANAGED TRAIL TRAVEL SHOLILDEF LANE LANE TOLL LANE LOADING LOADING LANE TOLL LANE LANE 4' BUFFER BARRIER BARRIER R(+i-ERi 1' r- BARRIER Z • 11i1 . - ale" - -_ a ..n... �� •• • it 11 p _ I - 1 *yam ■ - PAFM SB I-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NB 1-25 Park and rides would include parking for BRT patrons, bus drop off and kiss and ride. A kiss and ride is a passenger drop off area for private cars. Each park and ride would include standard amenities; • lighting • 1 ticket vending machine • 1 BRT information sign • bike Racks (2% ) • 2 newspaper racks • benches (depends on number of parking spaces) • signage • electrical outlets • telephones • security cameras BRT Stations The following describes the general location and the program for parking, bus service and kiss and ride service at each BRT station . The Station Alternatives maps and the Station park and ride maps provide a visual map of the proposed and preferred station sites and can be found on the prl site. The table below summarizes the program for each station . BRT on 1-25 Bus Land STATION Location Platform Transfer Parking Plaza Acquisition South Fort Collins Off US 287 and W. 70 surface Yes coordinate Transit Center (New) Fairway Lane At-Grade 2 bus bays spaces with FC who own land Harmony Road and Harmony Road and Utilize existing Yes for Timberline Timberline Road At-Grade 2 bus bays pedestrian surface lot connectivity 1-25 and Harmony Harmony Road and I- At-Grade 1 bus bay 350 surface Yes Road 25 spaces Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS �7 Station Design Strategy NORTH 1-25 • Page 11 of 14 EIS information cooperation. transportation. BRT on I-25 (continued) Bus Land STATION Location Platform Transfer Parking Acquisition Plaza Windsor South of SH 392 and At-Grade No bus bay 140 surface Yes east of 1-25 Median with overpass spaces Off 1-25 between At-Grade 80 surface Crossroads Crossroads Blvd and Median with overpass 2 bus bays spaces Yes US 34 Berthoud North of SH 56 and At-Grade 1 bus bay 160 surface Yes west of 1-25 Median with overpass spaces Firestone South of SH 119 and At-Grade Median with 1 bus bay 450 surface Yes east of 1-25 overpass spaces Frederick Daconc North of SH 52 and At-Grade 1 bus bay 290 surface Yes west of 1-25 Median with overpass spaces At-Grade 460 surface 1-25 and SH 7 1-25 and SH 7 Median with overpass No bus bays spaces Yes or utilize SH 7 SH 257 between US No bus bay Utilize existing US 34 and SH 257 34 and Business US At-Grade surface lot No 34 South of Business US 100 surface • West Greeley 34 and east of 83rd At-Grade 1 bus bay Yes Avenue spaces Greeley Downtown 9th Ave and 8`"Ave on At-Grade 1 bus bay 0 spaces No Transfer Center 7 Street South Fort Collins Transit Center Station (New) The South Fort Collins Transit Center station is located off US 287 and W. Fairway Lane in the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. The program for the BRT station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 70 surface parking spaces. There is one site, Site A proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site A is owned by the City of Fort Collins and identified as a transit facility in the Mason Transportation Corridor. BRT and feeder bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. Coordination with the Mason Transportation Corridor is required to not preclude the additional parking that would be needed for the extension of the BRT to the Downtown Transit Center. Fort Collins would like the North 1-25 BRT to access the station site by traveling west on Harmony Road to the Mason Corridor and south in the BNSF ROW to Site A. Since this access would require additional infrastructure associated with the proposed Mason Transportation Corridor improvements this was not pursued as part of the North 1-25 EIS. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Ft Collins South Transit Center Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Harmony Road and Timberline Station The Harmony Road and Timberline station is located on Harmony Road and Timberline Road in the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. The program for the BRT station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and • ride and 40 parking spaces shared with the existing movie theater. Shared parking Final EIS August 2011 Technical tatinD Memorandum St —Level 3 and DEIS NORTH I 25 J`^r" Station Design Strategy Page 12 of 14 EIS • information cooperation_ transportation opportunities need to be discussed with the property owner and management. Two sites have been identified to move forward in the Draft EIS in order to accommodate a pedestrian connection from Harmony Road to the movie theater parking. Bus loading/unloading would occur on Harmony Road. Site B is located south of Harmony Road and west of Timberline Road. Site E is located south of Site B. Site E has potential for shared parking with the movie theater. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Harmony-Timberline Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. 1-25 and Harmony Road Station The 1-25 and Harmony Road station is located on Harmony Road and 1-25 in the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. The program for the BRT station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and a total of 350 surface parking spaces. At Harmony Road and 1-25 there is an existing carpool lot with 257 spaces. The North 1-25 EIS proposes using the existing 257 spaces and providing an additional 350 spaces for carpool and BRT. There are three station sites under consideration, Site A, Site C and Site D. Final site selection would depend on public input, additional evaluation of traffic modeling, engineering and environmental impacts and availability of land. Bus loading/ unloading would occur at the reconfigured bus bays in the existing carpool lot. Site A is located north of Harmony Road and west of 1-25, it is the existing carpool lot. Site C is • located north of Harmony Road and west of 1-25, it is north of Site A. Site D is located north of Harmony Road and west of 1-25, it is north of Site A and B. When the existing park and ride was built there was an agreement between CDOT and the City of Fort Collins that if there was a need to expand the existing park and ride it would occur in Site C and D. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Harmony Road at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Windsor Station The Windsor station is located off 1-25 and SH 392 in the jurisdiction of the Town of Windsor and unincorporated Larimer County. The program for the BRT station requires no bus bays, a kiss and ride and 140 surface parking spaces. The existing carpool lot and proposed park and ride would be combined. 100 spaces will be provided for carpool and 40 for BRT park and ride spaces. Local and feeder bus loading/ unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site M proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site M is located south of SH 392 and east of 1-25 in the jurisdiction of Windsor. A park and ride at this site would utilize the frontage road for access. The City of Fort Collins is concerned that Site M does not serve the residents of Fort Collins and would like to see a station west of 1-25 evaluated, due to environmental impacts there is not an ideal station location west of 1-25. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the SH 392 at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. • Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS ^� Station Design Strategy NORTH ORTH I-25 • Page13of14 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Crossroads Station The Crossroads station is located off 1-25 between Crossroads Blvd and US 34 in the jurisdiction of the City of Loveland. The program for the BRT station requires 2 bus bays, a kiss and ride and 80 surface parking spaces. Local and feeder bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There are two station sites under consideration, Site M and Site O. Final site selection would depend on public input, additional evaluation of engineering and environmental impacts and availability of land. Site M is located south of the Great Western railroad and west of 1-25. Site M is located in the Centerra development and has been identified by Centerra as a potential station location. Site O is located north of Crossroads Blvd and east of 1-25 at The Budweiser Event Center/The Ranch. Shared parking opportunities need to be discussed with the property owner and management. A hotel development is proposed to the south of Site O. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the Crossroads Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Berthoud Station The Berthoud station is located off 1-25 and SH 56 in the jurisdiction of the Town of Berthoud. The program for the BRT station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 160 surface parking spaces. Local and feeder bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the • park and ride. There is one site, Site M proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site M is located north of SH 56 and west of 1-25. The Town of Berthoud has expressed interest in this site and has development plans that could support a station. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the SH 56 at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Firestone Station The Firestone station is located at 1-25 and SH 119 in the jurisdiction of the Town of Firestone. The program for the BRT station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 450 surface parking spaces. The existing carpool lot and proposed park and ride would be combined. 100 spaces would be provided for carpool and 350 for BRT park and ride spaces. Local and feeder bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site J proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site J is located south of SH 119 and east of 1-25. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the SH 119 at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Fredrick/ Dacono Station The Fredrick/Dacono station is located at 1-25 and SH 52 in the jurisdiction of the Town of Frederick, the Town of Dacono and the Town of Erie. The program for the BRT station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 290 surface parking spaces. 80 spaces would be provided for carpool and 210 for BRT park and ride spaces. Local and feeder bus loading/ unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site A proposed to • Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS q ;M4 , Station Design Strategy NORTH 1-23 Page 14 of 14 EIS • information cooperation transportation. move forward in the Draft EIS. Site A is located north of SH 52 and west of 1-25. Wyndam Hills residential development is platted and scheduled to be built to the south of site A. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the SH 52 at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. 1-25 and SH 7 Station The 1-25 and SH 7 station is located at 1-25 and SH 7 in the jurisdiction of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Thornton. The program for the BRT station requires no bus bays, a kiss and ride and 460 surface parking spaces. The existing carpool lot and proposed park and ride will be combined. 180 spaces would be provided for carpool and 280 for BRT park and ride spaces. Local and feeder bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There are two station sites under consideration, Site C and Site E. Final site selection would depend on public input, additional evaluation of traffic modeling, environmental impacts and availability of land. Site C is located south of SH 7 and west of 1-25. The City of Broomfield 1-25 Sub-Area Plan has identified this site for a Transit Center and transit oriented development. The platform would be located under SH 7, provide vertical circulation to SH 7 and utilize the sidewalks of SH 7 to connect to the proposed station. The City and County of Broomfield would like to see a station at this site but are concerned about the walk distance from the platform to the park and ride activity. The platform is unable to be shifted to the south due to impacts to the E470 • interchange. Site E is located north of SH 7 and east of 1-25. There is a large amount of development occurring at SH 7. The Larkridge commercial development is being built on the southeast quadrant of SH 7 and 1-25 and the Northlands residential development is proposed for the northwest quadrant. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the SH 7 at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. US 34 and SH 257 Station The US 34 and SH 257 station is located at SH 257 between US 34 and Business US 34 in the jurisdiction of the City of Greeley. The BRT bus would stop at the existing carpool lot. There would be no additional infrastructure proposed at this station. Site A is located west of SH 257 between US 34 and Business US 34 at the carpool lot. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the SH 257 Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. West Greeley Station The West Greeley station is located on Business US 34 and 83rd Avenue in the jurisdiction of the City of Greeley. The program for the BRT station requires 1 bus bay, a kiss and ride and 100 surface parking spaces. All bus loading/unloading and kiss and ride services would occur in the park and ride. There is one site, Site D proposed to move forward in the Draft EIS. Site D is located south of Business US 34 and east of 83rd Avenue. Within this site there is a parcel that is owned by Xcel. The City of Greeley has had initial conversations with Xcel and Excel has stated that they are willing to allow a station on this land. • Final EIS August 2011 Technical Memorandum—Level 3 and DEIS NORTH I ZS Station Design Strategy - • Page 15 of 14 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Traffic analysis at this station site can be found in the West Greeley Parking Traffic Evaluation located on the PRL. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center Station The Greeley Downtown Transfer Center is located between 9th Ave and 8th Ave on 7t" Street in the jurisdiction of the City of Greeley. The program for the BRT station requires 1 bus bay. BRT would utilize the existing bus transfer center. • • Final EIS August 2011 • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Final EIS August2011 Technical Memorandum - NORTH I-25 • Station Design Strategy EIS For DEIS Purposes information cooperation. transportation Appendix • Final EIS August 2011 • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • C it) x ° O CO L C N @ r O D N N L C0` O CO 0 a • ,J. tii 4) c _> co N y c f..rw aO) N L aN aI 3 N N CO 'D Z X L L c a N a p i-4 `� " ~ 'pf O N O N C Z O L C N c o c > U 3 co E N N L 0 O N O aa)) N N 2 03 C o 2 N c as a2 NC C 0 NV N C O O c E f0 C .0 c0 COppE e a. N w O ar.E a E t0 E p c 1 u> t0 0 U N CO E n E L oO E cow a 0 Uc m � N X C 0 a C O C Q V a 0 `.. , o w p TO cp Na) • U El C w C >` N w c 0 c0 as o c0 0 N t N O 2N Q 0 Q 3 Ci c CO ° N a — coo F- co 9 O l0 •` >� c >, > O " c c 0 w >, .0 c N „co o .0 co a) t Ti. 'O N c as 0 8 oE y c0 c c N O N O .r O c c N C C a C C c c) p U N c O N O N t�O C 'a U N 0 N L N T «_+ C C N j a t7 L O ox o o N CO N C 3 °' N .0 N a0i ca (0 2 f0 O C 0 co O C ae O N O a> 0 � 0.2 'J c- 3L.t a C .o cN ~ � 2 "o r b c E N N EQ r El-• � o I-- -0 0 N V O •— 0 0 c O 2 N a N N L N r0 c`0 f0 E f0 o C O N N • CO w • 2 - 0 s- a O L L O 0 c w 'U .. .0 T c O N O 7 w c0 t/1 �. f6 .. U c0 U N N '' a O N O c0 N C: N d c R 0 N i- C 0 .0 w,_ o 0 O N N � .O c - o p ca p o 0 'D 0 = V C a C Ny C N N U w Q. > 0 N U - 0 O U W a, J N C a.0 E O N d _ C 0 c N Wm •C N N C w- N w N N N cog E •c C «% N ? u) = a> m •Y a�i aci w n• c`o U H V U > a ai rn o x o o ' > c� > E c o a cQw .2 UQb>_ cn < 'rna wa o To N 'D • .. O L C N 0 N � D C 0II cco. d U c L c 3 0 Lai c 'O a c c 0 N co c c t vim N o a r la >. c N tp ELF `6 N rn 'co N c _ E N L L 0 N •C C >>N 4. },-c 46 as C N L. co ? c co E co O _ N a 3 > —O _ o In 0 > C O COC O N ° co w. — C c «. 0 -a y DN w •� N " c E N _ c O O U `p L co N •�°-, N :«. > 0 U') ~ N c N ,C CO . C N � .-E — N .... O C c L MO Li: 6-6 Z4ac 3 c o N 0 p ,v_> 0 3 o N C O CO U N N N U •.L... L. T. NE 2w cco Cc C CO CV N 0 N N N U 3 0 O C co a Co u., tp r I— a rn IIL co EEC 0 co3N •C l0 CO X C a 2 N C , w CO coca ,� o O N N ; N N of f0 N U L c0 N 0 q c0 N @ O 0 c w E 1 • 20 O E 15 Vco f~`0 N w c y N c �, aEL 3 aci m c N _a N • C - E 0 0 in V .NC c w 0 0 0 -0 o 0 36 'v 3 c00. c o — W 0 a c a 0 .' E 6i (na ° Nw ii- ! yN—W0 � yc c.) oIllU OL N U V . O C a H N _ U N p �-pp ;47: 0 c Q N N w (n N fn c c U N O E N c c l0 3 W do; c C > C 0 N C . • • - 47. _O ca = c 0 10 3 'C 0 N c ° O 0 l0 N w 7 N - C Cw a E �' C :° aDi - 0 co N Tts, am o a>> a s c0 .y :� it < Z w J Q H COQ C o V> O a0 W a c )7 ,-, w .E x 6 A -o CD -a O) > a) c co D O C • c c a a o c -a E a W C NI. l.1). c T • N _ o o Hr m u: I E ;n = S C) m Z = Cu o a) a) o m 0 m Ea o L.L. c u) E o — c o > �, o o .O E cn O c o y c a O o To t m O co > C) E 2 S O C C u) o c o .� E O U U H ea'p O C C E 'J 2 a) a) t r O L CO d OU in N N O C c c c c 'O O O c c O C in a7 I- I— I- U � m o o d o >, C o '- coi Ci° t o a � `. U ID a >. >, d N t t O -O C Op CO o O o o an .O yO O O 2 co O ? � O c m m -O -O 07 U > U O O O j ° p01 7 a L C) d 0 v C) C 0 'N 'C Cu' 17 0 N y , o m - .� C C C _ c co `m ` 5 > > mJ 0 � c a _ c° ayC' aE C E E c a a a c r- c a) ° c c ca o f c o o .t C) co (`D o o a a P O a N E .C m E .O c d O) 'O O c0 E a) .= z c C) C) m � c p3o C' L C) � 'm � � E ate) te o m > 3 D o U o o > C Z t a CO C -?� '3 p O O ` ` C y J (D U) o Q E .V) ..c.2 L a) a O) O) ° ° .O o a y o o > o C O ,o C O I 7o � Z � Z � �° Z Z Z co dC) a) O in Uov) NE `oinac`D t C tt�� x a) O a) n O a) C) a) a) 0 U o 8 ° O U L N d O N N a N W U) U co c Z U) co co Co C < J < CO Z Q H Y 2 C c U H N Z 1— • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C• I 1.17, Q C X LL 0 c (I) W0 z - __ m Z yr O Q o a J Y 3 X Q N N CC • Q.' r E a x x x x x x x x x x x 2 vN O U a e We x x x X Ua0 2 7 • V aea X X X X . }o F �c 3W vX X x X X X X X x X X X s Q co W c O t. 3 m X X X X X X X X X X X X CO c aU a) O a O c .. O u. V cD ar 3 m o) c co vii c c �, m C) c t iD • CO ci Z _ U o oU a H 'o. o oL. > 3 -0 •V `c m o a) 3 = O U C y .r LL C M �' J O c0 O O O o co o a) • N L O E ` _� Cl- r O O m O C X ►�. O O a) 'O _� O> 4' a CD o y j co 't c 5 C) O) W O co W C H OD Wit (n 0 0 J � in J � co Z O J U) co m Z a r J ;- J U) o r N — � • O 4) Z U) N (f) W W N .C c 2 O Z LL C t o c z O (D co LL Q Z U) Q m x c a N a t� W 2 U) 2 w 2 0 U 2 Ct m J 3 O O O 0 W 9 O 0 C c0 U Cl) Q •5 C J Q c C O O w U LL a`, (/) ar Z z a m Y c' N O `o r C o ECL a x W o co � U F V C UQU IS! r V 'O U C T. H f- co I- C CA yU to a X N U N Q w C O y .77; N J d aU O Cb co 02 c 2 r C N c (� NU Wo (n U N `` r- O W� 2 co CV W W w N y.� c ft! ` .O 2 In C z O ZC�0 Q N 11Qn C ti x o C0 To - V ri._ 2 C)co cirs C t4 cc c co t2 To 3 n C; a) t a O m m • C a) O7 LL ►', W t 0 ° E c a m c € > a ° Y - 0 ° c S -v c O e a) :a O f 2 a) co Z L › a O C E -° — a m n c E d c to a°) .O 3 E C) o a c I O o a c c 0) CO O a) C7 a o ° C o f c is co 1:3 CO V3 0to D E' C E 0 o ° p C O O a CO C — to C C C L C — 'C '° — " 0 0 C fd O E C p p d tU c .N § O 'D - a) > ct .0 C C — C cn r co (a7), oU o `—° m o> 15 a Oct > m z ° > °c' is a o -' o -c t5 c co � � w a p ca cv to 0 - c f° o D m O a r J 0 O -c o O a a) t O to U a J a U `O o 2N Q) (o V p CO` fY) a) CO C N C N �. Q7 U a) CO to C O ct t�0 U C Y7 E - to C O d C C .O a to >, O Yp E V 00 � O` o O (h .o U _2 to a 8 co q) O a>), o (moo 2 yp7 ` NLL N (n t9 `) 7 to Y dJ (9U U to 'O p .., Dia 1 Q a) .j .'r LL .!� two �'. y cco a cE8rnoN oa) o ° 0 0 0) o a' o Eo c to c e° U c c > u ° W Y c� O o ° V O o '� N o c p O COzi) L U t U G O O O CO (COcu c a - O O coO •° O cc m O O -°LL 6 H O a o 0 V) ..C 4) ° 'ar cvo tr) Sat) —°a -5 cn(opt , ny n W 'x U U aril! -S e N co a o O N a) O co > O U y c C m wOw _ W Q Q < S a C 5 co y W u_ •-• c . W 'oo F-- Q (n J < v) < C)) H • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Z a CL d « Q c •- J 4c X X O C `o LL W U a W d 2 -3 r CL L O' x x X Q Y 3 0o (? N • Z W a) CO t• p F— E x x O o can' Z U I - -- -- to N 12 Z 0 .. X x < 0 J Q t_ ce e r LLI in V l..• m tor) x cD it c .C 0 U to a) U) n aX X X X x x X X X X U) Q f6 W C Q O 6, w co c (0 x X 7 y x a) U a V a U a cz to Co to U..' a) >. ` co O O o - c- N N CO 4. Q E C M N it ((CC is) r in N- W o (0 S F`— Cl)= U D c=n co c=i) 00 (I) Cl) Cl)= in aoi N /) z • (/) N — W W N .C c z 7 t,. O c) Lo I c =' O m 5 iiQZcn — c IF C L a C C C `O c a) R O O O a •eC a 3 a a) co Q Ill E 0 m m o n w O c 0 U C U 0 U L -0 0 0 0 E w C > -a c O 12 2 2 0 co Z o o O O T 2 _o - - L a) a) 3 0 L a) . E a) 0 7 33Z 3 2 E a O V V a 0 2 0 0 � � N N N 0 o a N 0) (7 >, OO a N N y c a) N d2 co C E a o O p o Cr N N W et — N c t L a I— F— F— L. P o) — u) co 0 C C 0 c °� c ,N i o a 0 O c r— a) [D m N - co O a) U )a co m m O W Co O a c)iv N a O O R 2 o 0 0 2 c a o a co (n o - N o c 0 aa) a) c a. m 0 E o u .a U E > > co U c c c ? a c o, 0 O a o m S a) a) d) - oa O f 2 • C N C 'L c c U) E E E ' c� c �) C 10C o0 E E E o o Z _0 0 0 cAio o o c 0 8 cg a c w° O m a � in (n ≤o E E E E n -0 _ @ c u, a c O t 0 ° to c `° c 0@ o c o o a c c c y E -6 o To t. - 0 E co 0 0 -1-: E a) o a) U Q) c N 0 E u' E cn 7 3 0 0 7 (6 a a C t9 O o N o > o o O0 ac) ac) a) c 3 Y >>c_ o o c") U - 0 0 2 m CO Q > > c O co� 9 S 0 d Q) O j J CO c o`) a o 0 O c) @ a a� Sc a a co C) a) O T w) a) N N N co .C O -c o) N d d a CD c 0) 0) U O C N to CO 0 N 0 c C 0 a a c �_ .w 0 C) cut _lc O cot 7 7 7 UO O O U) W < C <0 c a U) N U) U_ 5- . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • d Z. C J fj Q C X X in N c 0 W U Z O a) p.— 'o t O 0 Cn 0 a x Z Y = ScN y N CI d n- Y O Y_ Q Ea X x X o (q (1) 0 D m T N L. lc C X X X x u a) Q U a) Y Y y c 2 X x x x X A N F— = C Y N a) co 3N 0 X X X X X X X X X N Q to W C 2 c x X X X X X X d U o v a) a U a c ca - U � 0 c c c U) aa)) T. 3 co t f Tc TU a o O - ~ it F- O co u m 6- OC C N O O N C . 'y r c 0 Q) Cr CO el" ¢ rc D3 . C o = c � -Q Ec a v) M 0 CO � — O - 00 WO .0 La O O a) (C ,E N 1 C O` LLJ ,ZU OO WF- (nOO SF- Ti- 3 O D U=) co) (00 • in ti 0 — a) c N U) N - T W = C Z a) C E a )C Q) 'O 0) 1_ a) in C U < n N it Q Z O — - - x C) io D V c c a 'o 0 a V) V) ° 'p a 0 `J V) C Q • in J - a) -o L 0 U. -mow ..-.- E c m a) a c 2 0 _ 0 0 m a) `c o �-- = a (V �i E E ` in O r. c Z = C ,(a a) O 5 N c o f° > c° c I t Q 2 cn C c a) 'ca. Q) 00 O E - .0 N Y C -o C UO �- O -0p d V) co f0 .c c U V) c c a o cc° > m in a) (0)z _i o 0 .3 ° c 5 ,_ _ ❑ c m 0 W 0 C U N N ..7;,0 U a o a � L � O O CO Q) C C C O V c 3s di O O CO 2 d w c to o 0 (° .- . � V) o ' T 0 a) - o m m ° c ._ m E 0 ° co a) c (° 0 w a y a) > ° o w o m 0 > c N c E j cn — Y � c m U c p CO = CO O O" °) `. 1 `. I.l. _. m .: N To 'd d m a) U fU0 O C O Y N J p) U N w c a) o c E EE i ° EE UE cE 3 ta`) c o co EL -o 41;° o f c E E E �' c E ° E U ° o ° E m ≥ a) m 0 o rno o °) o E o ° a' c c o � a a) Vi U U J U O) c U J N U o U c c 3 c o (° a) o V) °) n) t_ c o ._ ° r 0 0 0 > U -X 3c o Z Q p) c 6 a) o - O O - a) c u- 0 1— Zr) o o -0 > O ct o F- 3 c 0 ❑ .C o Ea a) 0 0 0 c° O O 0 0 0 00 O " a 00 F- .0 N O 2 IS In' h L ° o .C .C Q) (n -C V) -C U) V) V) V) 0 c 0 N C co CO c 3 o 0 a) Oy co a) -o w a) m a) u) V) V) V! 0 E LOW E a) C V) c 0 0O +� 0 O CO. x U �° O U CO. U 2 U 0 0 0 t X 0 0 x o 0 0 U (9 -_, 0 --_.cU) 'pI— (I) C Q ET) m QU) < U) Q QQ QQ W QQ W U 0 QU) • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "C) C ns : .? C Q X X X X C -D c o o WV Lf) ` N m _' Vi O O Z d Oa. X X p X 7 IllCt CC t O H E a x x x x x x O U) a Q C U) 2E CO QU x x x x x CD I. -N▪ u co• 1.. x X X X X F— CO et C 0 w - § x x x x x x x x x x in Q N W C Q O ` c ix n m X X X x x a) U oV a O a c (V N. I a) T N 0 C V) a) p a) 0 C a) O 2 Z 7 C U c co CO ' T O a) ° co Q O Q O C) — a Q c co n' 5 C co LI) CDU) M To O c IT) W O Cl) Co V) a LL ❑ N r ❑ D N D U) to 0 ° (D es Q oT.- i N CD ll a) z co N W W N t c 2 O Z M p u QZci) < _ D W x 0 c U) c E a C 'D E Q m Co o N _,111 n 4 o v y C) O F U. = .C E C znC4 0 0o o c_ E c J y .a a O o ` O '0 .D 0o 15> O 4) a) To y — a 8 .0 y >' m o c' E tEi S c u) co c cu ac E o 0 o o c c _ E to a) z a .0 .c .c 0 y O O U y VI 2 C C O O o 0 > c co a7 b c c c c J ' c Q) O y L' ~ C L O O N C .(75f0 co a >. U O O O a) c L O o O C co a -O 2 O 0 O U O O = co aL c y y a co - - - > U) a a) o C Oaea �i -- is m m o en o .3coca� t c y J 7 7 (Co J C a fo a J d y E a) rnCtl � o 0 a a. � 3 m � ° V 000cyococE c (n c a wco t .c o a) or) -o 0 co w a) c C) C) C) > c 3 o a) L C To 'OD .2 C 2 a to . . o c am co c i 3 � � rn� c m J y 'o CDE .v_, p ed to co O O O a) 0 O O 0> N a ---c Cf CO cc s- a) -5 a rn a) o) o O oa a) O00 00 - > y a) a) N d y Uyi N N O cyi) U G H C .... u) .. co a a) a) a) Y U G) a y O y a w co O 0 a) O a) U U U@ O U s Y a) O y .E = O I _ O W U) U) (I) < < < U) Z Q F- _ S O S U F- m Z I- . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O CC C Ct 4m x O cc LL W O U O W - ix nor ce o0 Q =0 eta x U Ill ; � O N Z_ - - LLI a) CO Z O O x X X X I.--- CO N fn g2' cu W c x x Z U Q U O C/) -- —• D ` m CC cS x x W Eo cop C C 3 CO N y▪ 0 x x x x x x X X X X ya R W c O ., 73• C X X X X X X X X X a 0 O a U - C CO m 45 (n - c r C - Z oU oU cr ct ca) p I- O CO Nv) (O Cr) tO N v co O c0 co U) O) c _� a X (`Co > d .O'. > �ja Tii yl y > y a) en Cr CO (D 6 C CO — c U) W ♦— ZI-- J _ W J > U) J > U) 0 U) U) U) U) .r- r _ P 4, 0 0o N 6 z N �+ U) W W co J ` z N C 7 2 Q U) 11 < ZU) 4' - __ x ri m -c Al 2 lyC a U a C a) a co 2 2 `c al 3 t-7) Q A4 e O O c m O O N • C 13 .js W t o a) a) U 0:a r C m TD '3 O '3 a > Y E U U N 0 Z - C) a) 0 o >. --- V C C L _co 6 v) 113 N0 L a) a a) a) 3 O U tn u) m 3 a) .- p o d m m ca a) 0 ° 0 vi a) E m m 3 (-- co m 7 7 m CE O V oo o y Cu E E E E E E c al al tea) - N cn0 r r0 om m c . ; c -o .4.—. o a) -1 k- C U) 0 0 0 0 U L co— —0 o m 0 f° m co _o c o -0 a)... ° 3 C2 so 47 O O O 2 CO N -c O 13 cC0 y o N .C CO TO a) _ C C J (0 _7 C 0 a a n o a) a a) 3 o T w E E E =° V E > c>v Lo m 0 c c o o E0 0 m a > ° a) = 'C0 c TA o coo o � om .am. ca EE E C To U E O G o a) O O U U c co N _` L a)o U O m O U cn 7 @ ` �- o coto a) S O . a -a) a) I -Fe' C C .-, N T .C U C C C O O O O N 13 o ` O C m d Oa O O a m O ° O fp 0 > > a) E EE C in a. comNOe o0 0 00 .= o oco w c c c c c Y � c o c .- oO - 'Go N a) ° ° V -' U o m '- rn > c > c > c c 3 o I 0aim ' 6 OJ �.. w � ° Qo co co o o ma 0 0 o m � `m go o � V a' � v CO 6) N a) N 4 y >. v) CO a) y cn or CO -C O -C a) y 2 'O .C O a rn y L U O C .0 N th a) N V 40 O 0 0 •U L -o -0 V 3 0 ° a) °to ._ Y > Y a) 00 00 mot E CZ) x coac'S 0 0 - a � m o. 3 o o u ° �° >m o c� a W U U U o U U 0 Cl) W W Q Q < Saw Z to u. Q W -0 F- to aa)) I I— • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Z 0 c — Q ° X X IC C O Co W LL O C_W a`) ts C o a C Y 3 x Q 0 m w w r CO O 1- o x x x x p oco Z to N Z « CU C X X X X O Q U U) D m a)3 CC L _ w *co- ~ N a W c X X X X X D F`- co 2 w c 0 U d N LI N U X X � -- ' X X x X X x x x X N Q m W c Q O ,_ CC -)- c X X X X X X X d a) 0 v o a U V c m m a) r v) co S C C C .`-. En v7 C 2 3 0 O 3 00 >. c >.U a (aa USt O ZO o c ' c F- _ o (n . C o N C to- a N Cnp`_ < -7c D3 he 3 c € a Ea co m M 0 CD C0 to CD CO U) oa) v) O Rti o2 m .E mE r 2 co 1 W CO U) ZO O O W F— Z F— II- S F— N U D i) (_ � V) Cl) V) 0 rin CNA po z 0 1 a) u) N w CJ C in y c 2 0) 3 0 - 3 'C O Zo C E a m c =' O ti - o > ` m Q 0 < CO — ELQZU) = X C 2 U Q) c a a 0 C EL.) Q in �y C ..j. W a c o 0 o. tu o v) Z o N. a co c 2 CC o) 2 c c C (a (6 Y .1.3.- a a u) a C N c o a) a C '` O C c c > co -di 01 a N Y X N W c (p Y '7 ,- a) _ O Oct J a (0 U a o c co m C a U c -)f0 E.0 >, O N E N .O U Y N t 9 C) O c COC a1.t . c � � to c c o c E c a) co_i c m e a O E •C O a) U O 7 a c EEC's) a 0 E- E a) c c a) o C U -J y U CO c c 3 a Q O 00 O ID co o f o O O o o w co a) -o N o o o N N N c U) a) y a) y a) y 0 a) al N C) t U o U - U O 0 0 0 O U co Qcnm Qm dVl C QQ 0 C L p • . • • • • • • • • w I.. co )4 Z c - -) •-? CX X X Q CC 1:1 COW o U CC O s. U.. 'o t O O D o a x _W 0xy cc CO ce Q U a) O xo O Z Ea x x W 0 N CO l— - - -- O Z 1^ to c x x X N Q 0 Z O CO z v m c 7 X X X I- CO w e I- = N 3N O _ a x x x x x O yQIV W C ≤ Occ It `, P 3 es CZ C X X X m a`) 0 ov a 0 D c co N U) a) a) O O N Q F to N- E U) E c )- I I 2 D N Q W0 U) Cl) U) Cl) O .- O 0 '0 U r N ) o m z N (%) w o N. _W N c t o Z II m (7 W c 3 O cD QJ N ii: . Zco C a E. oo o c C) - ai o co Y h- c C13 CO > ? O Q N N E o c a .N r o ii > r o c 0 0 W Ill o co 2 0 < •c to TO u) co co a: a) u) cn r a co it = a o oo c > 3 3 E 0 Z� j -o a5 c Y W t1) O , 0 0 OU a -0 (0 COC CO O 4E V C J - c c ° s a o C. 3 a — c ao 0 0 3 o O N U 0 c Q a 0 � � c n a) o m ? co c co c � - w E •o am o u' co Q C) to c a D O U c EO y TN to 0 V) O Y LC U c to N �. 0) a) c — ` O O 2 H co a) C Y c0 a) N _ (D a N x co L _c a o —` 73 to -C a) co 0 co Y W W 2 o a) L 0 0 e5 o U) 0 m a a m a c UZ Z U o 3 D z cf) a O Y co a) a) a) 0 a) Q c a o C)) C (o J J > a >-, ',.E2 O N c C C OU d L) Of c 2 2 4)) > O O O O c w U C7 (� r C� o m C7 (� C7 w S a s a - o a_ o -c o c o o aa)) o 0 o c C c > > O •p c O a) o J J J a o 0 0 >, 0 _ o .`_' 0 00 To ' Y E o f C " a r r c -o � E L U � U � U TUUU oU co o o 0 JLLW LL t E EY E .v' E N E ? E as O E E = E a U coU is r E E D E co E � O° i 2 c O c 0 3 0 0 (6 0 0 ` t0 ` 0 0 c O c ` (29 o a fo CO O t c w t w o -I O E lL to m U c E ° c co .O c c co c >, 0 o O N 0 .. cc a) C E o 0 O 0 a c 0a o) 00oa0oo ,_ o = Ec. C E — E 0 0 E E -0 Ea f ci 0 al inn C VI in M E ° v) a w E 0 c o � X000 .3000ccaoo "� ° coimw> 0 o $ EE � E > ao ao � ,o U a W U cO cc UUULU a (.7) u) < o O Q QUU < Vr c r QUln 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • d c .> 0 o X X U) a C Op C WU D O oO 0 cn y a x to co CO u) Ce 0 ~ a) a) r o 2 E � x x x O U co U a ,, 0 d H •... C X X U U Q ar 3 .N .....: c ` x X X O H ` WE N — a X x X X X X O 0 COQ W c 0 us C13 c t. ::c '5 `,43 x x x x x x x aV 0 U a r c , @ > N o co 15 c o a) 0 T 2 0 O 0 ` 0 z oo (� o — a e b n. > > CA a co aoi n c ra °' to to -' r- ( E W o n c� ` O 0 > co �° Z o I ° y ' co cn W J E. (.o a.. (n t0 a U [ 0 N o0 0 N (n W N .C c in To 7 L .� 00 j O c J U) it Q Z (7 < D x m a c c o a) c a a) a ill C Q co t!1 n t N W-r m z H 11 C - a z O 20 O y d 0 U 2 E CO y N F Z LLI r- U) 2 O 0 c o o 'o •-•U ti a) 7 U C iin C ro C C 0 yo C C N a Ec `' C C OO a •C d) c 3U o) Q coi -a a) m N O O O P C O N N t O C U) N H N U U @ O U QQ (n ≤o O Q • • • • • 'D c a) n "'2 C ` O O X X C .4. -o c C C o O W (..) U I 1 CO -o r 0 D cD 3 a Z o .aa, 0 to U) 0 d CO 2r CC E a x W E3 I— o co D O 2 - 2 O a >, N V 4! . al H '.�-.. C X X x U N OQU d L 3 :— r N U c 2 X 12 711 H 29 w C M cu U) N N 8i x N U tO al W c O L r y C X a) Q d oU U a 0 c co 0 co a) U Z 0 0 CO £ _� c Q Q Q W O co O '- O ill 'n U '- N a ' z N N co W LI ac C 7 L .12 z C) h C ( Q W 67 Q Z cn a t c ° n m p m i 2.1A) ¢ • n✓) m rS W r C = 0 2 O N y-y I-. v a o 0 Z - o E >,ao 5 a = ca N cnd N 77; 2 a_L O m a a c6. m30 2 0 d .-Eta J 0J — O C U C L N d .m O a A c 3 o d 2 E2- d— C p V a N N O U C d T d P d N e o O = n d o c E = m a o 0 0 m u 2 o..w E S .a a 2 2 E o m 0 0 0 0 ry= c Orn 1^ j m o o O ≥ ≥ > d d OEc on N W- N cat, J« T cm 0 m 011 1% 0 '888 2g O « N O.L.. W c o '51,f, O m J• n o o m are' .1-TIT O a X O L • S d ill m con =a Smm 'V' 0 mmm wo dN n 6._ aaa 02 2 m 2E, m a M_To oE2 2`o =rm -OD tsar w co. E NNH EEc, O "' Eo Ere aE ..≥, v 2 E . 1° $ 2 E- , , 0 o N« U "t:- . . . o II-c.:= H n' 0 0 0 U a N a U o o N J m 00 0 ,- a m 0-=9 a a o N 868 d g2-s- o— --L6-0E d. E2 o u d 2 , 0or, o a m O v m 222 m m m 1506 022 m 5—T1, N a n n a c.X E" It 222 E a S t22 o 217,43 Zr E EE c. .,7. - 8=E n n _ d m d m m 222 J 0 N a t2._ m E D o a t A'o'V'V y S u u 8 5 -!$3.12 a;« c m and 022 j c a a'_ r' J= 712E ° a2 =U .1".'" ' N m N O N N N: 7, :7, N m t E E E _ n K 0 ,_ E, c c x - c a c E E E E « n m ,,V g O O O m O O d 222 O mom C U U o o----- C N 't'� y N m t` Q _ m m m Y C C C G b1WJ N Eno O `c`c E)'m m «N32 WO) NN Eao 3222 E m' caaN uw__ Amin mmH two NIVN c¢¢ aaa m a` E ¢ u E 'w c o n p n o , E + , 0 + 0 , E: + O . ti .,. . , t + 0 .E + O .m + 0 E + o . ii m 0 @ 0 IT 0 u d 0 N f Q d N ¢ 0 • W Co N O c5 O = 4., 0 2 C Ldll O m d 0 C_ o c y d O o T j d o,, m E d o m o-_ a _ L N O 0 C m a O a « N y T to, 0 O d jp E cLd - J _ D 21 O c E d O a aL 9'O 0d U d d dO' 2 N N o m 2 U 22 y 882 O C N L U C a O n > 9 c •c q _ 9t.2= m c c E = O W N N N m $ n y c a m d m > o 22 U-i= o N ry m Q a ac EE ow aaaivo� `p m a `o v= 2L8 o o - o N Y m d >O m d U my LL me NN meo a m m OIc 23 >m ; WW dN EE fill a = fi ° 3dd a o c mnn m m m - -a°na m o 0 0 5 nEE d m dory E ° oE« u N d EEE✓, d o d a o 28 It C m -(°!),' N O N N .d.d a 8 O+ Oa n d u N E E d m m E t d a O c b E>. d L"-t ji m 00-2E 0 m E== =t 011500,*, ` E `m I-27,2-° E pO,0 E U o2 3 x') . 2 aa = =§4.1 n is . . . 2" 5Z0 d E 8,75 7,2.4 m m ac =N'o a_ .- cEE0 Mcmm= . 0a at cu aao Eg o '02223 m a s L a n ,E c==.0 `I= E E N C m „ n m q N E E c O)E d o d n •2 'm m °'m m V m d L d 2222 d�d« d_d °9i zoo coo - `' °i `m o O °' N i° c cm U N" (05 N 02 0000 = wow Z d d .... 0.,„0O m N" C0°- 2 S o d= c a c c c c c c E c o 2 ,02= ,(00,E 22100V W cp_ o2 2,c- o cp_ t E u 2222c E2222 o_o o 2m = d `m d-- o d a o m 2.-2 21i2 N a m` 2222 w2222 m m o!?a c E E', E m E m E m • N W 2Y + C O d O N PPi U Nd md dN °= d L L d LL cmm aH O = N H H H H [FH a a'o .. , E + o a + o 'ado . yd + o i N d LL¢Zm 6 ; W S = t % m m I- W 6 6 t co o. 0 )5 } \ ) § : j / tn c5 c RE 2 2 22 f}\\ !8522 22 } L\\nn /\ \ c 42 \ r° r0 o ! Tv o 2,0 \\} -O 2o 2 \ , 2c Oct { \}E-t=4NO 22 \ } C =o Ct- E\ S°a0 a g \\\ \}\ {) \} / , :! . !_!_ 9 (OZ 2 ! c, EE 2,424 - [ k! ) _ §; _ \nat, :_)t =na 00 \n \t \ �� - • , �\ N&N { acaa 7 ``U U n I U mr\ j \k+ = �\ k`\ e \ . = 2 :■!a ] � ! � ) � 7, .7. 2 C | � 7 � wf..".8 I L . - I - --- 71 m n Ill N IL IL S rcI a °E E IEE II` E em a twin rc= €- O - = - s iii e1i. t Ps I z :a III= Iz , - ' _ _ - IIa*Mua Ie' + •=d-=oo=t • .I°° of . . . . . . - • . o — WPM**MIUW.QU ° o=° =c =t_°°° °__ °I' upwEp h2.2 _ - _ _.° _I ,I° — cl I _rI!A n co I I I I° N NMMgw4 -. - co ° . . CO 7 slam a I paws . I I CO I ° VI= °oo l-, �µVpa.N IcI° _° - w I --II II I 7 I I II Ero - ..I, I , . . . =I� °c° E O papa - ° o I I O k ISMOD d1ipapawwd Hoc c c °c 0 pc c c° .I _c c c Ho C ° l is , W WNG�WNwGq Y -I - °° =°_= rII -7 j i f/1 c L_ O wnpa1M*Y ,L , co= mN pal c _ °°°° o ° =low Ck I rn•wYwa - .1. to wwyagwwesV I• - . . . C cp II I rn of lawmanpainaWpm on o o -- oo .0000aoiod.° Mp• II I I q. ° ° ° zzdePee °Ct°o (MU N .T'llIC • C <000W 'UI , c ccc •o V c Y ._ r J-2 c m • L..: v tt'YY . L2R ...._ (•� V.OJ V!JJuV JG N NEIn,`Y+1 <.UIGW ft u amyon Wx c¢¢¢¢¢¢ m O2 I-",:: • ¢Crt7RSTtt¢ U UORCp�&pCi && V)d 3 (MUv o v IuI <OFISIg'12zii dIDTTD x 08 ] I CCI� Ct m no 08 III;• • C 000100 N P UJ JLJ UL ' N m cc h UC i 9 TRRRI mm.° v9ill 0 1 C „,f..—.) �tm —_ � w° rto b[[ssiala s[jeG[cco a 11; 33'1333 1 °1Om Ett1 0uril 0_ttEs55 oE I� Ctt[t Ct • `ec I LLQZco ✓.. v20 zzz 0 �ouIUI oCI.tmz �zV JJ_I_+J Yq/pImmenti ea LL n000vw _O ___ 'PPP 00 Eg$?vc _co Z-1 x a m m a • E a a r;ILLJn l o o, o,S QgIDWWQ o E a"a"aa"a" _ _ Z Zzzzz ! O33 33 P r ei LL v v o gluo$ddopa.t am3 slit OO OOOOOOO Oo0000 OOO'!OOOOOOOOOO OOOOO upImi 'd(a o o O O O O O O OOOO = O + + OOO Pedal PIMA 11 . + + + + + + hull 000000oalllll IC3PdwMdl Wad O + llolll ioIllllllll + + O . + 11 + + . + + + + 111111 +ulul000=o 000 + c 0 MUIR C 0000 0 0 l OG Illul o olllll 0 o0 00cooa 0000co 0000p0000000m coop . " Il . i4 . + + + llllll llllllulllu + + + + + � la . + . ia llcof ul+ +ulll O . + O kpilms*IOW Pin id ll OOOOOOO111111 l+ . OOcOO11+ OO + + o + + A 7 W ""�a "" OO . + + + + O OO11 l 0000ao�o�OO OOOOO dl ndlfpPNpMMgquney a . 0 000000,00.. . � 11OOO OO + OOOOOO OOOOOOOO111 + + + + + O 0 1 1qIPQnWi*y OO + + + + + + O OOOOO + 0 . . 00=000 + + 00 OOOOO N ci nwq -00000 =u= ol.,+llluull o . . maven ll . . + + + + . 11111luuluo . + o= + . . . . ell 'Sea sag q•«.�y to .. . ll lI 11111111 W OO 000.000, O1O1OO OOOO1111OOOOO OOOOO W talleftanaMPORIIIIMa INP4qCPC 00000,00 OOOOOO OOO,OOCOCPOOO,-,O COIDOO flOW = 1O O O OOOOOO OjO COO + o Wed o0 OOO=OO;O O1OOOO OO OOOOOOOOO OOOOO m `w U a m y 0) 8 N& amu0wwm — cc mmmmmmm TOO 0., 000 <m UAW LLf92 'YJS 6mOmW • ¢f � <M it a a0>) ij a a d mmmmmmmmmQQUm mmo)oQ0 �� mmzdvvvvma tholvimmm_c0owoou0000 . 0cOli0oo > 000.3.306-00000U0 0 > v m m m a m w m m m m o 0 'Mgt o i r > > v'»> > >> > > > > n R OI • v f ] J ] t i 2 C c [ U m m m m g R m N 8 N N N 8 J J J J J IL Q Z fn littcouutilt()�n o o r)W W till]Will W 1 a a Is S a a a a a a a a a LL LL U a LL LL suofapurwaay Gals g m X 7 n R m a .It LL LL LL _ a x c u i LL m t.. w 14. w w c a • o o r 00 e as e a m e n W _ ! E0 ?-2D ED o = ..c c r r 3 ^ - _ _ % a! p prrw0 a` a` a �. E E E ; ; E g l `� 1111@1i % i ink% A i Z i y , a 2 a I v v S ^ n a ; € i f t. c s _ a a a a 9 r F n E E' n i P i * w m p w g 0 '111;. ! a N i E 2 f E J E $ L Z Z Z I .i UU e a 6 3 £ S Z2 2E2 a _ igoaal e + IIIII + + • o o • a + ' o o • + a 41um oddOWMINWaMor _ pa mmmmm oaaao0oaooas o0 "W"Igi a oao c miiim + + • + . a a + oao + + MAW Rarw - mmmmm a a a + + + + + + a + + + + mufti',and « m a a III II + + + + + a + + + o ' + + + in 00000 000m N Wadi pa+ iPlata aalll + o + o a a a o a . O nrstH HIE + + ' . + + + + + c + + + o F Ce mmmmm CO O a 000acaaa000a a caaoo ooaaooa000a000 127. ono mmmmm as co To NtrIMM + •jm� II O + + + o c + + 11101 W pPpwuwpolakgg put'award a a a a o o + + + + + ,,D0.0 . . . r U) .niFaaIP.M a Im o mmmmm a sa 0000000 + + + + 0 C ';T. tul/PpuepaupNQgaaoaaY o o�� mmmmm + + + + a o c o a o o ala o M flsp to surd Iaaw3 + 000 + + EMI ooaaoo o o aoa aoo m > aan sunwea`V a • u miifl a a a a o a a a o a + + + + y 11111 000mm CO aaady wow. 'C c o o + + o O . + 0 0 0 a. _ lull IMO:Q + + a ♦ a N G sti/ spited = mmmmm 11110 W mmmmm d1Vs'oitlatl aslt/auryRW 111B/Wssp',UNISPua/Fld 4 Zr z MEI , a a o o • • o a a a+matgafalppis mew a.*RIM + o o a o o Inn z c a a c o o a o c o a o 0 0 Milli + + + + oaa + + + + ooa "ad c 00000 mmmmm aaaaaaoaaaaaoo ^' amugw ca 1- I- I- FI- o H m m m m m a ..m mmmmm m i t g 2 a a a bN o a ‘999u71 a, a u . e t ? C H L I-H d m m m o c c E d w m d v m m m m m E E E E E ry co 0. •H or I- F F r e it a s - $c c c c c S g c n < < c4 N U i a A n ^ m m m m m a m U m m n I S _ L'f Z o " v! r Ft'- F Ft' r FrF mR—m e cc&nrc&a`&&&& m¢ mmmmmmamma W;Yo . , a ee-P<< e.“89 :19,,mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0 `o 9 :9, 9 ‘,49, `0 6 0 € Toa cs € € E € € € @FEgaaa� aaaaa 'u¢'Zm Ana nxxxxxxxxxxxxi333 � � � ; wopspwuwoa. i n m c c o v g N €O 9 cc Q o o m ro-q cc I €o o c $ c A 0 J t E t tc o o ` g c ; • 4 p N E S N U y v U U •o• �jy A N N E V N a W O O 9 a • O V O 5 ! :5R“ 55 �` V y,¢Z1 m q A N O N N C g- N 'O �1 V N G tj xx6 EEL 5 y E m 333 Eo Eo v a `m a H euppssyIa3 + OO ' + o o l. o + . o , o + o o . o + o + i O + i O kipumoddo woutelep.ven soor 00000000 + 000 + + + + 00000000000 + 000 uOlsusdxj madam timed + + O + + + + cc + + 4 + + + + + + + + 4- + + 4 + + + + + wiaOdi puswpurafpsw3sowu. 0 U 3rWxsH + + N liyadosdallo�sµ{ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000oocoo00eeoc C 0 c00000000000000 0000000000000000 cc m spuv,.0 0 'q Allo4P0UW3 ryas pw wNiwpsd OOO 000000000000 000000 0 0 0 0 0 c.c+0 0 0 • ; ppwppaaa4k4wpcud 000000000000000 O 000000000000000 W suiiypmgysupsOQ swan, o OOOOOOO + OOOO + + o.c o o e OOOOOOOOOOO weed 1pM s Kind M(0,? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 O_ v.•. win pwrplwaeply 0.0=0000 + 00 + + + + + + OOOOOOOOO + + OOO co M� aasdNN agouti o cc o o + . + + O O O + . ' ' . + O O O O . . + O O + W tw»y INS cc o + + 4 0 4 + + O ' 4 4 + O . + + I O + . O + sriB N14suogip21 a15IluaAsk o 0 00 . . o • o • iO .• • 0 (1) - W the ORSUO spa a$ UiOprid 0 0 0 OO OOOOOOOO 0 . 0000 . OOOOOOOO Q URiaf4U.Lpq pOsitame3 AO lupspq O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 + + OOO + + 000000 ftplta o O o e OOOOOO + 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tM O o 0 0 O O O O O O O O e 0 O o O O O o c+O O O O O O O o o! 43 o f cc C Co f/ N 0) couoW4p2_7Y�fzo • <mV O W 02 YI ZOO. 100 O m m m m m m m m W RA 4f aDaoa as acv N N� No mmmmmmmL7lm g e o . . . . . . . . .e 22 ? 2220i3 =0 :'_>> g 2 g 3 9 9'9'9 a o o 7 o N N y N N N N N c N N ✓. N O O o O o L L L O N ✓. N N N N N N N N N N N z T O P ? � >? E � O 2 O O O � o o � �� t: <Zu� VUUUUODUOUVUUVUU �ir'�mmmmmmm 1 .u.Iwpsn.stlws ,,Tymi.Ecoc,imi WWa - -LLLLLLLL - n as a x a LL n a c W !c a s E 3@ 2 3 c a • I 9 3 ; : 1 1 _ rb , _ „0..:. 9 9 E i ?l v G O .wrmwJ E EE - �= mE � ` fir @ g = n s= Z E o - 9.LL y ! 'e E d W u L„,,„, i u e i Y ! it 3 3 3 r x x 2 x x ^ _ E W " 3 F :_ ) LLLLit GILL N $ Sm c E Y E a a'. F t V"-u-0L .� ::IluI:I I IIII:u:11:no + o' ' ' + + awm+.e+".wS.QM.r :11111:::: :::::::::::II1 00c0cc - . + + unsuadg + + + + + + +++ 49..4".111111111 11111111111111 + + + + + + _ + + + a ,•w.e o111000�11111uuu11 o + + + . + + + + + + .g .1.18"3"1"1"imanali111111111 1111111/111 + . + + . . . + . 11111111 11111111100 + + + + + + + + + + A.d.„�,M :0011000:: 1l11111111101 000'0'c''' n 11O11OO oo0000o00110 OOOOOOOOO 4WI.M 011000111111111111'0111 + . + + . . . + + . "IMMIAIMPI"49.a000uo III ::l'::'n o 0000=o'000 w a.p. 111111111 10110000000110 OOO-OOOOOO • 0.-- 000010 00: 00000000000 -1OO-1OO0. - — 000000:100 11:11p 11111 - . 5 .m , v1011101111 11011110111110-000000 . 1111111111 111 111111 .1 + o + . i , Yqf 11111111 11/1111111 + . . o + + . . . + '"g"' :::o:::: 111111111 1OOOOOOOO o Inin"14441,„"Wid 0:11100011 11111111111111 IWPa 1 '0 0111001:01111110 - 1OOO OOO . 04,04.mm :11111111: 00010000000110 -- - o o o o O O O O . 1110111'011111110111111 + + + + + + + + + + .wed1000000000 00000000000110 --cc aoco U u. cm R O ¢m U9WuU' S7' 1FZ �� re �n[iLV IEM ¢moow U' 2 Wo .00 ommmogTTTTT m� ¢moowWmx_ c llmWWmlllw ENm ar.r F r tir rff ommm ° � � � o � � � oo mmmmmmmmmm m rcwwmwwwmmm mN�m ommmmmmmmmmI0000p0p0 003pO0a2x S2zx 22x • W � � . . . . . . . . . . . .„„„,, ,„„„„,,,,,,,,m,,,, . . „„,,33 3„,,,,mm mmmmmm ZEESEESSEEgr_ ccmc, crwi . cma- wcFccEccczc c O im v .e09 n LLQZ0) LL „,,,.„ `uwLL :Sn ILLL uiiLL LLLLLL LLLLLLLL .I.LLLLILLLLN suompaulWowa on — 2 _ ° ry c% m w— rr, w o., 2,,I cr.,I2 0 `o n • W s v ! ! s s a n CC SUI W WO3 _ m _ I 5 22222882 2 'z t g Z 2 Z Z Z Z GZ Z O a Oulawuueu3 + + + + + + + + + + + Alinadd0 uawdopra tutor o c0 c c 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 c o 0 0 0 ._ uolsu.dxa + + + + 0 Wd.rypnslA •+ + , + _ « _ - . + + + + + , 13 d 7 PSdury slUOnd + + + o 0 CIP C winds P.wputptawpouyw,yy 0 in alumni r, .. « « + 0 0 0 0 c, o 0 c c 0 0 N µ L wd.ad opium o = o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 = c. 0 0 0 - O ttra 0 0 c spuea.M + ! � + + + + + + + + + + + +,+ + 0 C A1*po.aup spasm put ueps.p.d 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = + o o c 0 0 0 7 • > ppu•Plwlsw imunsind o c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..w... sWOMoNulw 0laa•yswasy o 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ + . + + + + + 65 C sawam%.lgpedW.a 00 + + 0 0000 c o 0000 0 y ...to nn puolw.atfpy 0 0 0 c. 0 0 + + + + + + + + + to mlsedury sums Al + c0 + + + + + + + + + + + CD 7. RI 1A+ swear'NS + + + + + + + + + + + + + + C c isms ling es aswey o 0 0 Q sng Ml4w•ptl.a WO/Wao/pld o o c o 0 0 0 o c o c 0 c c 0 Co „,— I" Ida/dN luOIWpy an naaop.ld 5 z z� 444 44444144 '4 CI u'4ofMtyul Psspawoaw Oupslx3 0 0� + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OuW02 0 ± o + + + + + + + + + + + sryud Coc• ,C 00 c, cc .m = = oc '' c '. o y 6 0 U C W rc U' S _ -, Y L- F F F F il IX a H 1- 1- F H c t EC mmrmcn a rr LC EC m 0 ., COm m m m COm COm COm m m m m D c `v U � - c c c c a c c c c c p ca u u a o c ,_, UIU u V ` a co ¢ m yo 2 I- P 4 p r 5 L4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 W o G m m m c �`- i it r i± � r r � itr • 2 CO m M e, r c-J E o € F. - .9 o 0 5 2 N m m mT m t _F g E N N N 0 Y v v wee N N Ji O i �'L C "c2)' °i' raj: °1 000o0w F 2 9 0 0 0 p O u O O D O N n m m „ X Q e a m : a v v r, v v v v it<2rn CS 3 S > > > � 0 C! C! e C CC mu a :Cc`, u N oRTx 1-25 • EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX D Operations and Maintenance Facility White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • North 1-25 Operations and Maintenance Facility ARTICLE 1 - Operational and Maintenance Facility Requirements I. Requirements Description This article is a review of the requirements for operation and maintenance facilities (O&M) on the North 1-25 Corridor. Transit operations and maintenance facilities are required for the storage, maintenance, and upkeep of transit vehicles regardless of the mode(s) selected for the North 1-25 Corridor or any current or future alternative development. These facilities will include vehicle parking, supply storage, a maintenance shop(s), vehicle wash, offices, and employee parking. • II. Operation and Maintenance Facility Site Criteria General site criteria are delineated below for each of the three modes being considered. Detailed site evaluation criteria will be developed and applied to sites being considered as the DEIS effort progresses and modes and operating plans are further defined. • Location (proximity to service area) • Size (acres) • Configuration (shape) • Topography • Zoning/use • Access • Availability of utilities • Minimize environmental impacts and costs III. Maintenance Facility Requirements The following table summarizes basic site, building, and infrastructure requirements for any operations and maintenance facility needed for each of the three modes of public transportation under consideration including commuter rail and bus (and/or bus rapid transit). Location of the facility or multiple facilities will be dependent on the operational plan developed. The following table should be used for preliminary development only and will need to be refined as the development alternatives and operational plans have been confirmed. • North 1-25 DEIS Page 1 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 Operations and Maintenance Facility Requirements • Commuter Rail Bus/BRT Functions • Train storage • Bus storage • Administration • Administration • Operations/Dispatch • Operations/Dispatch • Employee facilities • Employee facilities _ • Training areas • Training areas • Maintenance (repair and • Maintenance(repair and inspections) inspections) • Fueling • Fueling • Vehicle cleaning • Vehicle cleaning • Maintenance of Way (MOW) • Stops and zones _ • Toilet dumping • Toilet dumping • Sand (storage and filling) • • Wheel truing • Tire storage and shop • Load testing (engine) • • Paint and body repair(if not • Paint and body repair(if not located elsewhere) located elsewhere) _ • Parts storage • Parts storage Site • 25-30 acres • 3 -4 acres • Lead tracks to main line • Access to freeways/arterials _ • • Track spacing of 15' and 25' • Enclosed/covered with 12' wide with service access aisle spaces • 50 feet of space between the • Adequate site circulation for bus turnouts and trains movement 60' turning radius _ • Yard run-around/bypass track • Good vehicle site circulation • Paved service aisles • Paving of entire yard _ • Double end access (preferred) • Two points of access(one main, one secondary/emergency) • Separate public and employee • Separate public and employee parking areas and site access parking areas and site access • RTD vehicle parking • RTD vehicle parking _ • Secured yard • Secured yard • N/A • N/A • Whistle stop platform for drivers • On bus route if on corridor • Expansion capability • Expansion capability _ • Limited Environmental Impact • Limited Environmental Impact _ • Utilities including electricity, • Utilities including electricity, water, waste water, storm water, waste water, storm water, water, natural gas, telecom natural gas, telecom _ • Yard utilities including water, • Electrical and air outlets in bus head-end power, electrical parking outlets • Fueling and sanding tracks • Fuel island (could be covered or inside) North I-25 DEIS Page 2 of 15 Maintenance Design Group • Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • Operations and Maintenance Facility Requirements Commuter Rail Bus/BRT Site (cont.) • Loading dock • Loading dock • Material Storage yard (MOW) • N/A • Rail Maintenance Vehicle • N/A storage track(MOW) • Level yard area • Relatively flat site Building Administration/ • Administration offices/ • Administration offices/ Operations conference areas conference areas • Dispatch • Dispatch • Drivers Areas • Drivers Areas • Drivers Lockers • Drivers Lockers • Restrooms and showers • Restrooms and showers • Lobby • Lobby • Quiet Room • Quiet Room • Exercise Room • Exercise Room • Training Room(s) • Training Room(s) Maintenance • 2 train-length inspection tracks • Lower level work area below with pits and access platforms inspection bays • • Wheel truing track • Tire Shop/Bay • Repair bays number • Repair bays number dependent of vehicles serviced dependent of vehicles serviced • Drive through wash • Drive through wash • Service bay (component wash • Chassis Wash bay) • Common work areas • Common work areas • Portable Equipment Storage • Portable Equipment Storage • Component Rebuild (if not • Component Rebuild (if not located elsewhere) located elsewhere) • Paint bay (if not located • Paint bay (if not located elsewhere) elsewhere) • Body repair bay (if not located • Body repair bay (if not located elsewhere) elsewhere) • Parts Storage • Parts Storage • Parts Window • Parts Window • Loading Dock • Loading Dock • Sanding Bay • N/A • Battery Storage • Battery Storage • Lubrication/Compressor Room • Lubrication/Compressor Room • Electronics Shop • Electronics Shop • Vehicle Cleaning Crew • Vehicle Cleaning Crew Storage Storage • Diesel Fueling • Diesel Fueling • North I-25 DEIS Page 3 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final ES August 2011 Maintenance (Cont.) • • Maintenance Supervisors • Maintenance Supervisors offices offices • Maintenance Library • Maintenance Library • Maintenance lockers, • Maintenance lockers, restrooms, and showers restrooms, and showers • Maintenance Lunchroom • Maintenance Lunchroom • Exercise Room • Exercise Room Maintenance of Way • Supervisor offices • N/A • Shop area • N/A _ • Inside rail bay • N/A _ • Equipment parts storage • N/A • Could be remote from • N/A maintenance facility • Material storage yard • N/A Facilities Maintenance • Supervisor offices • Supervisor offices • Shop area • Shop area _ • Equipment/parts storage • Equipment/parts storage _ • FM rooms located throughout • FM rooms located throughout buildings near restrooms buildings near restrooms • Satellite shop near vehicle • Satellite shop near vehicle washer washer North 1-25 DEIS Page 4 of 15 Maintenance Design Group • Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • ARTICLE 2 - Site Sizing and Location Issues I. General Review of Size and Location Issues This article is a preliminary review of the size and operational location issues related the site needed for operational and maintenance facilities on the North 1-25 Corridor. This information is essential in evaluating potential locations. Transit operations and maintenance facilities are required for the storage, maintenance, and upkeep of transit vehicles regardless of the mode(s) selected or any current or future alternative development. The North 1-25 Corridor operations and maintenance facilities will be evaluated for each transit technology under consideration in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (i.e., commuter rail, limited bus/bus rapid transit). There are other corridors that can potentially impact North 1-25 operations. US 36, North Metro, and 1-70 are part of Fast Tracks Program and will be run by RTD. The US 36 Corridor will be commuter rail and have a operations and maintenance facility associated with it. The North Metro Corridor and the 1-70 East Corridor modes have not yet been selected. Another uncertainty is who will run the North 1-25 Corridor transit operations. It could be run by RTD, a new Transit District (independent of Denver RTD), or a private operator. Potential connections and shared maintenance or layover for vehicles is anticipated with these other Denver Metro Corridors currently under development. II. Operational Effect on Operations and Maintenance Size and Location • For the both commuter rail and bus service on the North 1-25 Corridor, the operator is assumed to be unknown. Regardless of the operator, however, the corridor will require at least one major operational and maintenance facility. A shared facility between two different operators is also an option provided they meet both entities' operational needs and a cooperative agreement can be reached. The North 1-25 Corridor is approximately 30 miles wide and 45 miles long. The width and breath of this corridor has the potential to generate a major problem for a single operations and maintenance facility. To keep operating cost down, limiting non-revenue service is essential. Non-revenue service is defined as the time bus or rail vehicles must travel from first or last public stop to a storage yard, employee parking, operations, and maintenance facility. Fuel, vehicle mileage, and employee costs are increased as non-revenue time increases. An optimum location for a operations and maintenance facility should minimize non-revenue service. In general, the location should be nearest to point of origin for the fleet each morning and at the end of a route each night. Besides the main north-south transit travel in the corridor, preliminary operational analysis has suggested several feeder routes in the east-west direction are needed to serve major communities, either east or west of the main transit path (Longmont, Loveland, Greeley, and Berthoud). From ridership information, the main flow of travel will be in the north to south in the morning and south to north in the afternoon and evening. However, this directional flow will not meet the needs of all riders and there will be a significant need for transit in both directions throughout the day. Servicing the feeder routes will be difficult to serve from an end-of-route facility. There is no optimum single facility location that will accommodate all these operational needs and keep • North 1-25 DEIS Page 5 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 non-revenue service reasonable. To solve this optimization issue, it is suggested that layover • facilities be integrated into the corridor once a transit mode and routes have been determined. Layover facilities would consist of a small secured storage area for one to three transit vehicles or train sets and one to two parking spaces for employees and operational vehicles. These site(s) could be located at park-and-rides, at the end of line, or incorporated into other RTD or local transit sites along the corridor. Operationally, buses normally residing at these layover facilities would be serviced at the main O&M facility by rotating them through the network of routes to limit non-revenue service and provide regular preventive maintenance. Given the assumption there will be multiple layover sites on the corridor, the O&M facility would be best located at or near the end of corridor, at the location where a maximum of vehicles would have normal access to maintenance facilities and the largest concentration of drivers and operational staff would be located. This would reduce non-revenue service and provide management and operational efficiencies for transit operations within the corridor. Based on these assumptions, potential site locations would be at Longmont, Greeley or Fort Collins. Ill. Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility Based on the "North 1-25 EIS Rail Fleet Requirements"attached to the end of this article, the maximum fleet size could range from 19 to 22 including locomotive engines. An operations and maintenance facility site will require the following elements: • Rail vehicle storage yard • Storm water/sanitary industrial treatment facilities • • Fueling facility (in yard or inside building) • Maintenance of way storage yard and rail spur • Employee and visitor parking • Sanding facility (storage and dispenser positions) • Maintenance building (including wash bay, PM bays, parts storage, shops and maintenance staff areas) • Operations (includes administration offices, driver/engineer spaces and support areas) • Maintenance of way shop and offices (could be independent of main maintenance facility) Based on these elements, it is anticipated that the site will need to be approximately 25 to 30 acres. The operations and maintenance/ operation building will need to be approximately 48,800 square feet. A layover area would include a siding track that would accommodate at least two train sets. The layover site will need to be secure, have employee and operational vehicle parking spaces, and allow switching train set direction. The site would require approximately three acres on a long, narrow site adjacent to the main alignment assuming it is not integrated into a larger existing yard for the US 36 or other corridor facility. North 1-25 DEIS Page 6 of 15 Maintenance Design Group • Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • IV. Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility Based on the "North 1-25 EIS Summary of Bus Fleet Requirements"attached at the end of this article, the maximum fleet size could range from 40 to 60 buses including feeder and local modified route connections.. A bus operations and maintenance site will require the following elements: • Covered bus parking • Fueling facility (in yard or inside building) • Employee and visitor parking • Maintenance building (including wash bay, PM bays, parts storage, shops, and maintenance staff areas) • Operations (includes administration offices, driver spaces, and support areas) • Storm water detention area Based on these elements, it is anticipated that the site will need to be approximately three to four acres. The operations and maintenance building will need to be approximately 20,000 square feet. Due to the length and breath of the corridor and the additional feeder routes identified, it is anticipated that several layover faculties will need to be established. These layover facilities will • allow for parking and cleaning of buses that will not return to the main facility to reduce operating cost related to non-revenue service and early morning startup and end-of-day service routes. Layover facilities would include the following: • Bus parking • Vehicle maintenance • Fueling island • Cleaning station • Bus wash • Fair box retrieval and maintenance area • Operations area for drivers and dispatchers • Administration offices. The layover site would require, at most, an acre, depending on the lot shape, vehicle access, and easements. It is assumed that some of these facilities may be accommodated at existing RTD facilities or local bus operations in Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, or Greeley. V. Preliminary Space Needs Program and Fleet Sizes The following pages show the preliminary estimates of space needs for both bus and commuter rail operations and maintenance facilities. These figures are based on fleet sizes established for the corridor, similar facilities, and industry standards. • North 1-25 DEIS Page 7 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • SPACE NEEDS FOR COMMUTER RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY Building Areas (gross bulling area) Administration 3,000 Operations 3,400 Maintenance Office area 700 Maintenance Shops and Storage 35,000 Maintenance Support 1,800 Material Handling (Parts) 3,000 Maintenance of Way 1,500 Facility Maintenance 400 Subtotal Building 48,800 Site Areas Employee Visitor Parking 17,500 Internal Parking 5,000 Yard Storage 65,340 Ladder and Lead Track 160,000 Rail Vehicle Storage 348,480 Storm Water and Water Treatment 43,560 Fueling area and Storage 21,800 • Subtotal Exterior Areas 661,680 Summary Total Building and Exterior Areas 710,500 Site Circulation and Landscaping 532,900 Total Site Requirement -S.F. 1,243,400 Total Site Requirement-Acres 29 North 1-25 DEIS Page 8 of 15 Maintenance Design Group • Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • SPACE NEEDS FOR BUS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY Building Areas (gross building area) Administration 2,200 Operations 3,500 Maintenance Office area 700 Maintenance Shops and Storage 3,750 Maintenance Support 1,800 Material Handling (Parts) 3,000 Wash and Fueling Bay 4,900 Facility Maintenance 200 Subtotal Building 20,050 Site Areas Employee Visitor Parking 12,250 Internal Parking 3,750 General Yard Storage 21,780 Bus Parking 22,500 Subtotal Exterior Areas 60,280 • Summary Total Building and Exterior Areas 80,300 Site Circulation and Landscaping 80,300 Total Site Requirement - S.F. 160,600 Total Site Requirement-Acres 3.7 NORTH I-25 EIS SUMMARY OF BUS FLEET REQUIREMENTS (incremental to No Action) Bus Rau MODES I Pka 1 I Pka 2 I Pka 3 I Pima I Pka 6 I Pku 6 I Pka 7 I PM, TRANSIT CORRIDOR BUS ROUTES Bus on 1-25:Ft Collins North TC-DUS FCDUS 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 Bus on 1-25: Ft Collins North TC-DIA FCDIA 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Commuter bus on US 287,Ft Collins North IC-Longmont FCLM 0 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 Commuter bus on US 85,Greeley TC-DUS GROWS 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 Commuter bus on US 85 Greeley TC-DIA GRLYDIA 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 Subtotal Transit Corridor Vehicles 8 21 19 13 19 0 7 15 MODIFIED LOCAL ROUTES Foxtrot Fos Trot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fon Collins Rte 5 FC5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fort Collins Rte 6 Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fort Collins Rte 7 FC7 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 Jikerbus Jitter 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 Subtotal Minified Local Route Vehicles 3 3 5 3 5 5 1 3 FEEDER ROUTES Greeley-Windsor-Ft Collins GLYFC 7 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 Greeley-Loveland(US-34) U534 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Platteville-Milliken-Johnstown-Berthoud PVBT 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 Firestone-Frederick-Longmont FFLGMT 0 0 2 0 2 2 4 2 Ft Lupton-Longmont FTLLGMT 2- 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Ft Lupton-Boulder(SH 52) FLBDR 0 0 7 0 7 7 7 7 Subtotal New Feeder Route Vehicles 20 20 30 20 30 30 32 30 TOTAL BUS VEHICLES 31 44 54 36 54 36 40 48 Notes: Bus fleet requirements include 20%spares. • While transportation model extended Fort Collins Rte 5,6 and 7 to Harmony station for all three routes,costs reflect extending Route 7 only. North 1-25 DEIS Page 9 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS • RAIL FLEET REQUIREMENTS Peak Total Peak Peak Peak Vehicles Vehicles Trainsets Headway Consist NO ACTION US 36 DUS to Longmont(Diagonal/Hover) 8 10 4 30 2 US 36 DUS to Boulder(Pearl/30th) 8 10 4 30 2 Total US 36 16 20 8 North Metro DUS to SH-7/160th 9 11 3 30 3 North Metro DUS to 124th 6 7 2 30 3 Total North Metro 15 18 5 TOTAL US 36 AND NORTH METRO 31 38 13 PACKAGE 6 US 36 DUS to I-25/SH 119 10 12 5 30 2 US 36 DUS to Longmont(Diagonal/Hover) 0 0 0 n/a n/a US 36 DUS to Boulder(Pearl/30th) 8 10 4 30 2 Total US 36 18 22 9 Incremental US 36 to No Action 2 2 1 North Metro DUS to Fort Collins(Harmony Rd/I-25) 18 22 6 30 3 North Metro DUS to SH-7/160th 0 0 0 n/a n/a North Metro DUS to 124th 6 7 2 30 3 Total North Metro 24 29 8 Incremental North Metro to No Action 9 11 3 TOTAL US 36 AND NORTH METRO 42 51 17 INCREMENTAL TO NO ACTION 11 13 4 PACKAGE 7 US 36 DUS to Fort Collins(North Transit Ctr) 16 19 8 30 2 US 36 DUS to Longmont(Diagonal/Hover) 0 0 0 n/a n/a US 36 DUS to Boulder(Pearl/30th) 8 10 4 30 2 • Total US 36 24 29 12 Incremental US 36 to No Action 8 9 4 North Metro DUS to SH-7/160th 9 11 3 30 3 North Metro DUS to 124th 6 7 2 30 3 Total North Metro 15 18 5 Incremental North Metro to No Action 0 0 0 TOTAL US 36 AND NORTH METRO 39 47 17 INCREMENTAL TO NO ACTION 8 9 4 PACKAGER US 36 DUS to Fort Collins(North Transit Ctr) 16 19 8 30 2 US 36 DUS to Longmont(Diagonal/Hover) 0 0 0 n/a n/a US 36 DUS to Boulder(Pearl/30th) 8 10 4 30 2 Total US 36 24 29 12 Incremental US 36 to No Action 8 9 4 North Metro DUS to Longmont(1st/Terry) 15 18 5 30 3 North Metro DUS to SH-7/160th 0 0 0 n/a n/a North Metro DUS to 124th 6 7 2 30 3 Total North Metro 21 25 7 Incremental North Metro to No Action 6 7 2 TOTAL US 36 AND NORTH METRO 45 54 19 INCREMENTAL TO NO ACTION 14 16 6 Notes: Total Vehicles: Peak vehicles plus 20 percent spare ratio. Blue values(Total Vehicles of rail line to Fort Collins): Use as minimum capacity for sizing yard in Fort Collins. Green values(Total Vehicles,Incremental to No Action for applicable rail line). Use to assess expansion impacts to existing Fastracks yard. Red values(Total Vehicles,Incremental to No Action): Use to calculate capital cost of additional vehicles related to project. Vehicle Type: Fastracks operating plan assumes 1 power/ltrailer car for the US 36 line,2 power/ltrailer car for North Metro line: Package 6(13 new vehicles): 8 power cars,5 trailer cars Package 7(9 new vehicles): 4 power cars,5 trailer cars DMU Package 8(16 new vehicles): 9 power cars,7 trailer cars • North I-25 DEIS Page 10 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • ARTICLE 3 - Site Selection Criteria This article is a preliminary review criterion for site selection for an operations and maintenance facility on the North 1-25 Corridor. This information is needed prior to listing or investigating potential sites. Criteria discussed in this section will be reviewed with public prior to selection and at each level of the screening process of potential sites. This discussion is preliminary in nature and more detailed criteria descriptions and analysis will be included at each level of the site screening process. Both Rail and Bus operations and maintenance facilities have some common requirements described in Article (.(Facility Requirements). These facility requirements along with common site constraints correlate into common criteria for site selection screening. The common site selection criteria will include the following: • Is the on or near transit corridor right of way? • Is the site at end of line or major intersection of routes? • Is the site zoned or potential for zoning as industrial (or similarly acceptable community use)? • Can the site meet facility size and configuration requirements? • Does the site have good motor vehicle access? • Does the site limit non-revenue service? • Is the site flexible of all alternative transit packages under consideration? • Can site limit environmental impacts on? • Noise • • Hazardous materials • Historic resources • Surrounding use • Wildlife • Wetlands • Can the site limit the number of additional layover sites? • How well does the site minimize the number of property acquisitions? • Are utilities available? • Is current and future land use compatable • Committee support? • Stakeholder support? The following criteria are unique to a commuter rail facility: • Can the site avoid public road impacts? • Can the site limit flyovers to avoid public road or freight rail impact? • How well does the site minimize access track (i.e. lead track) length? • How well does the site minimize access track (i.e. lead track) grade crossings? The following criteria are unique to a bus facility: • Does the site service feeder routes? • Does the site provide potential integration into local transit systems?• North I-25 DEIS Page 11 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 ARTICLE 4 - Site Selection • I. General The Criteria established in the previous Article were used to select potential sites throughout the corridor based on the final two Packages (A & B). Due to operational differences for a maintenance and rail facility, potential for separate operating agencies, required site size, and routes no joint bus rail sites was identified. Therefore a separate list was developed for both modes of transportation. The list of site is followed by a map of the sites as they are distributed through the corridor. The Map on the preceding page shows the sites examined. Commuter Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility Sites • E. Vine Drive & west of N. Lemay Ave. - Fort Collins • East Vine Drive & LCR 9E - Fort Collins • E. Vine Drive & N. Timberline - Fort Collins • W. 71st Street & S. Shields Street- Fort Collins/Loveland • SW corner of US 287 and LCR-46 - Berthoud • Alpine & Sugar Lane Rd - Longmont • Adjacent or combined with FasTrack US 36 Facilities - Denver Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility Sites • Fortner Road & Trilby Road (LCR 34) - Fort Collins • Harmony Road & I-25 - Fort Collins • • Airport Business Park - Fort Collins • SH Hwy 119th & I-25 • Us Hwy 34 & US Hwy 85 - Greeley • 27th St. & 1st Ave. - Greeley • Us Hwy 34 & SH 257 - Greeley • 14th &A Street- Greeley • US Hwy 85 & E470 - Commerce City • US Hwy 34 & I-25 - Loveland • Adjacent To RTD Central Facility- Denver North 1-25 DEIS Page 12 of 15 Maintenance Design Group • Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • II. Environmental Review The following is a summary of field reconnaissance done for maintenance facility sites under consideration. On April 14th, 2006 a site visit was made to each of the sites below in order to identify any environmental issues that could potentially affect locating a maintenance facility at these locations. GREELEY - 27th and 1st Avenue The site under consideration is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of 27th and 1st Avenue near the intersection of US 85 and 34. It is directly west of a school bus maintenance facility. This site has a number of small, poor quality ditch wetlands along the southern edge. There is also a nearby potential low income and/or minority area on the other side of the school bus facility and a residence in the SW quadrant which may be low income and/or minority. This site is also located next door to a home which may present some visual and/or noise concerns. As a part of the reconnaissance, we also looked at vacant areas within a half mile of this site. There are 3 sites in the SW quadrant of this intersection which could be considered. The oblong site located directly south of 27th appears optimal due to the proximity to the intersection and the absence of any recognized environmental concerns. There is an additional parcel south of this in the SW parcel which also looks promising, it is currently vacant and zoned "industrial" and appears to be absent of any recognizable environmental concerns. GREELEY - 31st and 1st Avenue • The site under consideration is located in the SW quadrant of 31st and 1st Avenue. The following environmental concerns were present at the site: There was drainage bisecting the site which could have associated wetlands, there were also prairie dogs present on this site and adjacent to the site which could be extremely difficult to relocate. Moving southward, there were several neighborhoods that appeared to be predominantly low income and/or minority. North of 31st, the land use becomes more industrial and congruent with a maintenance facility. There are ditch wetlands directly north of 31st which appear to be low quality. There are 2 vacant lots north of 31st which appear to be absent of any recognizable environmental concerns. GREELEY - HIGHWAY 34 AND HIGHWAY 257 The proposed site is located in the southwest quadrant of US 34 and 257. The land is currently rural and predominately used for agriculture. There is a new PEPSI distribution plant north of the proposed site which does not show up on the aerial. There are no recognized environmental concerns and the proposed area seems optimal for development. LOVELAND- US 34 AND I-25 This proposed site is located in the southeast quadrant of 1-25 and US 34 near CR 3E. There has been some development in the area since the aerial was flown which includes Poudre Valley Regional Hospital and the beginning of the proposed centerra (spelling?) development. The proposed site is located adjacent to a home which could be potentially historic making it eligible for protection under Section 106. There are no other recognizable environmental concerns at this site. It is advisable if this site is pursued to avoid impacts to the nearby property associated with the potentially eligible historic site. LOVELAND - 71st and South Shields • This proposed site is located in the northeast quadrant near 57th and Shields. The proposed North I-25 DEIS Page 13 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 site is located approximately 450 feet north of a mobile home community which could raise • some public concern about noise, light and vibration impacts and could be a potential EJ issue. Additionally, there is a large ditch which bisects the proposed parcel, approximately 18' across and 20 foot high backs on either side. There was no water in it the day of the site visit but it was well maintained and looked like it still was used as a conveyance, in which case it would likely be wetlands or Waters of the US issues. I did notice a sign posted at this locale for a public hearing scheduled for the Loveland Planning Department for a proposed annexation (Copper Ridge) at this site. I would recommend calling the planning department at 970-962-2523 to find out the status if we continue pursuing this site. FORT COLLINS - HARMONY ROAD AND I-25 The proposed site is located in the southwest quadrant of Harmony Road and 1-25 near a reclaimed gravel pit. The proposed Colorado Front Range Trail is planned to go through this parcel. There is a plan for this and some funding has already been allocated towards the trail which means it is considered 4(f) and all impacts to the trail should be avoided. There were also burrows indicative of prairie dogs located on this site; however no prairie dogs were present. They may have been relocated or have died from the plague. FORT COLLINS - PORTNER AND TRILBY I could not locate this in the field. However, according to the site map a portion of the proposed site is within the Prairie Dog Natural Area which may be subject to 4(f) protection. As such, all impacts to the Natural Area should be avoided. FORT COLLINS - E VINE AND COUNTY ROAD 9E The proposed site is near the intersection of CR9E/Lindermeier and Vine Drive, in the southeast quadrant. There is a drainage ditch running through the eastern portion of the site which may • have associated wetlands and the ditch may be historic. Also, there is a newly developed pre- fabricated housing development just west of the proposed development which could raise some public concern about noise, light and vibration impacts and could be potential EJ issue. Additionally, the Dry Creek Stormwater wetland is located in the proposed area. This is listed as a Fort Collins Natural Area and may be subject to 4(f). It is advisable to remove this property from consideration due to both 4(f) concerns and the presence of wetlands. FORT COLLINS - E VINE DRIVE AND NORTH TIMBER LINE ROAD The proposed site is located near the intersection of Timberline Road and Vine Drive in the southeast quadrant, directly south of Vine. There are poor quality wetlands and possibly a historic ditch on the western side of the site. There is also a mobile home community directly southwest of the site which could raise some public concern about noise, light and vibration impacts and could be a potential low income and/or minority issue. It is recommended if we proceed with this site more investigation is warranted regarding community impacts, wetlands. and the presence of an historic ditch. LONGMONT -ALPINE AND SUGAR LANE ROAD The proposed site is located directly north of the railroad near ther intersection of Rodgers Road and Martin Street. It appears that there would be a relocation required as a result there is a large recycling operation in place on this parcel. Also it is adjacent to a "junkyard"which may have hazardous materials present and there are a large number of what appears to be high quality wetlands on this site. It is recommended if we proceed with this site more investigation is warranted regarding relocation impacts, wetlands, and the potential for recognized hazardous materials. • North I-25 DEIS Page 14 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper Final EIS August 2011 • BERTHOUD - US 287 and Bunyan Avenue The proposed site is located just east of 287 and north of Bunyan Avenue. It is currently agricultural but zoned for industrial and surrounded by industrial uses. There are home on the other side of the railroad along 4th street but while the railroad seemed to provide a barrier effect. There were no other visible environmental resource issues of concern present. There may be some community concern about potential noise, light and vibration issues but I think with a well defined public involvement strategy we could continue to pursue this site. III. Selection Matrix The Matrix on the following pages shows the evaluation performed on each of the identified sites. As previously discussed the criteria for Commuter Rail facilities are not the same as those for a Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility, therefore there are two separate list of sites and matrixes for these different operations. Those sites in the gray rows will not be taken forward in the DEIS. Those in the clear white rows will be taken forward for further evaluation. Criteria definitions can be found on the last page of Matrix Tables. • • North I-25 DEIS Page 15 of 15 Maintenance Design Group Operations and Maintenance Facility 9/27/2007 White Paper 15 p F 11111 g ilia y 4i iii Nayzra da= y i goo 0 Emn X X ONy U e m VV a E `cam X x x x x x 0 12,1' 2 • nth a ° X I X x t a NaU9J a <2a° J a z IS _ O a ap JE90 x x x w • tea ; e a w o arz D arc. C Z "° ° g X X X X X X X Q ¢aE v w a° . • w Z 3 E Z• . IN m. �j�+i W _R r! X 16E� X 111 1' f rc E $$! Z u -''-> Q w rL a J 2 !g 3 W _E f. I f t x X X X X X `_ ° j 333E K J ` � W a F E D 9 C 2 ' C o ,- C 221' O . 2 x x X E U Erc6L. L. y a v ig.m m crE X x x x x x a= E a o= a u pgI U g a N E ! Ow ! X ., a . f O P y� U C . I T 2 9 I c c 8t2 X X X X x X .X, 3 Co.a E 7 K N ` W p w c u 1f1 c Z O' a di Ein Al °i • til�L d F10 Le ' E_ tlg y.�LLp as O oo73 a g 9pr yJ ± ' g fr Sa aZ2 fW tan u74 wmu 3e 3oim 9 l °I Z A a l • _ w 70 d m w wcg ... c > c mw y EaE a� rn� 11 Z Q w w = 'm m r°: m = wq E ea cc f, ,,,if, y -`o 'm g rq C p c1.11 O O Q-2 L'8 no ° � ao 2N y.3 U cLit W _ 8 ! p 6W $8t y "a o w $Q m ` m m a .t i -g - w '^ E ` 216 o c2%).:06-14221 ag, - g ; gc d _ �ehsrip a 2IS c`a:° o3 we ti yy$$�5S AA 9S9 o v d v IL"<0Nw6 20 Ali c�8a°O� Rw 3N tl . . • • . . . • at; in gift X X X X E-sa' UN 8 at : II c =E 1 n> > w '$ X X �( Woo X X N ara c j� 6�3' Q W Q U J O a9 ; LL w"LLa° o X X , X X X W E U Z Q o Q C —9 v I h z p y'I CE Uj z U 'n ; °'co 5! iiI1 * X X X x'n.cE 'q • W E Q AoeE a co "c .m X !- X 1 X X X E O • N Ii a SE X X X X X X ; 0 ErcF v CO J w 7 W 9 E N 2` i al Sli m ge X ili x x x X X X E om I V a = y „ a w� X X. X -X` X X X I n aJ n a E a co v 8m a a 0 ug Po m X X X X c w t co 06 Y y V V O Oa 9 bo X X X X X X s c on O Ut E y 607 >. cato m 2- 8 • W N o v Y or os in 8 L" ¢ oom� !yR cy� rva m^ o� w w h caU a ¢ c i� v' 22 g� v' - wY c z do t wo `n ar .m� „ ua'Z2 fN a x z ; §z c : ■ c.11111 ii 11 ll 4 U , . . . . /km o u, !`| }/S j! 1!1 II x 4)« !4 'p m x x _!. f k ,a / #g .a Ill k x Ul 9os 0 ®`- • | ` ! E C ej \ z, a = | ; X z�� } g■ 2 95 $ | � . x I ! E. X \i i I 01 % X x x Ic. c. k� J / '6. co § Et x X as ; a2 I 15«\f x x x 0 a0 rn I$ . . et _ in 2 KL AlII m > Ea) 2 o O T N o O x - m2 ma ›..0 E c V • ..:"Iru QC C EE EE Val a N C N C 0m 0.8 02 "U ; O) - N N O W b ?V O N 2.g C C - U V 5 y ry N U C a 26 Z v° v n w N m ca v w c E ▪ Cp v O 00 N = 0 vz on tom = o `- O. E2 a`mi. om E v a$ v. 0 5 c ✓ J my vx v m '° o =E m- - 0E w o m E E m v o m 8 v 2E V Z.w v ''T o O E nJ o w E'� E oE O v `" E i; B 0 ce n ---76.°a (0 E ao J 2 w(. = Eg$ v o N u qV oqV N " E m m —° v c N -g mm m C v �m m 0 N O V N v 4)= A. ° m r m j W J 7- 0 -, _ a N :45.1-.Os Y L D N c V N V �'r G m> m Q v J ` C c n o g .� uv _o $3' C ob I-m E.. ° v o• c O ° 2„=,,,-43 o m a y `m o N N v C N E c (82 C '^ E U!St =.213 n ?N L 3.,-E8 N mom y._ 00 E To 540, 0 O m c 2._ o i m0.0 C 1-..- >.=N C= C E O OO U Y. m� r ON aD m'' VC OO L" V• C_ .0 n N ,5,4--E .o t 080 W N � a.O. K E m D '5- 0 iR @ S m v of a . OE m m $S m Dig , g' EM °" n omK av .. E earn E 4 % 0 N a 0 m° N on a 5 0 , 00 m e Enm oN c oyc mom Ewvm v °�c v Ka " o o.. m vow ON ocgm (3421-0 o" 9 (0 49-g o 1, g.,=m a a m— ofi U v $w o_m 0EE ! !k E ;1!tE 4th! $Ec`m so ">_ v8 >2q2° c m, ° v R c m N ° C M y N O d g 8 W m v m m :E in m w v v£ o E E— m v , .c d m °` c o m o Om U> o ❑Q OQE go2c n • co . ya m _N v m c-288.0 V N 1 E m n m O. E O n C v m 1 m o m E N — 8801, D a a m o w x m 2.g2.4"Vm E m a) S m ✓ m C.0 n U n O > 9 °1= 0 " M_ N C EE c C — o o N C 23 C 0 4 N nC C O E m L L° m m 5 w O �C N E I O C - 0..022 . <≤ c o m n O mc" Rm" nm v 2 E m E v N 0 O v N N a N j m O v z O C N C m g v ▪a C O N U N v a > m'... U C O n m v N O m y� W E ?'` _N m a ; 0= 0= m n. o a a 2 c m N N m LSD. C m m y N D a O p, 000-._ A.; V `- y V O a m n O On N r,. `y 2m d U m E.cat. N 002-t ' v£ v ° o:0-8 E `id E V v o ` 22m — .. 8 9 y c— U m� cF._ 'y� c a m ... C yE 2 a a DLm m ` mca 'c om cE E c m mmNb=' ,som 0.' Jo 4` Eo 2 0v 3 E 4 ao uE mm '>« 5iaAti N NWmmwm coo 'gy m _ E m.N. V nowmmc-5 302 E2 mt mn8 o_ Cwm~ m3 k4 a m 0`° `oo VE y . D O d'm V m rn N k• NvQjvamp $ v ,^V2mE- N I o NJm mb vN m .NOc OMy f C L °�N C O vv C CN Yv C malt) CO MO OC ° j• WN amF m v : EE — N > m QEp vN`oNmcm Ew8 = 2 . met mo-oerm aink >. o > No vd NN�Lm a ovZvm.= ;3i. m ma' R: a`° m oary AL m . Yc m 100Nv � , ry - mE jo U? wnNN Jv E m rn v a E m 2 v E m - v vE<Z2 J OQmBCu>i 4 U oQU m.° oQ ❑Q �m3 Qm k ! 1 co |_ \M ` - a kS _ m 0 ; \ I .. I- \ a. 0 \? \ \ �/ �EZ } }_/ \ c / - / 9 { 2 : | | on h7 ,- } \\} wz k ; — / j{ } k\ ! ! E § ) '` � - b w W0E 0 a { _ * _ 2 "2 2 }\� ` /� tI 2'm \ X x x x En"CV a C 000 - x x x 15 la _a. ; x x x x xas ) , . | ��\ § .4. !§ 0 :2 !A ) §k�} (! /\ ; | 42A.St q! 7 _< ; - a �! / CO IN • : �\ \ om p } )w nn :cm 0 mo}�» 8 1 c En ! ` — ! \LA } \ \ / t !! , .co.-2 2 § -211 \ 1, 22 z } - { E2$ (_ C } - E< - - 32 I) 7 -\ ] § \ -.es \ S = t {o === § 0HO � o> 8 Z< 0< 52 000, S j moat gai pc = - &!\{ _ai ii Em cn 22 _ ©88 ;1 - 1 F� \ �\\ 0 . 0 - } ; -Jerg d • _ �!t ` - - :02 \) / - Z {{\ no oE2 � 2 m82 )f�- -Wg / - co — )\ (tt \ f{ { _ / ) \kf\ } ow w $ ! \ - -\ \€ ()) \ !}\\�\ \ \}\ /\ _ co \\ o ! ! y a } cm - . a o a!$ ! ; _ 2\ \\\\ \ / 0! fill \�\ \\\ � ` R k � \ k\}1 \ E U! -=tE k 9` 5 - _ - !_ ° - \ ;;7 )\\ \ \ \\\ \}\\ \\\ ) `~° ii. • ... .0.4tt . .! , z i w . . :L. , I w o D U. 1 4 I </ ci_ si. # a t p t "--ter , O (.9Q Z p /ii1Pt r ssae.d iy Q Y w Cr W cn Q Q p w'LI' 0 J ' c � a20- W ¢ Qaw m a. W W Ca < < w a C w O Cl) I 4 Z {' I b's Q Q W C I a a z g t L i y I rY� [` r Asr,_ *rt� M,T A. "c` I 0 I 2 "1";* I I z • \o, I I I I• O I o Alr, ``_________ I E.....•- W __ .4.._ © 4 I �n cJZ p I • ~ a O w ~ I • a D a tii I- z o Qw I z w , Li Q Z I •„qdr _ go I o 4 I . ♦ ti N 1 ( C4 it ,. set .4 T ♦ %- lit r I es .4 , ;Ntibtsit d . — de iit-7 , • if,C1. 4 : . 4 - � - 0000 ij _ i �L- . !ss'1 ....._ .4,s, i . ik 1 ..w.. . t4,ulif , a 7:4...iiiti7 i 1 .... ......J. I. ... . , .....,. ___e_. $ {014_ is____1 :, .1 L A y • i1 ��`.1 { `1 . O a teit-4:-..n_s€:„ItH4-4.-furi---L---2 ii b ti e . s • A.--4-w------ ,..1„, - Iw1�'4.i '+w� + y 3 $a r tr 44.4.01r V.0 r �," -l. - -~ ti_tiIT ilk :� LL A a'p l - ♦ • ))) - I'... „"4.7•"' CODi , CO ye- ii i1 - - ` _,/� . 434, 1 4 - 'ts t tre' 1 • ,. - r 4 Q._ nett . ' -.. - _eye. q; f f 88• _ fn C‘4 U LL w N 15-CIV.It SSA4A_-A/ 4gn!t /'.1Y71 11,14 (t p1 C > LL < a• . . t' 1IL' if r . ,. • 1 a6 7:3 5 :13- to co 0_ Ni r, daisati F ei 0 O 0 (9 . � Z m 0 } } < a z w 0 Q Q Q Q -same r JzP- z � � � °' O "t . . D Q w O p W �L w W W WeLZEIPZ00 Oki < O ? Z w w - z a ' x I NI % - ' W X CC Q 2 (I D <Q Q 2 N $ Q p .s: 'n : rJ I- I- d 2 a. O W 2 2 W W Z 2 I < ass r • fir ' 1 I U w ,� ` I a .q.ts' v -- - ----- !— -� I o Ica r * u. " W ~ r - Lars W w ct ��—�- _ a • ua• - l 2 O z Ise •• -Et` ' ~(1) . r •.} • • r 2 ' tot - CR 46 0 "' - 1 ;'" ‘71` a- .. U o r1 r' i � l o I i I ' �,i�- 1� z° ¢ >° 1 ir/1 1 C •�� I I I loo4. 11 is) _ r 1 a_ Q I W I c 1 e I L 1 O 11. or ill- a • rh f'" it a Z I U' m • I �. a , D O Q I w I ill r- ly 1 • c. ,� • r r ' i ] , , eL Ciii (.(1 , mg' f: IA W O , 1 ( w -O}- - - - - -i I ..... •S) 0 s- L Z o • e _ . QO I I li 0,i..- . -ye- +r r M s Z co f -' , ti `Iv' e - o . . € I I O I ri , . I I I W I I• - : I1 0 , I I m J _ 1 J I„ma . ..t),. , __ i 1 • ' , 'y t r ' A ..AC- a see ti + le. #f .4t A a ,� . , ,- . r tr.': CIL' .- 7-- m tig a. E s. < $ fai.p. int ;wit •,c_. et 4.1,„ - - • .13- 8.- .' ?Cr) . CI Aka_ .. r . 4 50 CU - AS Z r --4 , , . _ 0 5 lit •�`* w - ' m'F,, tramp Sli - pr_ 2.00..,. 4 w pp que76 el 4 a ll _ 0 ¢ d mQ L V LL t$lfli N]dt t5.4HQ.-dt S_ir, .t t__- 1 I E Z 0 LI.JO .� F j 0 U` Z p tt, ' = w _w m m czn a g it z w Q . .r. _ 1� • t Y J CJ O co Q a w 1- z Z z Q Y _O p w Q :r• " ' t V r } w w Q a Q O cn z Ce f- i , • ,� gn Za -, Z •.� OD U) it • ., ,M OI "t i : : 1 F- a m o w w O MP w in 0 Q ¢' Q I- . V a 9I ! ! V S 0 OS i r . II ,.. t -- ! . 5in P r - - � , si W I1PI = c.re t aI t� ! w t LL 1 ti. 'c • ► , Q i a . ► *ti I 44 4 • 1' i01 t_ s f alai , o t m CC o . . a /lila" r , 7 : p illiiitiki"..-. . % * 1' . laiblith-‘- ' 4— ' slit .i 10 * I . - iii C1/411.• IP • 01 00000 rr ' li 1.N. �� 1 ..��rr it • --3/414" ,,LILS *.,.....,,,, 'fts / h o A m o ' T . ` ell `° e 3 8 ' ' '' J w 1 I --4 rail. . i ridi- li. LE k gi '. r' TRt: t 'r► . l co m 7507 Q\ la •er• ti ; • a ' ,.. ----- , sr rii! g T. • 1 _ O o _, • • ‘‘. 1. 1 All . li.a 0 N c;" U LL 3 lJ.l �-• to tl16JeS ttnyJ. <t a �•� s .,.t N : To o, C LL Q )ir . 0 . : . .. 41 - . p "` 'IA Yeete le t r v' w+! � . '�+. r 3r C7 U' IC� I a • +�!� ti w iii- � �, .l�ff CD Z Z U Q ri p a . , a L O ~ z W d "' , \[ ' • X ,s4)ti? w Q Q Q m .: cioco yr _r ir. ► ,{firikest ISI Pe co cif.,al,illftwaram CC -- • I Q �T .,.... Y W- Sttil . . . liQti 4 •• is I • # r .f •# ed 411. L )t" .• ' ` • { f • •ems' ;, g m 1 3 F 9b r I • .. A m i• c. 41It ..1 AI:), r.., • ,' a. 44% i I 1R i . t. , ,,te . ,. . • O ,e Slit A: t. - • • • .�, ''•.� Il Fpm I pC i _ --"Ialit I LIT;tic.!,,,.. .. .-..., :: 714- 1-i,.., _, ...117-•; ;% - ,_ • .0t,ii • , •.7 4 or lir-a .... Er I ) ',i r in up :@ ill „ , ' 9t - L 7 444III ' VV I. c . r {:. T ♦•1/4 CC D :ke: al ,.. .ilit4 (•• ' CI_ 0-4 ...--1•4 .. . ,- i - , 1fir_ V - 4 _ . • tI. 4 J{{++ + : , 1 T., P 1 - • - • •�b. , 0.10 -• _ d CC 4031 ,i. 1f - .. . • -— -. . � ♦.n r J `' 'fir ' ft 4 all W I .4 4".:. 0,. '...... .. . 2 !Li! , col , Sip el is}}1* i • .• 1 i ' f ^ n :1 1 1 V #.„ , , Diem+ . Vii . ,. L : _ -. . - -,- .- - : • , , ,. ik it litis tt ir '- ' a I it-. `- • n si •y t 7. r. r.� w e c T_.. . ci ' ..; - A - t 4I . ,_ . , . . , .I 1 — N I 1 CD e � ti SS ! te, • • 1l . R Eat e e w 1 •*l �, • •W �' * . f is U i 2 *' >d • of I • �• 3 ip -�- ,.i�.7. 1•�-• - y' 7 it ' �i 3 III �_ N � 1.. f W y ft Q7 Cr Cr < NORTH I-25 il EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX E Access Planning Memorandum 411 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 4- • EIS information. cooperation. transportation MEMORANDUM To: Jean Wallace— FHWA Dave Martinez - CDOT cc: Tom Anzia Bob Felsburg From: Todd Frisbie Date: December 14, 2005 Subject North 1-25 EIS—Access Planning The purpose of this memorandum is to first outline the proposed approach to completing access planning during the remainder of Level 3 screening for the North 1-25 EIS. Second is to summarize the initial evaluation of existing interchanges in determining the improvement needs at each interchange. Ultimately, recommendations from this process would then be carried into the DEIS and the FEIS evaluations. • METHODOLOGY There are two aspects of access planning: 1) modification of existing interchanges and 2) evaluation of potential for new interchanges. In this planning effort there are several guiding principles that direct the evaluation. These principles are described below: • The focus of the evaluation will begin with the existing interchanges. • Level of service D will be the minimal acceptable level of operation. • At older existing diamond interchanges any 1-25 improvement will require a complete reconstruction of the interchange. The reconstructed interchange would, at a minimum, be upgraded to a standard diamond configuration. • Where the standard diamond interchange does not provide acceptable levels of service, an enhanced diamond interchange will be evaluated first. An enhanced diamond includes additional lanes above and beyond the standard diamond. • If an enhanced diamond interchange still has a LOS E or F condition, then an assessment will be necessary of both a new interchange and a reconfiguration of the existing interchange. Based on these guiding principles, a planning process for evaluating access has been developed. This process is depicted in the attached flowchart (see Figure 1) with a more detailed description of each step described in the section below. As shown in the flowchart, the evaluation of an existing interchange could go through several levels of analysis, but could also stop at any step in the process. The interchange evaluation process in Level III primarily focuses on the interchange operational processes; levels of service at the interchange and on • Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225107.EISIFEIS12011-08-19 FEIS version12011-06-10_FEIS Word VersionlTechnical Rpts12011-06-10 Aftem Devel and Screen Tech_Rpt_FEIS106 Appendix E-Access(Interchange)Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North 1-25 Access Planning Process Page 2 Ill the mainline, and on queuing at the ramps. Other interchange characteristics (i.e. environmental, constructability, ROW, costs, etc.) are also evaluated in Level III on a fatal flaw basis and will receive further detailed evaluation and screening as the EIS continues. Identify Future ©_ Recommend Poor Operations Enhanced Diamond Acceptable --- �� Enhanced (with Standard Interchange / Operations - �% Diamond Diamond Interchange) Interchange N? Poor Operations Poor / Evaluate © Evaluate New Poor Operations \ Reconfiguration Interchange Operations N70 Evaluate Evaluate Further Further Improvement Improvement Acceptable Acceptable Operations Operations 4 \N/7 Compare New Interchange versus Reconfiguration Apply Results to DEIS Packages Figure 1. Process for Evaluating Access Modifications Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation ill J::103225107. E/SIFEIS12011-08-19 FENS version12011-06- 10_FE/S Word Version\Technical Rpts120 1 1-06- 10_A/tern Deve! and Screen Tech_Rpt FElS106 Appendix E - Access (Interchange) Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North 1-25 Access Planning Process • Page 3 1 ) Determine future traffic operations at existing interchanges with the standard diamond configuration and along the mainline. Base assumptions and analyses in this step would include the following : • Future peak hour traffic projections at the existing interchanges will be based on a scenario with 8-lanes on 1-25. The 8-lane scenario results in the highest level of traffic in the corridor. • All existing diamond interchanges (all interchanges except those at US 34, Johnson Corner and SH 14 have diamond configurations) will be assumed to be upgraded to the standard diamond interchange. Figure 2 illustrates the standard diamond interchange which includes dual left and exclusive right turn lanes to/from the ramps and two through lanes in each direction on the cross street. • On and off ramps will be assumed to be one-lane where they merge or diverge from the mainline. • Levels of service will be determined and queuing will be evaluated at existing interchanges and along the mainline. • Existing interchanges and mainline operations showing LOS D or better operations and exhibiting minimal queuing issues along ramps will not be further evaluated operationally. • Existing interchanges or mainline operations showing LOS E or F conditions and/or exhibiting queuing issues along ramps will be further evaluated in the next step. Off-Ramp On-Ramp I � Cross Road „At_ H _ I D On-Ramp Off-Ramp Figure 2. Standard Diamond Configuration Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J.103225107. EISIFEIS12011-08-19 FENS version12011-06- 10 FENS Word VersionlTechnical Rpts120 1 1-06-1 0_Altern Deve/ and Screen Tech_Rpt FEIS106 Appendix E - Access (Interchange) Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North 1-25 Access Planning Process Page 4 2) Identify an enhanced diamond interchange to mitigate unacceptable operations with the standard diamond configuration . Base assumptions and analyses in this step would include the following: • An enhanced diamond interchange is an interchange with improvements above and beyond the standard diamond interchange, but maintaining the diamond configuration . Improvements considered in this step would include a reasonable number of additional turn lanes at ramp intersections or additional through lanes on the cross street. • Reasonable lane additions above and beyond the standard diamond improvements are defined as: o One additional left-turn lane from the ramp o One additional right-turn lane from the ramp and from the cross street o One additional through lane in each direction on the cross street o One additional lane at ramp merge and diverge points o Free right-turn movements to/from the cross street • Figure 3 illustrates the above improvements associated with an enhanced diamond interchange. These improvements would not all be applied, but would be applied to best address the specific traffic and operational needs at an interchange. • Levels of service and queuing will be reevaluated with additional lanes. If improvement mitigates operational and queuing issues, then further evaluation of the interchange is not necessary. • If an enhanced diamond interchange does not mitigate operational and queuing issues, then further evaluation is necessary. Off-Ramp On-Ramp Three Dual Right , Through Turn Lanes alIan � � Lanes Cross Road Lane to Accept I r Triple Left Lane to Accept Free Right Turn Lanes fifr Free Right on to on to Ramp Cross Street On-Ramp Off-Ramp Figure 3. Enhanced Diamond Configuration Options Highway Administration . Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J.:103225107. EISIFEIS12011-08-19 FEIS version12011-06- 10_FEIS Word VersionsTechnical Rpts12011-06-10_Altern Devel and Screen Tech_Rpt FEIS106 Appendix E - Access (Interchange) Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North 1-25 Access Planning Process • Page 5 3) Evaluate reconfiguration of an existing diamond interchange and evaluate an adjacent new interchange. Base assumptions and analyses considered in this step would include the following: • Reconfiguration of an existing interchange could include adding a single loop to a quadrant, upgrading to a partial cloverleaf or providing direct connect ramps for some or all movements. • A new interchange can be no closer than one-mile from an existing interchange and must connect to an existing or planned regionally significant roadway. • If a new interchange mitigates poor operations at the existing interchange, the new interchange also must have acceptable levels of service and minimal queuing issues. • If an interchange reconfiguration and a new interchange both result in acceptable level of service at the existing interchange, then evaluation moves on to step 4. • If neither the interchange reconfiguration nor a new interchange mitigate poor operations at the existing interchange, then evaluate the effects of both an interchange reconfiguration and a new interchange. 4) Compare interchange reconfiguration to new interchange. Evaluations considered in this step would include the following: • A system level analysis of mainline operations. • Assessment of environmental impacts of both the reconfiguration and the new • interchange. • Development of cost estimates. 5) Determine access modifications to be carried into the DEIS evaluation: • This step would combine the results of all earlier steps into a recommended set of access modifications. All access modifications (including new interchanges recommended through the access planning process) would be applied to the DEIS packages and evaluated to determine their applicability to each package. Any other potential new interchanges planned by local jurisdictions would be evaluated through the current CDOT 1601 process. PRELIMINARY RESULTS This section describes the preliminary results for the evaluation of existing interchanges in determining the improvement needs for each interchange. As described in the previous section, the process for evaluation is essentially an operations based analysis that focuses on improvements needed at the existing interchange and whether it is necessary to modify 1-25 access with a reconfiguration of the existing interchange or with the addition of a new interchange. The evaluation was based on a 2030 planning horizon and on a worst case scenario of eight lanes on 1-25 from E-470 to SH 14. Figure 4 depicts each interchange between E-470 and SH 14 and summarizes the results of analyses conducted to this point. As shown in Figure 4, various symbols are used to represent the level of improvement anticipated for each interchange. The following describes the meaning of each symbol. • Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225107.EISIFEIS12011-08-19 FEIS version12011-06-10_FE/S Word VersionlTechnical Rpts12011-06-10_AItem Devel and Screen Tech_Rpt FEIS106 Appendix E-Access(Interchange)Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North I-25 Access Planning Process Page 6 — • • Blue Square With Green Circle. This symbol indicates the locations where reconstruction of the existing interchange is not necessary and the existing interchange can provide acceptable levels of service in 2030 without any modifications. • Blue Square. This symbol indicates the locations where the existing interchange needs replacement and a standard diamond configuration would provide an acceptable level of service. • White Square With Black Diamond. This symbol indicates the locations where the reconstruction of the existing interchange is not necessary but laneage enhancements are needed in order to provide acceptable levels of service. • Black Diamond. This symbol indicates the locations where the existing interchange needs to be replaced with a diamond configuration; however, an enhanced diamond configuration is necessary to provide acceptable levels of service. • Double Black Diamond. This symbol indicates that either a diamond configuration will not provide acceptable levels of service or other mitigating circumstances require the evaluation of a new interchange or the reconfiguration of the interchange to best provide adequate operations at the interchange. • Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation • J:\03225107.EISIFEIS12011-08-19 FEIS version12011-06-10 FEIS Word VersionlTechnical Rpts12011-06-10 AItem Devel and Screen Tech Rut FEIS106 Appendix E-Access(Interchange)Planning Methodologylinterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North 1-25 Access Planning Process • Page 7 Table 1. Preliminary Results The following table provides a detailed description of the improvement needs and the next steps in the evaluation for all existing interchanges. Interchange Improvement Needs/Next Steps Location Reconstruct interchange to an enhanced diamond configuration. • Northbound to eastbound free right—need auxiliary lane on SH 7 from ramp to next major intersection. SH 7 • Southbound to westbound free right- need auxiliary lane on SH 7 from ramp to next major intersection. • Eastbound to southbound free right—need three lanes on southbound on-ramp. 1601 for partial cloverleaf is being reviewed by FHU. WCR 8 Maintain existing interchange with no enhancements. SH 52 Enhance existing interchange. Improvements include: • Northbound to eastbound dual right Enhance existing interchange. Improvements include: SH 119 • Additional westbound through lane • Northbound to westbound triple left turn lanes • Southbound to westbound dual right lanes SH 66 Maintain future interchange improvements planned with 1-25 widening to SH 66. WCR 34 Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. • SH 56 Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. SH 60 Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. Johnson Corner Reconstruct interchange to a new configuration due to geometric reasons. SH 402 Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. US 34 Reconstruct to a new fully directional interchange configuration. Crossroads Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. SH 392 Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. Maintain existing interchange bridge but possibly provide a new configuration. Harmony Road Evaluate new interchange at Ketcher Road (LCR 36)to assess the effectiveness at relieving congestion at the Harmony Road interchange. Prospect Road Reconstruct interchange to a standard diamond configuration. Base assumption is interchange will be reconstructed to a standard diamond interchange. Analysis shows enhanced diamond improvements could provide good operations. These improvements include: • Eastbound to southbound dual right turn lanes • Additional westbound through lane SH 14 • Southbound to westbound dual right turn lanes • Northbound to westbound triple left turn lanes These improvements would require extensive widening of SH 14 west of 1-25. Therefore, recommend reconfiguration. Evaluate new interchange at Vine Street to assess the effectiveness at relieving congestion at the SH 14 interchange. • Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225107. EISIFE/S12011-08-19 PEAS version12011-06-10 FEIS Word VersionlTechnica1 Rpts12011-06-I0_Altem Devel and Screen Tech Rpt FEIS106 Appendix E-Access(Interchange)Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx Final EIS August 2011 December 14, 2005 North 1-25 Access Planning Process Page 8 III LEGEND \ r ® = Maintain Existing Interchange Lanes 1 Wellington = Reconstruction to Standard �` Diamond Configuration igt ,_,\= Enhance Existing Interchange 287 ! - ` with Additional Lanes '' t ill-.- = Reconstruction to Enhanced N 1 A -Diamond Configuration - ❑ in = Reconstruction to a New Fort C olli Prospect Interchange Configuration ; 85 and/or Evaluation of a New NC g / t--(68 fir- i n.�- t Interchange Location • Maria Severance Eaton n ' N ---i ---- 92 Lucerne 287 r I- Windsor `h r Crossroads -____i . Love l �'d 1 . ._1 , 1 �� W 34 .Greet rJ Garden City' �_. -` •hnson 257 Comer Evans ..,-(6(6 SLa Sall IARIMER is t 1 so I fie L-4—„,;mwm_sj 56' lh liell±.0"2 • ••rthoud t--, III'• I = 4 Cr.. 1 Me ' WCR 34 Plattevllla 1 (gg;; 11 Longmont �� y t— _ .119' n 36 C1 OULDER I IBS • ❑ r • 19j '267j I eta tilt- wet `-- L 7 52 �� 52) A A - Erie WCR Boulder l 4 7. , p a, 7 • 93 36 Loulsv111a � • •In r-r S I Lr-L ri Supe„' { ! . , ,-. - - Thornton — ) pa i. -- 1 72� 1 , Nor glentt ji (I Q st lister ril17 E470 Deriver International North 6 ` Airport Figure 4. Preliminary Access Planning Results Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation III J:103225107. EISIFE/S12011-08-19 FE1S version12011-06- 10 FEIS Word VersionlTechnica/ Rpts12011-06-10 A/tern Devel and Screen Tech_Rpt FElS106 Appendix E - Access (Interchange) Planning Methodologyllnterchange planning Meth and results memo.docx NORTH I-25 • EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX F Longmont - North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation • 0 Final EIS August 2011 • NORTH 1-25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Longmont — North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation • Prepared by: Carter::Burgess 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 October 2006 • Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation • information cooperation transportation. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Universe of Alternatives 1 Initial Screening 3 Additional Evaluations 11 Conclusion 18 • • Toc-i Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I--25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection • Alternative Evaluation information cooperation transportation INTRODUCTION The North I-25 EIS team is evaluating passenger rail service in the North Front Range. As part of the completed Level 3 screening, commuter rail was evaluated along the US 287/BNSF and I-25 corridors. During Level 3 screening, the project team assessed a potential connection between downtown Longmont and the I-25 corridor. The results of that evaluation have been documented in the East-West Connection (Longmont to I-25) Alternative Evaluation Technical Memorandum. Since that time, the overall Level 3 screening has been completed, and the I-25 commuter rail alignment has been screened out, leaving commuter rail on the US 287/BNSF corridor. This service could connect with the proposed FasTracks service in downtown Longmont. However, interest has continued in a connection from Longmont to the North Metro FasTracks corridor at SH 7. This proposed line would provide a link between the BNSF commuter rail service and the North Metro service, avoiding the need for North Front Range passengers to travel through Boulder to reach Denver. Given the desire for this connection, a more detailed evaluation of potential alignments has been undertaken, and is presented in this technical memorandum. The northern terminus of the alignment was assumed to be at (or near) the Sugar Mill • site identified in RTD studies related to FasTracks. The southern terminus was assumed at the abandoned St Vrain Junction. This junction once connected various Union Pacific freight lines in the Tri-Town area. Today, it is the location of a short spur along the UP's Boulder Industrial Lead, which is the line RTD expects to use for the FasTracks North Metro rail service from SH 7 south. No suitable alternatives were identified to connect St Vrain Junction and the North Metro end-of-line at SH 7, reinforcing this decision. However, the various out-of-service rail lines that fan out north of the junction provide corridors for potential alternatives to connect with the BNSF liner in Longmont. UNIVERSE OF ALTERNATIVES The project's transit team held a working session to develop a universe of alternatives for this analysis. Input was also obtained from stakeholders, including CDOT and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFR MPO). During this effort, it became obvious that the connection from Longmont to the I-25 area could follow one of several alignments, while the I-25 crossing and connection to the St. Vrain Junction could also use one of several alignments. Therefore, the analysis was prepared using segments that could be mixed and matched to form alternatives. The team generally developed northerly segments (from the Sugar Mill site east and south, labeled A through L) and southerly segments (from St Vrain Junction north and west, labeled P through V). At the end of this effort, almost 20 segments had been identified. Refer to Figure 1. • 1 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Longmont — North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation nli;,rndlin ::noitg,,:hr• tun iv,irldti�.!- Ill aH)i . . .. .. y�a. aI:.v-4, t. , %/' 'ter i � I i�y�t .. , . - � � ,fr 44 ♦. J j p ca.:r r ., J�� . P. _ Jr -12-4- - � ., S � . ire- ;. ,1 A _F,IikgS .�Zld \\\ ,_.-,- ??tee ,. ...4 --� lie_ q._/'l1 ..,#)77)5"_.4, `7)`3'fa 6 ,'/ / M�txj 11 ��+ fir. n ]? ~ 2 r r.,y�,;3 �..-4 ,/ , ', 20 ,-••, `- ` • -1 ...• S. c. lill r 4 Ill ► 1s ---..\ � Y war 4 - 1 Til i ... I ► - iii ... .., .., .., , . : _.. . . , . .. . . . • . . . 10 . . .. _ , _ , Commuter Rail Alternatives •'\,. Existing Railroad ' ' Trails ` , i. Lakes and Streams rr :' 4 rim " . St V.• • JuncM•n • County Lines _mot e - Parks and Open Space i 6 - Wetlands • I '1.- I i{ Census Identified Minority Populations h m\ r- Iii Census Identified low Income Populations O Active Bald Eagle Nests -- iv - , �J ZJL ' _ -.. ;.. -SLAP FIGURE 1 0 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation information cooperation transportation_ INITIAL SCREENING Once these alternatives were identified, an evaluation matrix was prepared. The matrix used pertinent evaluation criteria from overall Level 2 and Level 3 screening efforts developed for the project. The matrix is presented below as Table 1. The results obtained from the evaluation performed for the matrix are summarized below: North end (from Sugar Mill to the southeast): • Restoration of rail service on the abandoned BNSF (formerly Colorado and Southern) line that angles southeast from the Sugar Mill area toward I-25 (alignments A and B) would have the potential for environmental consequences to important resources that could be avoided with other alignments • Running service from the Sugar Mill site north along the GWRR (alignments G, H, I, and J) introduces out-of-direction travel that could increase overall travel times. This is contrary to the goal of the Longmont- North Metro connection, which is to • reduce travel time for north Front Range passengers. • Development along SH 119 could be impacted by alignments in the SH 119 right- of-way (alignments C, D, E, F, K and L). This includes two parks- Longmont's Sandstone Regional Park and St Vrain State Park. • Development along the I-25 frontage roads south of SH 119 would make CR in the I-25 envelope (alignments E, F, J, and K) costly due to adjacent commercial development. • Alternatives to Alignment L would avoid impacts to the existing trail along the abandoned UP Dent Line through Frederick and Firestone. At the conclusion of this effort, Alignment G was selected for further evaluation, assuming that identified environmental issues could be addressed. Many of the alternatives in this initial screening were dropped out due to combination of property impacts and environmental considerations. South end (from St Vrain Junction to the northwest): • There was little to distinguish Alignments P, Q, R, T, and U. They all have similar potential conflicts along WCR 7 and/or 1-25. They each require a turn from WCR 7 to the east, a turn into the I-25 corridor, and a turn east from I-25 onto the Boulder Industrial lead at the south end of the alignment. In general, they are all • the same length, and are longer than Alignment V. 3 : {— 0 - - t | ///\ oE:{{\ {{( § - -f! | \ . - \//_ le o { \\ /\ ! { \ OC SP 02 i }:_ \\} \\\ \\ {d|\_ : 0- O> 00 . _ .Ln CV o p, ) . . ,\: ` 5 : k \}§ � ), ! 66 Wb © :;2O _ 0 ..-dok \\/\ L-Lto« - » -to/}& ` - - �2 \\\\\ \\\\ \�\/:\/ }, \ _ ` 0 . 7 cc i| \- a - &- ! a= y3& y: \� - - _ , j 2 ( E; ( \ \ (\ ) )) {/ | \/\/ aboE c I}{\\\!k\\p\})/{k \f/§f\, uo- o v § :fl2!lm ,Z{:;2,! \ -}ff§022! 2{{2{022! - z 5k0 §222 /f)» WEwc =©67,7, E EEt , _ rYE8a O.EO \ (#\; | OO 09 02 |01 MCC MCC MM t 2 \\ . \) \� } I i� \\ - , �( : \ zz ®\ E ®!\ ^) a7k � ` \ ^ /s . _ » k \{\{ 0152-5 %77\ ow »!1{ �EZE [!y{ / E SE `) �/) - ): z ! }�{ ! o E° \fit; 30 � � ) ({® - 0 E (l ~ r, mU up2) §» ±) a /} 3 0a u :_ : \ � i | \ \ \ ; s k \. )} | o (2== ..\ .: ° #) -t \P2 12(\\ }\\/ \\ �\ ! 2%\:«{»°1 � !}5=_ , |2 fm»§ [:/\&/ [ ;{ .°3 (SC) °B rn 2 :- y !1uEua 0E: =f2= : :Z:; $ 1! (9 \§ a \/ o \\ ! 224' e., ;_;/ & \\\\}\ \\{\ )\{\\) j\\\}) ! \{7// ! __ ct /) L, _ ,!( . z =: l2# | } §)\/|$+! f\f| {f-OC)W ! 7t,»! |! -EE-wo 1 >s,O 5 : DE-! : l ::� §= m,;:sa §= \\\283& : - /\ )/ \g8\\\ )/ 00 \j CO t &® � m - • 7} \} )} • . } k }} \ z \z1 )) gem ( k {\: \\ tz, Ra : ,: . z_ = ) -Cello . . . C /\�}\f {) \){3{ : ow v _ 9-c- }) ({\\ ( 20_2E - - ti E #( : l,n; : | /E '-E-O /Z>E G)!` -$» _ - _ 00 a ® kino wr a : | { 5 ! : — ;! E II- - . . . _ '1'! \ \ - ... . I - - - - - - - . : _ : }: \, \\ LB c 5B ! � $ 3 ( !__t 0t6 , _ _© = t- Y 82gt L/'0O_ f )/\}/}0,_ E unoo ;}7 \r :!{ E0nonoCf_+ E f ®: � G©R—P \ oo 8S \-:278 \8 :8F o i2 7; 8° !j} !)! :E lfr7 ==;T : = =f §772:l =! • _ _ _ E. , :: .:> ;:^Exii° ,, »}!s 0 u 0 , oun0ao3 ?o .E, .cg >0aum )%a!on> . c- k \ ! 0 I° ) O \\ � . F; _ _ : �} , \\8o 6 7 o\\\}8888 0bo0 o o , a\\ ! 32- - -'5 {i \{°s0o \{$ §! ■ G Eo- . , :a! ° E ' ®` (§; \ dotE-- SEE \/\\k, -tE-12/ /}/\//!{ ;!! E Rgb /\au_s \\ \\ \ft \ \\ \0 \ ! � ! _ \ . [ } , . , ;� .� \ ; 0-o0 . . 0c92 000o ■|! : ;: _ _ �; _ \ : 2 g � _ _ - ow \ tD --f) \ • ) }\ - \\ M )j\ ,} ! » ) [\!2 \ E - - F{E amm } §: o a \! 1190 °{ clq /cu cairn \ ( :,,_ , , = 0 m ! . ��. #%I\ \ _ ! , ; \ m 3 = : k \. \. im fi~ - »7 i/ u ( § f; : 57,2\/ \ / \\ $| 0C3O :t , !(t . , , ; , EE' °0 »:2 .72! 5$ - ac0 . \ z ; §!f !3 /::! !®! -®= ! - :, !I $ /.8901\) \ §}/\f\)\ ::\; :: l : Em : u;, : l' _ ..» : 8 :;\ _;u: !! \!\/j)2!! K , r;-5: : §\!! !! ulh \ j)\:!«!§ { lj4tl:f;l 2}Z2\7 §; § !I :> : :l §f; . 2 a \, Ce\ _OC jfj- - - y2 }: - :; _ \_ E $ $ p=: ..a7 ,: 9 =10 ®;s Ooo0 e o- a° \\\\/) \\\> ! \o - /zn k/f.8111\)§ ) •o0O8 0c00 o0 W°\ : § ; }\ (f! OPEEoc - :a °! . _ ! ., §/ !a; §= DOE 7/)!= \ r : ; K7 § ; §{\«\ 02{§ , f)\)kk at29c f flee:fz:a\ §)/ | n CO CO a \} \} \) \ !:!; E._ 723r1' 4J g | w »» �oz 0 � `� , :_ ; E asli= : —.- \ } |) , -{\\ -§ C -5U _ _\ i )/, 6 <Jf ow 0 ._ - )� � �\ :;`_, K/ ! :sl:9 :6 t \` \\\)\! ! %9} t9;) :{ ! /},\ S \� \\c — . . - \ ~t ` c. ! , , ! \: ! ;3) k c0Ecam` . \\\© 33:22 ! 0EQU I=O . . . . ! ) §/ fit\ � � y . . . . . . _ O o � � ol - o0 § -cnt B })} ! z~ ---2 2 ! : : o : !% ,co� ; , :ce §\ , 2 $7 )\ z\/\\\}\\:\\\\\\\2 2 ;77/ g i \ ( \)® ER - 0.> , §l-6S� ? lilfiui 82 • _ . c . } �\ ~ | _ $| \t-S.D2f `^ 6!75 ; \}3 ; - ,: : , fl ! %{ [4): c »D5 A { � : & )g. 2 a (2. g ■ /:N47i),f ® ` Jj\ j- = ,z ! pg:42 \\�\k§ ! ci, 6 k \ - _% ` _ °` ` ® E�>}! • - . ! § 2 \272 § . -c )}z - as{(r .C {!5-523\} =. . ; . ! o\ - oo . f}/ \{/!)\) \!f t ;:« K!a go �2 - — . | \{ . . . 1.1 ! /� !: x \ C � 0I 0 \ ~ � �\ CC ■|) �\\\ Co E Z p» k 222 !) {2 ` 2 a 7\- § rOc_Da_cE roc °o\gt \ !2j E 7z ip.q � � � � \ w }• � - :E ! -\ 1 2O ! =- 2] ( ■ co5a° E \/\\0 • 0— :2 _ , . $�|a \iir \ \ \\ ^\ • \ , 002 - Dt . 6262 o —n °20030 t9 4 ,u- !/) /§ /!{[! `• - D = . B\ - \! j: DE ® `m " 0^ ' 02__{) /}»):\\ _! . ®_- 2! j§« }}{ 8:2 6g is : °/; : - • \\/\\/ / :\ :\:\,� \\ua - 0- p • :, _ _ ,j/ f i| \)! !{e ! !_ » - - _ _ -- . a : : : != : = .. F = ;E !« _ :_ ! & : ;_§ mc6_ : , : czz: ::= : : . __ : : : : - _ 022E 000 0 . 0O002 ! 0 �kcE2b_2 {}=_ =o= on}\\ =00\\\\\\ }( uo o0);}\0 }\/!> 2;/ff! cp t OE ` 0E { ((u • ) \\t \°O EQUOCO a 6'iO v . 02-= Ef ac -rEt E{\\\ §|6 , . 02 6 " , , : ; :fK22 2 Ecoe2 /7726 §f gt Pt | Z; - 2! 00 CU 00 a . t 7 u: -�� , :&z } 2 2; 2; s ` "2 ! ` ! : R ; , 00j .c 0 2O0 } } 2|k` , `o -`o m P °O N o O 0 o r s N _ TB :; w' y m c c 3 °D „ °`c 3 O P N oc E ao ragaFt— `° .` a Ii I ! r-„ p E o c °'_ o N o E m o o o E • a u on _� - 200E a-2 2a - 20E E E a as < a a'c o p • = o `O 5 v_o 3 E a 4 -- O C E U - v O o N c o „ c oR E N ° O p 15 a L O m Oa N D a o a V Ea fm° o £o m e j IE .E . ± c 1 ER R o a°0 ° � " -D28 N n Oc' N T w a = Q G U Q v2i O d Q S O C O O C �p�n N O o u vIi N a J -- yr o N O— m ' o ° - 3 °^ U a'c m °^U a'c ' h 0 n � U c o U a u .�U c O U a u `m cu o 2 , t`° o 2 co- o5o o m0 E 0 y E a D E ry N 3° `2 2t m D E a m c= 60E ,a_ i coym-t0 p 3aDco DSuo 1a °t ..•og agg R:- t--a , U=u °a v�E °qr�' U.uaaU_ v �j_'N_o aoD I 8hm N0p m0 `o ° 'D `m° cc a o a UNUe-C 0C9 °UPwC ° a _ v a - 7 c p C °2 c C O C O 'q O q' m O O $' a�cL = m O" -OWN a c 2E`° Ovi` o'p_v O�2n2 0 ° - 0�n = O= U'D-N = 0= U = 0= U O a OI D p� Z'r O U O E C O o p U m. °O O E 9`O a1 9ZZ p B °y i2 E E O O D O C t D D Q tt O c._ 0 0 C V ° °uuSa , ,,,tog �Noco•� g u r o o c ° o— cu u 3 o_ ' v E_o o W o. Eric EO ^' °d °° °' y o f ° - 0ccou O 0 o D o m m 'm o o ; E m rc° : o u t `uo o2 g8 a C C y C o cg C p e 2t Pt Pt _ c > c > c O Q) u0 t n VU UU u o U V ,erg p o - - S 2N = a `w a �n "� N O no L �n"'�D ��a m °� m • u U r y� O N N O �° p a Oa w -° W : OS UNoN ooQ-° ttu LL< a = o own` U Z - gli$ = > Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Longmont-North Metro Connection • irter matron. cooperation Vans par tat inn Alternative Evaluation • Alignment S makes use of the Dent Line in the area where the trail has not been yet developed (primarily through Dacono), although plans for a trail exist. It also serves the Tri-Town population better than the remaining alignments. However, it is the longest alignment in the southern area. • Alignment V provides the shortest distance. This, coupled with one less major curve, is expected to provide the best travel time for the south end alternatives. It also does not use the I-25 corridor, similar to Alignment S. • The team reviewed these alignments with CDOT, and it was determined that the use of the I-25 alignment would be a fatal flaw since it may preclude long-range improvements (beyond 2030) along the interstate in the North Front Range. At the end of this screening process, the southerly alignment results were not nearly as clear as the northerly alignment results. Alignments S and V were the only two alternatives that were not fatal flawed because of the use of I-25. Therefore, these two alternatives for the south end were advanced to determine if potential environmental impacts could be avoided. ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS • Since Alignment G required refinement and no conclusion between S and V could be reached using the initial evaluation criteria, refinements and supplemental analyses were performed. Analysis Refinements A new alignment (referred to as G(2)) was developed in an attempt to minimize the negatives associated with Alignment G. During this evaluation, it was found that the City of Longmont owns land that is contiguous from Sandstone Ranch west past the archery range to the St. Vrain Greenway. Those potential 4(f) properties rendered an alignment crossing from SH 119 south toward WCR 20.5 between Sandstone Ranch and WCR 7 infeasible. This finding precluded any options for Alignment G. The team re- examined the matrix of northerly alignments as shown in Table 1. The shortest alignments with potentially avoidable impacts were those parallel to SH 119 (Alignment C and Alignment D). After further consideration, these two alignments were combined to minimize the potential environmental impacts that had initially removed them from consideration. The preferred north end alignment stays as close to SH 119 as possible while minimizing park and water resource impacts. It begins as Alternative D on the north side of SH 119. It crosses SH 119 east of Sandstone Ranch and follows Alignment C to and along WCR 7. This combined alternative will be forwarded for further evaluation. To better evaluate the differences between Alignment S and Alignment V, additional • population and employment data were collected for Erie and the Tri-Town area. The Tri-Town area clearly showed more population and employment in both the base year 11 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I--25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection information cooperation. transportation. Alternative Evaluation (2000) and the forecast year (2030). The team felt that the ability to serve Tri-Town population (Alignment S) outweighed the travel time benefits of Alignment V, and moved forward with Alignment S for discussion with stakeholders. Following the initial screening process, the results outlined above were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Although the TAC concurred with the selection of a northerly alignment, the TAC requested additional analysis on the southerly segment. Therefore, additional meetings and analysis were undertaken. Small Group Meeting To obtain additional input, the team decided to hold a small group meeting with the communities that would be directly affected by the southerly alignment selection. Since the TAC requested more detail on population and employment, the team identified six possible stations along alignments S and V. Refer to Figure 2. Two stations are located where Alignments S and V meet, two are located along Alignment S, and two are located along Alignment V. Using thresholds developed in An Analysis of Passenger Origins at Peer Commuter Rail Systems, population (in a 4-mile radius) and employment data (in a '/2-mile radius) were collected for each of these potential station sites. • These data are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Station Population and Employment Data Site Population Employment 1 60,860 200 2 62,500 580 3 59,750 20 4 64,570 150 5 58,580 640 6 56,040 240 Basis 4 mile drive radius 1/2 mile walk radius Note-all data are 2030 • 12 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 "IlII EIS Longmont — North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation information cooperation. transportation III • �t , . .. kart . ..7_ r , wlln , �/ , aI'' .f �,IL, -1 J t� I c..-15) YY -ll - , } 00-..,�., _ _ - - ` 1111 , .i. , ,. . , ja,.. ., Lam,... , , ... s EC • � , rjp •i • o � . - .w II • ' �1 _\�!S �' ....1 I I �a �1 + L. X77 \ 10 • \ Proposed Station Locations ° j r\...., Existing Railroad `- _Y • Trails I0 Lakes and Streams , .. if�rt, , County Lines j si ,.yam, ,: in Active Bald Eagle Nests S - Wetlands 0 s IIII Parks and Open Space "'.°"r - %�i Census •Identified Minority Populations `• c1:iP,2 '� e A Census Identified Low Income Populations Y - ' Waft)? �a'. ,1C10 •.� FIGURE 2 111 13 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I-25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection •Information cooperation transportation Alternative Evaluation As Table 2 shows, stations 4 and 5 (both along Alignment V) serve the most population and employment, respectively. However, during the analysis, it was noted that much of the population and employment shown along Alignment V is actually located in areas south of the alignment, and that these users may be unwilling to travel north to a station to take transit south into the Denver area. Therefore, another table was prepared with population and employment generally north of the station but within the same radii. Refer to Table 3. Table 3 Station Population and Employment Data- North of Station only Site Population Employment 1 39,110 200 2 42,840 580 3 42,740 20 4 33,740 150 5 32,090 640 6 37,360 240 • 4 mile drive radius, Basis north of station / mile walk radius Note-all data are 2030 These data are inconclusive with the largest employment base at site 2 (along Alignment S) and the largest population base remaining at site 5 (along Alignment V). Given these data and the other information contained in the evaluation matrix, no recommendation was developed at the small group meeting. Feedback from the meeting included information on several planning efforts in the area. The participants also asked the team to evaluate impacts to potential subdivisions in addition to subdivisions already under construction, as documented in the initial screening. In addition, a modification of Alignment S was proposed along WCR 11. Refer to Figure 3. • 14 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS ; ` Longmont — North Metro Connection Alternative Evaluation information cooperation. transportation Ill Pri 4 n 0 © " o �1 ,, . m • ,� 28 : i1.i4i.',)C�r.rl t' I I , :. {l's 1liter*: Z. I 7 r , 1 rte `r` `ti „ 25 .,. , . • , 1 ' I r t O s- "1041 I :. r_ r ice`,._... 8l ` r v. !r"" . 'yT le 1 iiii i1 L1 / .2.., N� _. r ! AFL/••C ' rPl N /ma ✓' ,, {:, t I': ' .a' • t r Ot‘i , A '.., - - �,. p 20 a. 4 j qS ` T 3tTektig'3 • . ra 4- �, 1 16 1 ' j 1 t s cIt 5� f`lJl' - . J • -] r _. . - oj4io)it9) ifirg , M0 o ) v %f/ ._-,±:..--__-)..--:- -.-^�—. '1f Existing Railroad •` z Trails r � t Lakes and Streams NS. V.• n .,:; ; . . County Lines - a ve Juncfl•n 1l Active Bald Eagle Nests 1 - Ai .____I- Wetlands `' ••gm Parks and Open Space Census Identified Minority Populations 1"} _:- a - 4 1 M Census Identified Low Income Populations : _ ((��r _ y. '•l - 'r / - , a• o w. ' f4TQ'L5, i rr_ • Figure 3 Ill Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I--25 EIS Longmont— North Metro Connection information cooperation. transprntation Alternative Evaluation Additional Technical Analysis Since the small group meeting was inconclusive, additional evaluation criteria were developed to specifically address the three southerly alignments. The team then collected data to allow for a more comprehensive comparison between the alignments. This analysis is shown in Table 4. Table 4 reflects the following new data: • Dacono's Land Use Plan assumes Alignment V. • The future subdivision analysis follows CDOT's current guidance, including subdivisions that have issued building permits at the time of analysis. • At-grade crossings have been assumed based on engineering judgment; further grade crossing analysis will occur during the DEIS. • Utility crossings are based on the Level 3 utility inventory, and may change as design moves through the DEIS process. Criteria viewed as 'positive' for the alignment have been highlighted. Given the • supplemental analyses documented in Table 4, the team recommends Alignment V. This is a change from the initial recommendation discussed with the TAC and RCC, and is based on the subsequent input and evaluation described above. • 16 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I--25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection • infoi nation cooperation. transportation Alternative Evaluation Table 4: Additional Technical Analysis Criteria Alignment S Alignment V I Alignment S using WCR 11 Socio-Economic Data 2030 Population 68,670 (Tri-Town) 46,260 (Erie) In between 2030 Employment 22,750 (Tri-Town) 4,150 (Erie) In between Alignment Configuration Length 14.55 miles 12.9 miles 13.75 miles Percentage in -55% >95% -70% Transportation Corridor Parallel to planned trail Yes No No At-Grade Crossings (SH WCR 7, WCR 11, WCR WCR 7, WCR 12, 52, 1-25 & Frontage Roads 13, WCR 12, WCR 8 (five WCR 10, WCR 8, WCR 7, WCR 11,WCR 12, are grade separated) total) WCR 11 (five total; re- WCR 8 (four total) uses three) 8" gas &ditch cross 1-25 8" gas &ditch cross 1-25 Major Utilities between SH 52 &WCR between SH 52 and WCR (115kv electric east-west 16; gas line parallel to I- Water pumping 16; gas line parallel to -25, between Erie & Dacono 25, west side; 115kv station west side; 1 electric affects all) electric parallel to 1-25, parallel to 1-25, east side • east side Community and Municipal Input Community interest Frederick Dacono (via Land Dacono Use Plan), Erie Existing Subdivisions 2 1 2 Future Subdivisions1 6/10 0/3 4/6 Permitted / Pending Stations Stations: east-west SH 52 SH 52 SH 52 connectivity Stations: north-south WCR 7 or WCR 11 or WCR 7 WCR 7 or WCR 11 connectivity WCR 13 EnvironmeMai T&E Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Re-uses existing RR Highest Aquatic Resources In between crossings Community Impacts In between Fewest Most Parks and Open Space In between Fewest Most Criteria MeP 5(31%) 12(75)% 4(25)% The current CDOT noise policy states that impacts should be evaluated for future developments that have been platted and have issued building permits at the time of analysis. The first number indicates subdivisions that meet this criteria; the second number is subdivisions that are expected to meet this criteria in the near future. • 2 Represents the number of criteria viewed as 'positive' for the Alignment. Percentage is number of positive criteria divided by total # of criteria (currently 16), and does not total 100%since some criteria rated positive for more than one alignment. 17 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 EIS Longmont—North Metro Connection 'information cooperation transportation Alternative Evaluation • CONCLUSION Along the northerly alignment the recommended alignment is a combination of "C" and "D" for the following reasons: • It is substantially within an existing transportation corridor. • It minimizes potential parkland impacts. • It does not include out-of-direction travel. Along the southerly portion, the recommended alignment is "V" for the following reasons: • It is the shortest distance so is expected to have the fastest travel time. • It is substantially within an existing transportation corridor. • It is not parallel to a planned trail. • It has the least number of potential utility conflicts. • • It affects the least number of existing and platted subdivisions. • It has the least need to acquire parks and open space areas; and has the least potential for negative community impacts. • It has the least potential impacts to aquatic resources. Based on the evaluation described above, the following conclusions were drawn: • The preferred alignment for the north end is a combination of Alignments C and D, generally parallel to SH 119 and WCR 7. • The preferred alignment for the south end is Alignment V, generally parallel to WCR 7 and along the Boulder Industrial Lead. It is recommended that this combination of Alignment C, Alignment D, and Alignment V, as shown on Figure 4, be carried through the DEN evaluation. Additional analyses will be performed to select the preferred station site along the selected alignment for use in the DEN. • 18 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25III EIS Longmont — North Metro Connection information cooperation transportation Alternative Evaluation all ��- ('� v © v v 1 I m m m �a • lAall ub . I - •1� �� • / %01(:. :...t. l1t- 7/ �. 44'• 30 I i' y • r ;.5r -.4.1.-' 28'tj .- •,� ' .' � r. A' } - 1 • l } t. . ..• i 4iliyi.<<J i I)'• I r114.11 // G� • ��. �` - f ti. • • �l L" .11 ; t >� y i. er 2., ,b.r. • - _ i ,y,.: ,, tl 1 /L ., l � ` • 3 • , :I Y-5 '�• ` -4,../' ivi ` 41. • >►?�,I \ I 18' - r-; ti j r-li \ t 16 \•,.., nt___________ •, . se L.in • i ' y. , e"1/40 Preferred Commuter Rail Alternative 'Th....... Commuter Rail Alternatives '-`_,- Existing RailroadEl \` Trails \\\ -.N I., Lakes and Streams ", f County Lines I e} L'il v op III Parks and Open Space allWetlands t1 aOlvii Census Identified Minority Populations \\ Census Identified Low Income Populations \ ro e 0 Active Bald Eagle Nests \ , A -•_ . 7 `3 UCCA i y'3 s , rflGAl�tf I .:c.) T,`" N rih Me • 10 FIGURE 4 Ill I:\_Transportation\071609.400\manage\report\White Papers\LongmontNorthMetro Connecbon.rloc 19 N oRrx I-25 • EIS MI information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX G Travel Demand Forecasting Memoranda • • NORTH 1-25 Alternatives Development and Screening Report EIS information. cooreration transportation. APPENDIX G Travel Demand Forecasting Memoranda • Combined Model Development • Combined Model Application N ORTH 1-25 AgiEIS information. cooperation. transportation. August 2011 Alternatives Development and Screening Report ...a.'a.ao... :cowmen!of iran:oorta'a- (j116)7 elb, Federal Highway , �� Administration DEPARMENTOF TRANSPORTATION Appendix G T avel Demand Forecasting Memoranda • Combined Model Development • Combined Model Application 0 FE-L.SRURG ULLEVIG NORTH I-25 Plql • EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX H Transit Operating Statistics Reports • North I-25 EIS O&M Cost Methodology & Results Technical Memorandum Prepared for: Colorado • Department of Transportation Prepared by: Connetics Transportation Group Under Contract to: Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig Final Report December 2010 • Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 O&M Cost Methodology 4 2.1 Local and Feeder Bus Service 4 2.2 Premium Bus Service 5 2.3 O&M Cost for Rail Service 5 3.0 O&M Cost Results 9 4.0 Phase 1 O&M Cost Results 12 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Draft Committee Vision —Proposed Transit Network and Operating Plan 2 Figure 4-1: Phase 1—Proposed Transit Network and Operating Plan 12 List of Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Local Operators' Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour 5 • Table 2-2: Summary of RTD's Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour 5 Table 2-3: Proposed Unit Costs for North I-25, Northwest DMU and RTD North Metro O&M Cost Estimates 8 Table 3-1: Summary of O&M Cost Estimates (Over No-Action Alternative) for North I-25 Draft Committee Vision Plan (in 2009 Dollars) 9 Table 3-2: North I-25 Bus Service Statistics and O&M Cost Estimates by Route 10 Table 3-3: North I-25 Rail Service Statistics by Route 10 Table 3-4: North I-25 Rail O&M Cost Estimates (in 2009 Dollars) 11 Table 4-1: Phase 1 Bus Service Statistics and O&M Cost Estimates by Route (in 2009 Dollars) 13 • TOC j I' • 1.0 Introduction The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), initiated a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 61-mile I-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. An extensive process was undertaken to identify a range of alternatives that could be developed to meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives were then screened and combined to produce two build packages. These packages, together with the No-Action Alternative, were considered the reasonable alternatives and were fully evaluated in the DEIS. Package A includes commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont. Package A also includes a new commuter rail line that would connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Other components of Package A include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver as well as along E- 470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport (DIA) and a commuter bus maintenance facility; and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes. • Package B includes tolled express lanes (TEL) on I-25 that would be used by buses, high- occupancy vehicles for free, and single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll. Package B includes 12 bus stations along I-25, US 34 into Greeley and Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Package B also includes a bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets, as well as bus service along E-470 from I-25 to DIA. As a result of the DEIS, a Draft Committee Vision was created based on public input, travel demand model results and further analysis of the corridor. This vision includes components from both Packages A and B. Specifically, the following components are included in the Committee's Vision: • Commuter rail along the BNSF corridor from Fort Collins to Longmont and a connection to RTD's North Metro rail line at the proposed 162nd Avenue station, with North I-25 commuter rail service continuing to Denver Union Station (DUS) in downtown Denver; ▪ An extension of RTD's Northwest commuter rail line from 1st/Terry in Longmont to the proposed Sugar Mill station on the North I-25 rail line; • Commuter bus on US 85 from Greeley to downtown Denver; • Express bus on I-25 in tolled express lanes; and • Feeder bus connections to proposed premium transit rail and bus routes. Figure 1-1 provides a schematic of the proposed transit network in the Draft Committee Vision Plan for the North I-25 corridor, as refined through subsequent analysis. • 0 Figure 1-1 Draft Committee Vision — Proposed Transit Network and Operating Plan Preferred Alternative Operating Plan 60/60 (DC to SIC) DTC CSu 60/60 Fort Collins/Harmony Rd. STCimil 30/60 ■ (STC to Denver CBD) 60/60 WindsordSR 392 IMP 60/60 20/- North Loveland LovelandlCrossroads • ill GreeleyDowntown Loveland Berthoud/SR 56 • • 160/60 Milliken Evans Berthoud North Longmont Platteville 30/- Firestone/SR 119 60/60 1st/Terry �� Sugar MITI • Ill 44 ■ FrederickiSR 52 • 0 Ft Lupton ■ • • N. Metro RaillCR 8 Erie ■� 4 SH7•0 i SH-7(1!2nd Stitt Metro) Brighton 3 US 85/6470 z To DIA a = Commuter Rail 60/60 Commerce Clly a = Commuter Bus a = Feeder Bus im & others = Express Bus •... a = all-day route pattern Denver CBD = peak period only route = local routes re-routed to serve commuter rail stations 60/60 = peak period/midday service frequency 30/- = peak period frequency/no midday service ill 2II' aL! e I - =' 5 LIS ti & V1 Cost Methodolo2v Results Tech Memo • In the prior DEIS work, annual O&M costs were estimated by using the following three costing methods: • Local and feeder bus service that uses conventional buses were estimated with an hourly service cost based on a "blended hourly rate of North Front Range providers (Greeley (The Bus), Fort Collins (Transfort) and Loveland (COLT). • For premium bus service, such as regional commuter and express bus services, a higher hourly service cost was applied based on RTD's hourly rate for bus service. • For commuter rail, cost data from Virginia Railway Express (VRE) was primarily used as the basis for estimating costs. For all three methods, FY 2003 National Transit Database (NTD) cost data (the most current data available at the time), was used, with costs inflated to 2005 dollars. This report presents new cost methodologies, followed by O&M cost estimates for the Draft Committee Vision. • • 2.0 O&M Cost Methodology As noted in the Introduction, annual O&M cost estimates in the DEIS were developed through application of three applications. Local/feeder bus cost estimates were based on hourly service costs for North Front Range bus operators. Premium service (express and commuter bus) cost estimates were based on hourly service costs for RTD. Commuter rail cost estimates were based primarily on Virginia Railway Express (VRE) cost data. Data used at the time of the DEIS was based on 2003 cost information, with unit costs inflated to 2005 dollars. For this current work effort, bus O&M unit costs have been updated with 2008 National Transit Database (NTD) figures (the most current year available), with those unit costs inflated to 2009 dollars. Methodology used to estimate commuter rail O&M costs has also been modified. At the time of the DEIS, the specific mode of commuter rail operation in the RTD FasTracks Plan was unknown. Work completed for the North I-25 DEIS project assumed traditional locomotive- hauled commuter rail operations for the project's commuter rail service alternative. Now, it is known that the North Metro rail line will be operated with Electric Multiple Units (EMU's), and that North I-25 service will likely be Diesel Multiple Units (DMU's) that also operate on North Metro's alignment. RTD has completed detailed O&M costing of EMU and DMU service in its FasTracks planning efforts. Therefore, this updated methodology uses cost information that is • consistent with RTD's FasTracks planning efforts. 2.1 Local and Feeder Bus Service The preferred alternative assumes four new feeder bus services. To estimate the cost of the feeder bus service, a representative cost per revenue vehicle hour was developed, using a weighted average of the three local operators serving this region: Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley. As shown in Table 2-1, the cost per revenue vehicle hour was calculated for each of the three local operators in the study area, based on the 2008 NTD data. This is the same methodology used in the DEEIS phase of this project. The calculated cost per revenue vehicle hour was then adjusted to 2009 dollars, based on a factor derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Western Urban Region by comparing the July 2008 index to the July 2009 index). In this case, 2008 costs were deflated by 1.96% to adjust for 2009. Each operator's hourly costs were weighted according to their proportional share of revenue hours. The resulting weighted cost per revenue vehicle hour of $83.12 (2009 dollars) is 20.7 percent higher than the 2005 estimate of$68.85 that was used in the DEIS phase of this project. • 41 '' - Table 2-1 Summary of Local Operators' Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour 2005 2008 NTD Data Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour %Change Operator Estimate Cost Revenue Hours %Hours 2008 Dollars 2009 Dollars Weighted (from 2005 est.) Greeley, CO - The Bus $ 14.67 $ 1,946,565 30,348 28.4% S 64.14 $ 62.89 $ 17.87 21.8% Fort Collins, CO - Transfort $ 50.82 $ 6,463,845 68,358 64.0% $ 94.56 5 92.71 $ 59.32 16.7% Loveland, CO - COLT 5 3.36 5 646,067 8,120 7.6% $ 79.56 $ 78.01 5 5.93 76.5% Total $ 68.85 106,826 100.0% $ 83.12 20.7% Notes: 1. Adjustment to 2009 dollars based on factor of July 2008 to July 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Western Urban Region 2. 2009 Weighted Average based on percentage of hours. 2.2 Premium Bus Service A higher unit rate was used for commuter and express bus route service. Methodology used for estimating premium bus service is the same as applied in the DEIS. RTD's 2008 NTD cost data was used to arrive at an hourly service cost of $ 103 .46 (2008 dollars) . This figure was then adjusted to 2009 dollars using the same method described for local and feeder bus service. The resulting 2009 rate is $ 101. 43 per revenue bus-hour. This is an 11.9 percent increase over the 2005 estimate of $90.64 that was used in the DEIS phase of this project. Table 2-2 Summary of RTD's Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour 2005 2008 NTD Data Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour % Change Operator Estimate Cost Revenue Hours 2008 Dollars 2009 Dollars (from 2005 est.) RTD - Denver, CO $ 90.64 $ 292,088,992 2,823,339 $ 103.46 $ 101.43 11.9% Note: Adjustment to 2009 dollars based on factor of July 2008 to July 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Western Urban Region 2.3 O&M Cost for Rail Service Specific operating arrangements for North 1-25 commuter rail service are undetermined at this time. Operating arrangements will be required with BNSF for use of its track between Longmont and Fort Collins. It must be determined who will operate train service, maintain vehicles, track and stations. In addition to those issues, North 1 -25 rail service, as presently envisioned, necessitates service coordination and cost-sharing arrangements with RTD, for the proposed North 1-25 rail service will be operating on RTD's proposed North Metro alignment. This project also includes an extension of RTD's proposed Northwest rail line. At this current phase in the project, more is known about proposed RTD's FasTracks operations on the Northwest and North Metro rail lines. Thus, the methodology for estimating rail O&M costs has been updated to reflect RTD cost information when appropriate. Some elected cost elements are based on cost data from Tri-Rail operations in South Florida, based on Tri- Rail's 2008 NTD submittal . Tri-Rail was chosen as a peer system since its operating arrangement is similar to what is anticipated for North 1-25 service. Also, Tri-Rail operates some FRA-compliant DMU trains. 1 1 EIS O & M Cost ^lethodolog ) & Results Tech Memo RTD O&M unit costs for the Northwest and North Metro rail lines have been calculated, based • on O&M cost estimates documented in RTD's Commuter Rail Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Report dated September 4, 2009. Rail O&M unit costs for the North 1-25 project has been structured in a format similar to RTD's projected DMU/EMU rail O&M costs, and is as follows: • Rolling Stock Operations — North 1-25 train service is likely to be contracted to a private operator. Available cost data from the 2007 NTD for South Florida RTA (Tri-Rail) reflects an average rate of $316.36 per revenue train-hour for contracted train operations and professional/technical services (rate from 2008 was not deflated to 2009 dollars). This rate is proposed for use in the North 1-25 rail O&M cost estimate. • Propulsion Power — RTD's O&M cost estimates for Northwest Corridor DMU service reflects an average cost of$1.47 per revenue car-mile for propulsion power costs (2009 dollars). This rate is proposed for use in the North 1-25 rail O&M cost estimate. • Rolling Stock Maintenance — RTD's O&M cost estimates for Northwest Corridor DMU rail service reflects an average cost of $1.32 per revenue car-mile for rolling stock maintenance (2009 dollars). This rate is proposed for use in the North 1-25 rail O&M cost estimate. • TES Maintenance — RTD's O&M cost estimates for North Metro EMU service reflects an average cost of $55,573 per route-mile for track electrification system (TES) maintenance (2009 dollars). The North 1-25 rail project will not add any additional track- miles that require TES maintenance. • • Track & Signal Maintenance — RTD's O&M cost estimates for the Northwest rail corridor's track & signal maintenance average $86,593 per route-mile (2009 dollars). The Northwest rail line assumes shared BNSF freight and passenger rail service along portions of the alignment which is similar to what is proposed for North 1-25 rail service. Therefore, this unit cost is proposed for use in the North 1-25 rail O&M cost estimate. • Station & Rev. Equipment Maintenance — RTD's O&M cost estimates for North Metro rail station maintenance reflects an average cost of $69,750 per station (2009 dollars). This rate is proposed for use in the North 1-25 rail O&M cost estimate. • Dispatch — RTD's cost estimate for dispatch averages $625,500 for all commuter rail lines, which works out to about $4,475 per route-mile (2009 dollars). Since North 1-25 rail service will require dispatch functions for both BSNF and passenger rail service, this unit cost was doubled ($8,950 per route-mile). • Insurance— North 1-25 rail service will be different from RTD rail service, in that it's likely to be administered by an oversight agency, with train operations contracted to a private operator. Thus, insurance costs are likely to be different than what was assumed in the RTD cost estimation work. Tri-Rail insurance cost characteristics were used for estimating North 1-25 insurance costs. Unit costs were developed on the basis of route- miles and train-hours, resulting in unit costs of $12,667 per route-mile and $35.56 per revenue train-hour. • 6I �' - • • CRMF Facilities Maintenance— RTD's annual O&M cost estimate for maintenance of the proposed CRMF rail facility is $2,553,582. This works out to an average of $41,900 per peak car. This rate is proposed for use in the North I-25 rail O&M cost estimate. • Contract Management Fees—A 10% contract management fee has been assumed, with that rate applied to all costs except insurance. • General Administration—Finally, there will be some general administrative costs for the North I-25 rail service oversight agency. Tri-Rail's general administrative costs average 28.94% of all other costs. This rate is proposed for use in the North I-25 rail O&M cost estimate. Table 2-3 presents proposed unit costs for the North I-25 rail project. This table presents three sets of unit costs: • RTD unit costs for North Metro EMU rail service, since this project's operating plan reflects replacement of%z of North Metro rail service with North I-25 rail service; • RTD unit costs for Northwest DMU, since these are applied to the proposed extension of Northwest DMU from 1s`/Terry to Sugar Mill; and • North I-25 DMU rail service, as described above. • • ,. ,i Table 2-30 Proposed Unit Costs for North I-25, Northwest DMU and RTD North Metro O&M Cost Estimates N. Metro Northwest Line Item Cost Driving Variable RTD Rate DMU Rate 1-25 Rate Notes Rolling Stock Operations TRNHR $115.80 $106.59 $316.36 1-25 rate based on Tri-Rail cost data. Propulsion Power CARMI $0.91 $1.47 $1.47 1-25 rate based on RTD NW DMU O&M data. Rolling Stock Maintenance CARMI $2.07 $1.32 $1.32 I-25 rate based on NW DMU data TES Maintenance RTMILE $55,573 n/a $0 Track & Signal Maintenance RTMILE $81,209 $86,593 $86,593 1-25 rate based on NW DMU data Station & Rev. Equip. Maint. STATION $69,750 $77,500 $69,750 1-25 rate consistent with N. Metro. Dispatch RTMILE $4,475 $3,877 $8,950 1-25 rate reflects doubling of RTD rate. Insurance TRAINHR $14.60 $19.52 $35.56 1-25 rate based on Tri-Rail cost data. RTEMILE $21,177 $20,581.19 $12,667 CRMF Facilities Maint. PKVEH $41,900 $41,900 $41,900 1-25 rate based on RTD cost estimate. Contract Mgmt. Fees % of Op/Maint. $ n/a n/a 10.0% 10% applied to all costs except insurance. IPGeneral Administration % of Total Costs n/a 2.04% 28.94% 1-25 rate based on Tri-Rail cost data. Ill 8II) ,, Lc I - 25 EIS O & M Cost Methodology & Results Tech Memo • 3 . 0 O&M Cost Results Estimated bus and rail service statistics for the North 1 -25 project were used to estimate O&M costs, using the methodology described in Section 2.0 of this Technical Memorandum . The total incremental O& M costs for the preferred alternative is about $40.9 million in 2009 dollars. This cost is broken out as follows : Table 3-1 Summary of O&M Cost Estimates (Over No-Action Alternative) for North 1-25 Draft Committee Vision Plan (in 2009 Dollars) Annual O&M Cost Estimate Service Type (2009 Dollars, in millions) Feeder Bus Service $ 2.03 Express/Commuter Bus Service $ 7. 19 Subtotal Bus $ 9.22 North 1-25 DMU Rail Service $ 35. 26 RTD Northwest Rail Service Extension $ 0.43 North Metro Rail Service Reduction $ ( 3.97) Subtotal Rail $ 31.72 Annual O&M Cost Estimate (Bus and Rail) $ 40.94 Estimated costs by bus service type are broken out by route in Table 3-2 . Table 3-3 provides relevant service statistics used to produce rail line item costs itemized in Table 3-4. For North I- 25 rail service, it is important to note that RTD's estimated costs for North Metro EMU service is $ 13.3 million, and that this project's rail operating plan is estimated to reduce that cost by nearly $4 million . It is also important to note that the statistics and costs are based on operating characteristics defined for the North 1-25 packages, and are not the same as those previously defined in the FasTracks systems planning effort. • 9I 1 - 25 EN O & M Cost Methodolog ) & Results Tech Memo Table 3-211111 North 1-25 Bus Service Statistics and O&M Cost Estimates by Route (in 2009 Dollars) Bus Route Peak Fleet Annual Revenue Annual Revenue Annual O&M Cost Buses Buses Bus Miles Bus Hours (2009 Dollars) /-25 EXPRESS BUS ROUTES CR 8 & SH 7 to DIA 2 2 209,700 8, 130 $ 824,600 Fort Collins STC to Downtown Denver 3 4 653,100 16.520 $ 1 .675,600 Fort Collins/Harmony Rd. to Downtown Denver 5 6 195,300 7,620 $ 772,900 Greeley to Downtown Denver 9 11 575, 100 13,720 $ 1 ,391,600 Firestone/SR 119 to Downtown Denver 3 4 132,000 4,570 $ 463.500 US 85 COMMUTER BUS Greeley to Downtown Denver 5 6 474,600 20.320 $ 2.061 , 100 Subtotal Express/Commuter Bus 27 33 2,239,800 70,880 $ 7,189,300 LOCAL FEEDER ROUTES Windsor - Greeley 1 1 85,700 4,060 $ 337,500 Milliken - Johnstown - Berthoud 1 1 122,700 4.060 $ 337,500 Ft Lupton-Firestone-Longmont 2 3 86.200 8, 130 $ 675,800 Firestone - Frederick - Erie 2 3 169,900 8, 130 $ 675,800 Subtotal Feeder Bus 6 8 464,500 24,380 $ 2,026,600 TOTAL BUS 33 41 2,704,300 95,260 $ 9,215,900 Notes Express and commuter bus O&M costs based on RTD hourly rate of $101 43 in 2009 dollars Local feeder bus O&M costs based on blended operator rate of $83 12 in 2009 dollars Fleet buses based on 20% spares (rounded on a route-by-route basis) Table 3-3 North 1-25 Rail Service Statistics by Route Rail Service RTD N. Metro Northwest Extt N 1-25 Total • . Peak Rail Cars 9 0 24 33 Peak Trains 3 0 8 11 Annual Revenue Train Hours 17,590 0 30,940 48,530 Annual Revenue Car Hours 44,360 0 83,300 127,660 Annual Revenue Car Miles 908,000 88,300 2,756,580 3,752,880 Route Miles 18.55 1.55 48.71 68.81 Stations 8 0 9 17 Maintenance Facilities 0.25 0.00 1.00 1.25 I Northwest Extension includes incremental statistics only. No incremental stations since counted under North 1-25 statistics . 0 10IPaae 1 - 25 EIS O & M Cost Methodoloe ) • & Results Tech Memo 0 Table 3. 4 North 1-25 Rail O&M Cost Estimates (in 2009 Dollars) N. Metro Northwest N. Metro Northwest N. I-25 Line Item Cost Driving Variable RTD Rate DMU Rate 1-25 Rate RTD Cost Ext. Cost Cost Total Cost Rolling Stock Operations TRNHR $115.80 $106.59 $316.36 $2,036,882 $0 $9,788,094 $11,824,976 Propulsion Power CARMI $0.91 $1.47 $1.47 $824,148 $129,578 $4,045,196 $4,869,343 Rolling Stock Maintenance CARMI $2.07 $1.32 $1.32 $1,883,372 $116,500 $3,636,938 $5,520,310 TES Maintenance RTMILE $55,573 n/a $0 $1,030,883 n/a $0 $1,030,883 Track & Signal Maintenance RTMILE $81,209 $86,593 $86,593 $1,506,430 $134,219 $4,217,956 $5,724,386 Station & Rev. Equip. Maint. STATION $69,750 $77,500 $69,750 $558,000 $0 $627,750 $1,185,750 Dispatch RTMILE $4,475 $3,877 $8,950 $83,011 $6,009 $435,955 $518,966 Insurance TRAINHR $14.60 $19.52 $35.56 $256,875 $0 $1,100,256 $1,357,131 RTEMILE $21,177 $20,581.19 $12,667 $392,834 $31,901 $617,011 $1,009,845 CRMF Facilities Maint. PKVEH $41,900 $41,900 $41,900 $377,097 $0 $1,005,591 $1,382,688 Contract Mgmt. Fees % of Op/Maint. $ n/a n/a 10.0% $0 $0 $1,870,669 $1,870,669 General Administration % of Total Costs n/a 2.04% 2894'> $379,060 $8,525 $7,913,557 $8,292,617 II TOTAL COSTS $9,328,592 $426,732 $35,258,973 $45,014,297 No Action $13,297,115 Difference from No Action -$3,968,523 $426,732 $35,258,973 $31,717,182 • 11 1 EIS O & M Cost \ lethodolog Results Tech Nlemo 4.0 Phase 1 O&M Cost Results • Given the long-term timeframe for expected implementation of the preferred alternative operating plan, different phases of implementation were developed for the North 1 -25 project. Phase 1 involves widening 1-25 in various sections, various interchange replacements and upgrades, commuter rail right of way preservation, and initial 1-25 express bus and US 85 commuter bus services with selective stops. Figure 4- 1 illustrates elements of the Phase 1. bus operating plan . Figure 4-1 Phase 1 — Proposed Transit Network and Operating Plan Phase I Operating Plan 15 Pear Direction 30 Reverse Direction /30 Fort Collins+Harmony Rd 20 Peak Directcn 30 Reverse Denton /- 60/60 • • • Greeley • • Evans • Platteville Fucstone SR 119 15 Peak Direction ,SR.'naea s�Eon+n �W/ Peak Pe ice. . 1 st/Terry Deck direction) • Ft Lupton SH 7 II SNa(1tane SUPd.Metro) • Brighton 13 US 851E4TO To CIA Commerce City 60/60 = Commuter Rail Denver CBD = Commuter Bus .=== 8 others = Express Bus = all-day route pattern weak period only route 00!60 = peak period/midday service frequency 30/- = peak period frequencyrno midday service 12jPage 1 - 25 HS S O & M Cost Niethodolotg > & Results Tech Memo 0 Annual O&M costs were calculated for the Phase 1 bus plan, using the same methodology described for the full project. Operating costs are estimated at about $7.8 million annually. Results by route are presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Phase 1 Bus Service Statistics and O&M Cost Estimates by Route (in 2009 Dollars) Bus Route Peak Fleet Annual Revenue Annual Revenue Annual O&M Cost Buses Buses Bus Miles Bus Hours (2009 Dollars) 1-25 EXPRESS BUS ROUTES CR 8 & SH 7 to DIA 1 1 198,500 4,060 $ 411 ,800 Fort Collins/Harmony Rd. to Downtown Den er 11 13 1 ,209,300 33,790 $ 3,427.300 Greeley to Downtown Denier 11 13 475,600 16,760 $ 1 ,700,000 Firestone/SR 119 to Downtown Denier 4 5 116,800 6, 100 $ 618,700 US 85 COMMUTER BUS Greeley to Downtown Denier 4 5 466.000 16,260 $ 1 .649.300 TOTAL BUS 31 37 2,466,200 76,970 $ 7,807,100 Notes. Express and commuter bus O&M costs based on RID hourly rate of $101 43 in 2009 dollars Fleet buses based on 20% spares (rounded on a route-by-route basis)ill • 13I NORTH I-25 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. TRANSIT OPERATING PLANS, OPERATING STATISTICS AND O&M COSTS FOR NORTH 1-25 DRAFT EIS PACKAGES Prepared by: Connetics Transportation Group January 2007 Table of Contents • I.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Transit Operating Plans 2.1 No-Action 3 2.2 Package A 3 2.3 Package B 6 3.0 O&M Statistics 9 3.1 Travel Times 9 3.2 Distances 10 3.3 Headways 10 3.4 Train Consists 10 3.5 Summary of Operating Statistics 10 4.0 O&M Cost Estimates 14 4.1 O&M Cost Method for Local and Feeder Bus Service 14 4.2 O&M Cost Method for Premium Bus Service 15 4.3 O&M Cost Method for Rail Service 15 4.4 O&M Cost Results 17 List of Figures Figure 2-1 4 Figure 2-2 6 • List of Tables Table 3-1 11 Table 3-2 12 Table 3-3 13 Table 4-1 14 Table 4-2 17 Table 4-3 18 Table 4-4 19 List of Appendices Appendix A A-I Appendix B B-1 Appendix C C-1 Appendix D D-1 Appendix E E-1 Appendix F P-1 North 1-25 EIS Page I Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • 1.0 Introduction This report documents the transit operating plans, transit operating statistics, and transit operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the North 1-25 packages as defined for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analysis. The following summarizes the corridor transit elements of the two packages that were evaluated under the DEIS: • Package A (general purpose lanes,western commuter rail,and commuter bus on US 85 to DUS and DIA): Commuter rail would operate within the BNSF right-of-way from Fort Collins to approximately SH 119, west on SH 119, south on County Road 7, then following the UP Boulder industrial lead rail alignment through the St. Vrain Junction, and connecting to the North Metro FasTracks line continuing to DUS. Commuter bus would operate in mixed traffic along US 85 from Greeley to DUS and Greeley to DIA. • Package B (express lanes and BRT on I-25): BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to DUS/DIA and Greeley to DUS, using express lanes on 1-25. • North 1-25 EIS Page 2 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages 2.0 Transit Operating Plans • Transit operating plans refer to the definition of transit routes and service levels for each of the packages. The starting point for all operating plans is a "No-Action" transit network, described below. Packages then modify the No-Action transit network to introduce new corridor service(s). Feeder bus services are defined in order to provide transit access to the new corridor service(s) Modifications to existing bus routes are defined as applicable, to enhance connections to the new corridor service(s). 2.1 No-Action The No-Action transit network is defined as existing plus committed transportation projects and programs through the forecast year 2030. The No-Action scenario incorporates RTD's FasTracks plan, which includes rail transit service on the US 36 Corridor from Denver Union Station (DUS) to P & Terry in Longmont, and rapid transit service on the North Metro corridor from DUS to SH 7 in Thornton. RTD's FasTracks bus network is also incorporated for the North I-25 No- Action transit network. Bus services provided by the Cities of Fort Collins (Transfort), Loveland (COLT), and Greeley (The Bus) are generally reflected at existing service. The South Transit Center in Fort Collins is assumed to be relocated to a site south of Harmony Road along US 287. 2.2 Package A Package A provides an extension of the North Metro FasTracks rail line to Fort Collins. Package A also includes commuter bus service along US 85 from Greeley to DUS and from Greeley to DIA. • The North Metro FasTracks rail line from DUS to the terminus at SH 7 would be extended up along the Dent Line north to St. Vrain Junction. The alignment would follow the UP Boulder industrial lead rail alignment, County Road 7 north, SH 119 west, and tie into the BNSF corridor to Fort Collins. Stations would be assumed at 1-25 and Weld County Road 8, Longmont at Sugar Mill, North Longmont, Berthoud, Downtown Loveland, North Loveland, South Fort Collins Transit Center, Colorado State University, and Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. The full line from Fort Collins to Denver is assumed to operate at 30 minute peak headways and 60 minute base headways. Three route patterns provide service as follows: • DUS to Fort Collins: 30 minute peak, 60 minute base • DUS to 124th: 30 minute peak period service only • DUS to SH 7: no peak period service, 60 minute base US 85 commuter bus service from Greeley to DUS begins at the US 85 & D Street and travels south along US 85 in mixed traffic, providing stops at Downtown Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, Fort Lupton, SH 7 (Brighton), Commerce City, and DUS. From Commerce City, the route follows 74th Avenue to access the I-25 HOV lane at 70th Avenue. Service frequency is defined at 30 minute peak, 60 minute base on weekdays and 60 minute service on weekends. US 85 commuter bus service from Greeley to DIA begins at US 85 & D Street and travels south along US 85 in mixed traffic, providing stops at Downtown Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, Fort Lupton, SH 7 (Brighton), and DIA. Service frequency is defined at 60 minutes all day, seven days a week. •North 1-25 EIS Page 3 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • Four feeder routes are defined in order to provide transit access from outlying communities to the new rail and commuter bus service: • Greeley —Windsor—Fort Collins: New route begins at US 85 & D Street in Greeley and proceeds west along US 34, north on SH 257, west on Harmony Road, north on Timberline Road, west on SH 14 to the Fort Collins North Transit Center. Assumes 30 minute peak, 60 minute base service frequencies on weekdays and 60 minute service on weekends. • Greeley — Loveland (US 34): New route begins at US 85 & D Street in Greeley and proceeds west along US 34 (business)/US 34 to west Loveland (US 34 at Wilson Avenue). Assumes 15 minute peak, 30 minute base service frequencies on weekdays and 30 minute service on weekends. • Milliken —Johnstown - Berthoud: New route begins in Milliken, proceeds west on SH 60, south on I-25, west on SH 56 to the Berthoud commuter rail station. Assumes 60- minute peak, 60 minute base service on weekdays only. • Firestone—Frederick - Erie: New route begins in Firestone, proceeds south on Colorado Ave through the towns of Frederick and Dacono, west on CR 8 to the town of Erie. A stop would be made at the CR 8 commuter rail station. Assumes 30 minute peak, 60- minute base service frequencies on weekdays only. The transit route plan is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Stations and park and ride assumptions for the commuter bus corridor service are summarized in Appendix A, and a summary transit operating • plan is provided in Appendix B. • North 1-25 EIS Page 4 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages Figure 2-10 DEIS Package A . NORTH 125 EIS , information cooperation transportation GPL + C R + C B 8 5 LEGEND 1 New General Purpose Lane (GPL) in Each Direction , w. C • rr - Ct • - • m - triC • -• fici - nci - s • M • 1 New General Purpose Lane (GPL) . • - ID . - . • in • + Auxiliary Lane In Each Direction Infr . StrUCtUr - II--- Commuter Rail (CR) • 14 Fort Pin r85 la Commuter Bus (CB) Service in US 85 General Purpose Lanes and Que Jumps ••••,.••• an I Feeder Bus Service . ao2, loom 87 Interchange Upgrades •'+\_, Love : nd 0 Number of Lanes 34 Greele • - • + Olean CityI O Commuter Bus Station / Stop Q57) Eve i SO' • w "•!'a L.a.n. ARIMER O Commuter Rail Station e• I 5• Man FasTracks Rail Line IS Sc,. • FasTracks Transit Station `ii• Vrr T Yee n.RwitI Potential Commuter Rail Operational y • err-- & Maintenance Facility Longmont III • .�. ,i 1 Potential Commuter Bus Operational j•( l ,ss & Maintenance Facility • OULDER • ...-.•* Si \—_,..ii. Congestion Management Measures include: - Enhanced carpool lot parking capacity mil-t OYIdlr • — ;e and amenities ` t - - - Courtesy patrol (incident management) F: . r••osv � • •„ .. from SH 14 to SH 7 �I . q^ Right-or-Way - Variable messaging signs at all transit stations corridor Rau sow. a .• .Y rQW. - Automated Vehicle Locaters on all transit , ,, c•,,, • vehicles - "next bus" technology Im • I - m - nt Neil '•m - Links to local bike and pedestrian systems W ' .r•. �� North Metro 'E470 , •;�^�•� at station areas N . a Ctl • n • 'f Corridor airport ` - Support for development of Transportation 21)It - ' rnativ - - / Management Organization (TMO) • r •J ' CtS NOTE: *t - Select sections of 1-25 would require auxiliary n \ ai'. IIIP lanes and / or an additional through lane in S •: v Don r addition to this 6-lane cross section. North - Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7, the median would be used. - - Commuter Rail Service without a Longmont to ';• Twin fleet •„'•t, �� North Metro connection will also be evaluated. agialsr_____IpaL r11 r NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL 1-25 CROSS SECTION - 6 GENERAL PURPOSE LANES 0 North 1-25 EIS Page 5 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans, Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • 2.3 Package B Package B provides Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along the 1-25 corridor. Three BRT route patterns are proposed: • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on 1-25 corridor from Fort Collins to DUS (using express lanes); • BRT on 1-25 corridor from Fort Collins to DIA (using express lanes); • BRT on 1-25 corridor from Greeley to DUS (using express lanes); The 1-25 BRT service is a premium service that uses express lanes on 1-25 and has BRT stops within the I-25 right-of-way. Because BRT stops do not require time-consuming route deviations, stops are relatively frequent along 1-25. The BRT service would begin at the Fort Collins South Transit Center, turn east on Harmony Road, then enter 1-25 to proceed to Denver Union Station (DUS). BRT stops would be provided at South Fort Collins Transit Center, Harmony Road at Timberline, 1-25 at Harmony Road, Windsor, Crossroads, Johnstown. Firestone, Frederick/Dacono, 1-25 and SH7, I-25/Wagon Road pnR, and DUS. Service frequency is defined at 20 minute peak, 60 minute base on weekdays in the peak direction, and 60 minute service on weekends. In the reverse peak direction (from the DUS to Fort Collins), service would be provided at a 60-minute all-day service frequency. The BRT service from Fort Collins to DIA would operate much like the service to DUS, but it would travel east on E-470 and terminate at DIA. BRT stops would be provided at the following • locations: South Fort Collins Transit Center, Harmony Road at Timberline, I-25 at Harmony Road, Windsor, Crossroads, Johnstown, Firestone, Frederick/Dacono, 1-25 and SH7, and DIA. Service frequency is defined at 60-minute all-day, seven days a week. The BRT service from Greeley to DUS would begin at 8'" & 81h in Greeley, proceed west on US 34, then enter I-25 to DUS. BRT stops would be provided at the Greeley Downtown Transfer Center, West Greeley, US 34 and SH 257, Johnstown, Firestone, Frederick/Dacono, 1-25 and SH7, I-25/Wagon Road, and DUS. Service frequency is defined at 20 minute peak, 60 minute base on weekdays in the peak direction, and 60 minute service on weekends. In the reverse peak direction (from the DUS to Fort Collins). service would be provided at a 60-minute all-day service frequency. Three feeder routes are defined in order to provide transit access from outlying communities to the BRT service: • Windsor — Fort Collins: New route begins at US 34 and SH 257, travels north on SH 257, west on Harmony Road to the BRT station at 1-25. Assumes 30 minute peak, 60 minute base service frequencies on weekdays and 60 minute service on weekends. • Johnstown — Firestone: New route begins at the Johnstown BRT station at I-25 at SH 56/60 and proceeds west on SH 56, south on US 287, east on SH 119 to the 1-25/SH 119 BRT station. Assumes 60-minute all-day service frequency on weekdays only. • Fort Lupton —Niwot: New route begins in Fort Lupton at SH 52/US 85, travels west on SH 52 to Niwot, terminating at the US 36 FasTracks commuter rail station. Assumes 30- minute peak, 60 minute base service on weekdays only. North I-25 EIS Page 6 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • Loveland — Crossroads: New route begins in Loveland, travels east on US 34 to the • Crossroads BRT station. Assumes 30-minute peak, 60-minute base service on weekdays only. In terms of modifications to local service, the Jitterbus would be extended to serve the Crossroads BRT station. A 30-minute peak period and 60-minute base period service frequency is proposed for both the Jitterbus and the proposed feeder route along US 34. This effectively provides a blended 15-minute peak and 30-minute base service frequency from the City of Loveland to the I- 25/Crossroads BRT station. The transit route plan is illustrated in Figure 2-2. Stations and park and ride assumptions for the commuter bus corridor service are summarized in Appendix A, and a summary transit operating plan is provided in Appendix B. • North 1-25 EIS Page 7 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • Figure 2-2 DEIS Package B . NORTH 1-25 All ige.c EIS TE I_, + BRT information cooperation transportation LEGEND iNtibiNk.. j t� 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Express i{+ vialC • - C • - • - Lane (TEL) in Each Direction • - flCl - nCI - S .187' • n • r - . I . c - . . in • U . M 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Express • infr . strUCtUr - Lanes (TEL) in Each Direction Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route Fort C r Illns ' �2 es (Uses TELs on I-25) .■ • •� emruoe Bala Feeder Bus Service «.r.. •• 9 297. MAO Interchange Upgrades Number of Lanes: General \aii34t'o" u'c' ' � ' 0 Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes 3 0 Greeley 0 GordaCity Bus Rapid Transit Station Row so LARIMER asMp" ibebwe is tails FasTracks Rail Line °0 I i s9 Pao. O FasTracks Transit Station '"boot Olioniot • Potential Commuter Bus ,36 1 /2 Operational & Maintenance Facility Mn �. eNrr«• 7 l6 ; ongmont III Congestion Management MOULDER �� 65% Measures could include : +07 I "'r'« koli rye - New local transit routes S2 tit - New express transit routes Ia - Enhanced carpool lot parking capacity /2 N and amenities •Mel • - Courtesy patrol (incident management) ;, ♦ OYldet j from SH 14 to SH 7 r Variable messaging signs at all 9, `~!r•`t 7 - op transit stations ts9 l '" - Automated Vehicle Locaters on all transit I , I Preservation vehicles - "next bus" technology '"'°"° •�°°^"•" r•. - Ramp metering and variable messaging • � elm res signs at selected interchanges I Northwest . , Corridor Rai N'rlhaI_� North viii Signal coordination along US 34 West n • Q "4 Metro E4 �er�nenver nol and Harmony Road .. • /2 1Corridor pert 2 - Continuous links to local bike and a_ _ _ pedestrian systems Fii; • i i -7-I - Support for development of a Transportation %16 P j _ j r Management Organization (TMO) JEFFER ON III. • r1, J Den •o ratan ; NOTE: ^ ill - A wider barrier and express lanes cross section S • 9 OMAw Den er' is included between SH 60 and Harmony Road. North - BRT stations located within an expanded median area. IN , - Where widening is needed between SH 66 and ' • 17 217 ' 17 ' B7hbes+ 'it h SH 7, the median would be used. I • . .1: nt I? a tr.,stnes u r I ,,� t ti f'•le + loll)C u....•- • -1 = - t , - - ----_ _ _.. C Adm r"INion eke ' NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL I-25 CROSS SECTION - BUFFERED SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES h ITlbl':ahon III North 1-25 EIS Page 8 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans, Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages 3.0 O&M Statistics • This section describes the process for developing operating statistics for the North 1-25 DEIS packages. Operating statistics include peak/fleet vehicles, annual revenue vehicle miles, and annual revenue vehicle hours. Selected operating statistics are used as input variables for the O&M cost estimating described in the following chapter. Bus operating statistics are developed through use of "operstat worksheets." These worksheets use travel time, distance, and headway for each route defined under the packages in order to estimate peak and total fleet requirements, annual revenue vehicle hours, and annual revenue vehicle miles. For existing bus routes that are modified under the packages, operating statistics are generated for the existing bus route and the modified bus route so that incremental changes to fleet requirements, vehicle hours and vehicle miles can be determined. Rail operating statistics also are developed using "operstat worksheets." The rail operstat worksheets use travel times, distances, headways, and train consist size to generate rail operating statistics such as peak/fleet vehicles, annual revenue train miles, car miles, train hours, and car hours. Since the rail alternatives are operating extensions of FasTracks corridors, a baseline FasTracks system is calculated and compared with the statistics which result from the rail extension in Packages A. The following sections describe how each of the inputs (travel times, distances, headways, and train consist size)are developed. •3.1 Travel Times If a transit route is expected to travel within prevailing highway conditions (such as a local bus, or commuter bus route where there is no dedicated lane), then travel times are generated automatically through the North I-25 EIS combined regional travel demand model. Bus speeds are considered a function of highway speeds, leading to a calculation of in-vehicle travel time. Dwell times are added to the in-vehicle travel times, based on the number of defined stops. The travel demand model reports separate travel times for each route (in-vehicle travel time and number of stops/dwell time) based on the direction of travel (e.g., northbound route versus southbound route) and further distinguished between peak and off-peak periods. For purposes of the operstat worksheet, a single total travel time from a representative package is used, averaging the peak total travel time in both directions. Therefore, for example, if a route takes a total of 30 minutes to travel in the westbound direction and 40 minutes to travel in the eastbound direction during the peak period, then the operstat worksheet will use the average of 35 minutes. If a transit route has a separate operating environment from the highway (such as BRT operating in dedicated lanes, or rail lines operating in a dedicated right-of-way), then travel times are independently generated using a travel time worksheet which accounts for maximum speeds by segment(accounting for curves indicated in engineering drawings), distances between stations (as scaled from engineering drawings), and dwell time at stations. The travel time worksheet uses acceleration and deceleration functions specific to mode in order to come up with a travel time between stations, leading to an end-to-end travel time calculation. These travel times are then "hard-coded" in the North 1-25 EIS combined regional travel demand model, rather than using a default run time as is used for buses in mixed traffic. If part of the route does run in mixed •North 1-25 EIS Page 9 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages traffic, as is the case with the BRT route on 1-25 which penetrates Fort Collins and Greeley using local streets, then only the portion on 1-25 is "hard-coded" with a separately-calculated run time. The portion using local streets uses the travel demand model's automatically calculated travel time based on a function of highway speed and number of stops. Travel time worksheets are included in Appendix C. Rail travel times are calculated for the new segments only; the travel time for the North Metro FasTracks route from DUS to SH 7 and the travel time for the US 36 FasTracks route from DUS to Longmont assume what is reflected in the FasTracks operating plan (October 2003). 3.2 Distances Engineering drawings were provided for the 1-25 BRT and all study area rail corridors. In these cases, distances were determined from the engineering drawings. For the portion of the rail corridors that are FasTrack routes (North Metro and US 36), the distances reflected in the FasTracks operating plan (October 2003) were assumed. For all other routes, the distances used in the operstat worksheets were averaged from the data provided(by route, by direction)from the travel demand model. 3.3 Headways Headways used in the operstat worksheets are based on the transit operating plan definition as described in Chapter 2. • 3.4 Train Consists Of course, train consists only apply to rail alternatives and are not inputs for bus operstat worksheets. The train consists for the rail routes assume what was defined in the FasTracks operating plan (October 2003), since all rail alternatives are extensions of FasTracks corridors. 3.5 Summary of Operating Statistics Table 3-1 summarizes the estimated bus fleet requirements for each of the packages. Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated (incremental) annual revenue bus hours for each package, used as the basis for estimating bus operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Other statistics can be found in Appendix D, which provides a full set of the bus operstat worksheets. Table 3-3 provides the incremental rail fleet requirements for Packages A. Other incremental statistics such as annual train hours, car hours, train miles and car miles are provided in Appendix E, which provides a full set of the rail operstat worksheets. North 1-25 EIS Page I Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages o.r • O O V T � I_. A O " 6 C, F U 0 C O U N V .- 001 . OOON N OOOOcD N CV •ct RC) m r N 1— O a Y a O O O N 7 N 0 0 0 0 0 I. N N LO O O O O f D OD Q I- N M a d - • _ W N a' W J U_ I W > Ca 0 m J Q co m = Q O f- oo r W D - O 2 o i- i-•W it u) OU 0 0 o 5 W ~ ~ N N v h t r 0 y O J > DOO r - R ° CI) iri vi ° cod '° ^ v F -- � � ° 0r000 U, Uti) mw � 1W C y c >CO CD W LL D . y o0 J CO O p N c c Q o O _cc) CO co O , i 6 LL ° CC U U 2 o ° 2 in (D h `o c o b " - y - m co jo OO � ii C7 � 0 ro[ ¢ Q '° ; c0 cat 9 O0, pY o � ULic a, NE ET IllLL O Lb. Lb. 0 C C_ C_ J ZLL c gv. )n m 0 - .5 =C C C O O o O J "' > >. E C 08 O oq C Nr ''- mV000EE UUUa ° 0 ° a) Saw (ay _ cc C .' 0 �C a) a) W = -o o c - 03 .o M H � yRZmmmUU �L li liu -, W (7 C7 � Lt )i � -°� rip o °) oo ° wQ Z' • Fiw `m' � zF • a, t? g U T Q G 6 C r. F co0 O o o 0 o n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y N C) . • c CO CO V N N N. 0) OON NOD c m CO N N CO N N r h N N r N 'Cr a 0 — 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 10 N a,- N O N O O .t p N N NC3 N ,- � � M 4 c`] a r Y 0. 0 0 0 IJ •. O O 2 O 2 2 J y N a) p U 0 p O O U 2 (I)CI =p Q p 0 C) > ¢ z Li_ CE L OE >- 0 >- > > LL > u_ , a r, 0 > • CC D CC A 0 0 o m > -JCC CO it N F- > > 03 N 11_ U.LL 0 0 0 5 LL u u -, J U O 2 LO LL > J J y CC CC C 00 C ti)4 4 Q2 a o « 2 Q L S J = 8 ix cc la U To J dU 0 o •0x C a 0 W 03 'p LL > it a) 3 = Q o zz - 00 2 2 'az C D - OO J o 0 H H N 0 0 Q U ° Q COy U F N Ti.) J -o NO C O ti c s ( a d co ° ' ~ = O — `Smo C7 C s O00O 0 N j cc co N Orom V) Ulm W N r CO CO c a U) (n LL s 2 -p c Qmo ° Ncc J -o -o3 -° tgcor a RU09200 0L° (D . ro `oco � _ yam ;, � Z O .- iiC7mm CC `? 92a� � a � c � oo2 �Y z O � � �3 � ¢ CC > y >�> > rILLZU . :� y a � N N N N N U .C C C J � > J 1 2 U C w V: W O O c c c ° ....J .4 -6 -6 (55 O > > I C ° oC ° o aen0 N D- m U 0 0 0 E E000 -0 O a) m o o n y m y a Ni l Q 7 > > J O O W 0 0 0 s N N _ N J > L is y v Z . o°� zmmmUU 1.-L* u_ Wc7c� aitits � -) c. o 0 N Z ZN W Cc 2 a IL It zo= o Table 3-3 • NORTH I-25 EIS RAIL FLEET REQUIREMENTS Peak Total Peak Total Peak Peak Pass.Cars Pass.Cars Loco's Loco's Headway Consist NO ACTION US 36 DUS to Longmont(1 st/Terry) 10 12 5 6 30 2 US 36 DUS to Boulder(Pearl/30th) 8 10 4 5 30 2 Total US 36 18 22 9 11 North Metro DUS to SH-7/160th 9 11 3 4 30 3 North Metro DUS to 124th 6 7 2 2 30 3 Total North Metro 15 18 5 6 TOTAL US 36 AND NORTH METRO 33 40 14 17 PACKAGE A US 36 DUS to Sugar Mill 10 12 5 6 30 2 US 36 DUS to Longmont(1st/Terry) 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a US 36 DUS to Boulder(PearV30th) 8 10 4 5 30 2 Total US 36 18 22 9 11 Incremental US 36 to No Action 0 0 0 0 North Metro DUS to Fort Collins(Harmony Rd/I-25) 24 29 8 10 30 3 North Metro DUS to SH-7/160th 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a North Metro DUS to 124th 6 7 2 2 30 3 Total North Metro 30 36 10 12 Incremental North Metro to No Action 15 18 5 6 TOTAL US 36 AND NORTH METRO 48 58 19 23 INCREMENTAL TO NO ACTION 15 18 5 6 Notes: Blue values(Total Vehicles of rail line to Fort Collins) Use as minimum capacity for sizing yard in Fort Collins. Green values(Total Vehicles,Incremental to No Action for applicable rail line): Use to assess expansion impacts to existing Fastracks yard. Red values(Total Vehicles.Incremental to No Action): Use to calculate capital cost of additional vehicles related to project. Vehicle Type: Fastracks operating plan assumes I power/Mailer car for the US 35 line.2 power/Itrailer car for North Metro line: • III North I-25 EIS Page 13 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2(X)7 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • 4.0 O&M Cost Estimates Annual O&M cost estimates were developed with three costing methods. For modifications to local bus service and for feeder bus services using conventional buses, an hourly service cost was applied based on a "blended" hourly rate of North Front Range operators. For premium bus service assumed for regional commuter or BRT services, a higher hourly service cost was applied, based on RTD's hourly rate for bus services. For rail service, O&M costs are based on a commuter rail cost model, developed primarily with Virginia Railway Express (VRE)-reported cost data for 2003. All costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. The following descriptions discuss the methodology used to develop each cost method, followed by O&M cost results for each project package. It should be noted that the process of determining how the North 1-25 project will be administered is on-going. Several possible institutional arrangements are under consideration, including administration by one of the local transit service providers (with North 1-25 service directly operated or contracted), expansion of the Regional Transportation District(RTD)to include all or parts of Weld and Larimer counties, or creation of a new transportation agency whose main purpose would be to operate this service. A decision regarding how the North 1-25 service will be administered will be made as the packages of alternatives are refined. 4.1 O&M Cost Method for Local and Feeder Bus Service All packages assume some degree of modifying existing local bus service as well as establishing new feeder bus services. To estimate the cost of local and feeder bus service, a representative cost per revenue vehicle hour was developed, using a weighted average of the three local operators serving this region (Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley). First, the cost per revenue vehicle hour was calculated for each of the three local operators in the study area, based on what was reported in the 2003 National Transit Database. Next, the calculated cost per revenue vehicle hour was escalated to 2005 dollars, based on applying a factor derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Western Urban Region (comparing the September 2005 index to the September 2003 index). Finally, each operator's hourly costs were weighted according to their proportional share of revenue hours. Table 4-1 summarizes the data used to calculate the resulting weighted cost per revenue vehicle hour of $68.85 (2005 dollars). Table 4-1 Summary of Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour 2003 NTD Data Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour Operator Cost Revenue %Hours 3 2005 Hours dollars dollars' Weighted' Western Urban Region 106.4% $68.85 Greeley,Colorado-The Bus $1,402,513' 26,736 26.3% $52.46 $55.81 $14.67 Fort Collins,Colorado-Transfort $4,859,544 60,648: 59.6% $80.13. $85.24 $50.82 Loveland,Colorado-COLT $320,938. 14,335 14.1% $22.39 $23.82 $3.36 NOTES: 1.Escalation to 2005 dollars based on factor of September 2005 to September 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Western Urban Region. 2 2005 Weighted Average based on percentage of hours. North I-25 EIS Page 14 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages This cost per revenue vehicle hour was applied to the estimated service hours associated with the new feeder routes and incremental service hours to modifying existing routes. The estimation of service hours are discussed in the previous chapter; operating statistic worksheets are presented in Appendix A. For modified local routes, incremental operating statistics were calculated based on comparing the modified routes with the No-Action (existing) routes. 4.2 O&M Cost Method for Premium Bus Service For commuter or BRT routes that are proposed to provide corridor service, it is assumed that a more premium bus service is desired. To account for some type of upgrade in local service delivery, a higher cost per revenue vehicle hour was used. For purposes of this exercise, the RTD hourly service cost of $84.84 in 2003 dollars (based on RTD's 2003 NTD data) was inflated to 2005 dollars using the same escalation method described in Section 4.1, leading to an hourly service cost of$90.64. This cost per revenue vehicle hour was applied to the estimated service hours associated with the new corridor routes. The estimation of service hours are discussed in the previous chapter; operating statistic worksheets are presented in Appendix A. 4.3 O&M Cost Method for Rail Service Specific operating arrangements for North 1-25 commuter rail service are undetermined at this time. It is anticipated that coordination and cost-sharing arrangements will be needed with RTD, • for the proposed commuter rail service plan reflects integration of North 1-25 commuter rail service with RTD's proposed North Metro service. For purposes of this DEIS, an oversight agency has been assumed that is responsible for traditional commuter rail service from Ft. Collins to Denver Union Station (DUS), with train operations, equipment maintenance and track maintenance contracted out. Because of the integrated service plan with RTD's North Metro service, it was necessary to use these same operating assumptions for the No-Action rail plan as well, in order to get an incremental O&M cost estimate (even though RTD commuter rail operating arrangements are likely to differ). Specific operating assumptions that have been used in the development of North 1-25 commuter rail O&M costs are based on cost experiences from several existing commuter rail operators and as follows: Oversight Transit Agency Expenses Oversight agency expenses are anticipated to be as follows: • Risk Management and General Liability—Operation of commuter rail service will trigger the need for additional insurance coverage. Existing insurance cost information for San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line was used to estimate an insurance cost for this project. It has been assumed that 50% of insurance costs are fixed, and 50% is driven by a combination of train-hours (to reflect the level of service provided) and route-miles (to reflect the physical length of service). • Vehicle Maintenance— It is assumed that the oversight transit agency is responsible for the purchase of diesel fuel. This expense item's cost has been estimated by using a fuel consumption rate of 1.5 gallons per train-mile (fuel consumption rate for a F59-PH locomotive with up to 5 passenger cars), annual revenue train-miles with a 10% •North I-25 EIS Page 15 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages contingency, and a cost of$2.563 per gallon (October 2006 average diesel fuel cost for the Rocky Mountain region). • Facility Maintenance — An additional mechanic for every 10 stations is assumed for station/maintenance repair. Costs are included for contracted station cleaning services, materials and utilities. Those costs are based on VRE budget information. • Finance/Revenue Collection/Money Counting — Staffing has been assumed for financial tasks. Money counting security and costs for materials are based on LRT cost experiences. Ticket vending machine (TVM) maintenance costs are based on New Mexico's Road Runner budget information. • Purchasing—One full time employee equivalent(FTE) has been assumed for purchasing. • Marketing — Staffing is assumed for marketing, and related services, based on cost experiences for New Mexico's Road Runner. • Safety/Police/Security — An additional FTE is assumed for a Safety Specialist. Police staffing is also assumed, based on annual revenue train-miles. Security service has been assumed for 24 hour/7 days per week security at commuter rail yards. Railroad Service Provider Costs Costs for train operations, equipment maintenance, and track maintenance are based cost experiences for the Virginia Railway Express (VRE). Railroad-related costs and operating characteristics used to estimate those costs are as follows: • Train Operations—Annual Revenue Train-Hours • Maintenance of Equipment—Peak Locomotives and Peak Passenger Cars • Maintenance Materials & Handling—Peak Locomotives and Peak Passenger Cars • Other Costs —Percentage of Above-Noted Cost Items • Track Maintenance—Route-Miles and Annual Revenue Car-Miles North I-25 Commuter Rail Cost Estimates Overall, the estimated annual O&M cost for North 1-25 commuter rail service in DEIS Package A is estimated to be $28.22 million (in 2005 dollars) more than the No-Action Alternative. Once again, it is important to keep in mind that this cost model was used to estimate a "base" cost for the No-Action commuter rail service plan, and that operating arrangements for the No-Action rail plan will differ from assumptions that are reflected in this cost model. However, use of this model for both the No-Action and Package A Alternatives was necessary to obtain an incremental cost difference. Incremental costs for Package A commuter rail service to Fort Collins are as presented in Table 4-2. Cost estimate worksheets for the No-Action Alternative and Package A are provided in Appendix F. • North 1-25 EIS Page 16 Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages Table 4-2 Incremental O&M Cost for Package A Commuter Rail Cost Item Incremental Cost Casualty &Liability $1,360,200 Vehicle Maintenance (Diesel Fuel) $3,428,500 Facility Maintenance $735,400 Finance/Rev. Collection/Money Counting $365,200 Purchasing Marketing/Customer Service $60,000 Safety/Police/Security $368,800 RR Operations/Equip. Maint./Track Maint. Train Operations $9,385,400 Equip. Maint./Materials Handling $1,252,500 Other $6,840,900 Track Maintenance $4,426,100 Total Incremental Cost $28,223,000 4.4 O&M Cost Results Resulting O&M cost estimates are presented in Table 4-3. A breakdown of O&M costs by bus route is presented in Table 4-4. All cost estimates are in 2005 dollars. It is important to note that the statistics and costs presented below are based on operating characteristics defined for the North 1-25 packages, and are not the same as those previously defined in the FasTracks systems • planning effort. North 1-25 EIS Page 17 Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages [§ / \ C o it a § Cr O CO 2 � Nk ° »J t 1/4 « O 4 O O1 o § n en ( e , ° } A � Z 0. - cir- ` �2 § � °ca 0 0 0 G@ fra {} CO k k k S � ca! k ) 1 - CO � � \ 13 co 2 EO. — § G05 30 ! , E j ( 25 » § � k � t � � Ca \ \ \ } k \ \\\ 9 > , „ 00 ! 00 « ) i ( » * % / » * @@ ± _ E 77 7 ; > 7 / ± / } / ± / / / ) / ) / / ; ] : k oC .- - t \\ 2 a k0 - - !o ) 7 0 - }\ ° � a � \ ff kk ) ix § ) ) ) S ze an •'O g V T F G 0 O a C a U C C O U V) -1 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 a 4 O o 0 0 LO I,- f- N 1— N CO Q) CO EA fA 0 EH fH ER OD CO EA ct 6/4 V3 CO NN N 0 O) OD hcO W M LOU) NhCJNI- (D U) m NMI n W co Mup NM1- CO YDt NCO co EAM Ncc N V' oi of � 1DI— u 4 x r b 7 a Q — 0 0 0 - I- O) 0 0 0 0 0 NON- 00000 C1 •- ER ENT ES-I. O 1D 555 S5 CO NN N H3 V)V}fA CO 1D 7 it cOC - N N) 0 01N C) c OD 0 N Q CON r.CD V NN 00) 7O>) O C Y N e a 64 64 la a : a e , 69 69 e »e» e St 69 u o D°�c a • � Y Y Oil U F d R F i t. p" N la0 y rl 0 U r 0 0 0 - 7 o u. m J co Q D Q 7 O O Z ' ' O F-OO F- F- J o N N F = W H F- m G) -o 0 `° 05 » C.50 c 0 m I- v R � (g0 to-� y UM Nw m CO m o CO CO W to m `� N w 7 � .� >(n In F` � ≥ 2 m — — a) OO J c0m0mw .19v 0 RO spa O �niOi� � L- CO 1; = yam a0 r, i y y an d a) a o 3 0 0 2 O U co m QlncoN o N To NJ F- > J Cr U vco — ON NN - - O ccc __ _ — W , N c • F. a": = o -o 3 WO CCV000EE O DS 0o0e OOG °) °' o) Snmm ,�°� co ',.73 t r N N N 1 v) J "O > L w f aDo cn oo � 000 -- oiL- ) = a) � coo �r F• Z HC • APPENDIX A STATION DETAIL BY CORRIDOR ROUTE • North I-25 EIS Appendix A Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages NORTH I-25 EIS • DEIS ALTERNATIVES-STATION DETAIL Stations I Park and ride Commuter Bus on US-85: Greeley-DUS/DIA (Package A) D Street Y 21st Avenue N 8th Avenue N Greeley South Site G Y Evans Y Platteville Y Ft. Lupton Y North Metro extended to Fort Collins via SH-119 (Package A) Fort Collins Downtown Y CSU N Fort Collins Transit Center V Loveland-29th Street Y Loveland - 4th Street N Berthoud - SH-56 Y Longmont- SH-66 Y Sugar Mill Y County Road 8 Y • Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)on 1-25: Ft Collins and Greeley-DUS (Package B) Fort Collins Transit Center V Timberline Harmony Road Y SH-392 Y Crossroads Y SH-56 Y SH-119 Y SH-52 Y SH-7 Y North I-25 EIS Appendix A Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages APPENDIX B TRANSIT OPERATIONS PLAN SUMMARY • North 1-25 EIS Appendix B Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages NORTH I-25 DEIS • DEIS ALTERNATIVES-SUMMARY OF TRANSIT OPERATING PLAN No-Action I Package A I Package B TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Bus on I-25: NA NA 20,60 in peak direction Ft Collins South-DUS and 60,60 in reverse peak direction;BRT in managed lanes Bus on 1-25: NA NA 60,60;BRT in managed Ft Collins South-DIA lanes Bus on 1-25: NA NA 20,60 in peak direction Greeley TC-DUS and 60,60 in reverse peak direction;BRT in managed lanes Commuter bus on US 85, NA 30,60 NA Greeley TC-DUS Commuter bus on US 85, NA 60,60 NA Greeley TC-DIA North Metro,124th-DUS 30,0 30,0 same as No Build North Metro,SH 7-DUS 30,30 0,60 same as No Build North Metro extended to Longmont NA 30,60;from SH 7,route NA (vial-25 and SH 119)or Ft Collins extends to Longmont via (via BNSF) CR 8 and SH 119 US 36 Commuter rail, 1st/Terry to 30,30 0,60 same as No Build DUS US 36 Commuter rail,Pearl/30th to 30,0 30,0 same as No Build DUS US 36 Commuter rail,Sugar Mill to NA 30,60 same as No Build DUS SUPPORTING BUS NETWORK • Foxtrot(Fort Collins to Loveland) 60,60(relocated Fort same as No Build same as No Build Collins South Transit Ctr to Loveland) Fort Collins Rte 1 20,20;relocate South same as No Build same as No Build Transit Ctr to south of Harmony Fort Collins Rte 5 60,60;relocate South same as No Build same as No Build Transit Ctr to south of Harmony Fort Collins Rte 6 60,60;relocate South same as No Build same as No Build Transit Ctr to south of Harmony • North 1-25 EIS Appendix R Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • Fort Collins Rte 7 30,30;relocate South same as No Build same as No Build Transit Ctr to south of Harmony Jitterbus 60,60 same as No Build 30,60;extend to serve Crossroads BRT station Loveland-Crossroads BRT feeder NA NA 30,60;begin in Loveland,east on US 34 to Crossroads BRT station Greeley-Windsor-Ft Collins NA 30,60;from Greeley TC-NA Hwy 34-Hwy 257-Hwy 392/32-Hwy 287-Ft Collins South Greeley-Loveland(US-34) NA 15,30;from Greeley TC. NA west on US 34 to Loveland CRT station Milliken-Johnstown-Berthoud NA 60,60;begin rte in NA Milliken west on CR 60 through Johnstown, south on 1-25 frontage road,west on SH 56 to the Berthoud CRT station Firestone-Frederick-Erie NA 30,60;begin rte in NA Dacono(CR 13/Rte 52), north on CR 13,west on S• 119 Lorail smont tn commuter rail stn Windsor-Ft Collins NA NA 60,60;begin rte at US 34/Hwy 257,north on Hwy 257,west on Harmony Rd to the BRT station Johnstown-Firestone NA NA 60,60;begin rte at Johnstown BRT station, west on SH 56,south on US 287,east on SH 119 to the BRT station Ft Lupton-Niwot NA NA 30,60;begin ne at SH 52/US 85,west on SH 52,terminating at the Niwot CRT station • North I-25 EIS Appendix B Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • APPENDIX C TRAVEL TIME WORKSHEETS • North I-25 EIS Appendix C Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • DENVER 1-25 NORTH EIS DMU SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME ESTIMATES Fort Collins to DUS via BNSF-North Metro DEIS Package A Max Spd. Distance(miles) Run Time Delay Time Dwell Time Total Time Station (mph) Incr. Total (hr:min:sec) (hr:min:sec) (hr:min:sec) (hr:min:sec) Fort Collins S: . 0.00 :0:00:00 0:00:00 65 1.23 0:02:15 0:00:00 CSII 1.23 0:01:00 0:03:15 75 3.75 0:04:28 0:00:00 Harmony 4.90 0:01:00 0:08:43 50 0.44 0:01:01 0:00:00 Start of Curve 1 5.42 0:00:00 0:09:44 50 0.17 0:00:13 0:00:00 End of Curve 1 5.59 0:00:00 0:09:57 75 1.07 0:01:21 0:00:00 Start of Curve 2 6.66 0:00:00 0:11:18 75 0.20 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 2 6.87 0:00:00 0:11:28 75 0.85 0:00:41 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 3 7.72 0:00:00 0:12:09 75 0.19 0:00:09 0:00:00 End of Curve 3 7.91 0:00:00 0:12:18 75 1.15 0:00:56 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 4 9.06 0:00:00 0:13:14 65 0.25 0:00:14 0:00:00 End of Curve 4 9.31 0:00:00 0:13:28 65 0.43 0:00:24 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 5 9.74 0:00:00 0:13:52 50 0.19 0:00:14 0:00:00 End of Curve 5 9.92 0:00:00 0:14:06 • 70 2.01 0:02:22 0:00:00 Loveland.29th St 11.93'. 0:01:00 0:17:28 70 1.80 0:02:49 0:00:00 Loveland-US34' 13.73 - 001:10 0:21:17 35 0.19 0:00:35 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 1 13.92 0:00:00 0:21:52 45 0.18 0:00:20 0:00:00 End of Curve 1 14.10 0:00:00 0:22:12 45 0.40 0:00:32 0:00:00 Start of Curve 2 14.51 0:00:00 0:22:44 45 0.20 0:00:16 0:00:00 End of Curve 2 14.70 0:00:00 0:23:00 45 0.39 0:00:33 0:00:00 Start of Curve 3 15.09 0:00:00 0:23:33 30 0.28 0:00:34 0:00:00 End of Curve 3 15.38 0:00:00 0:24:07 30 0.02 0:00:03 0:00:00 Start of Curve 4 15.40 0:00:00 0:24:10 30 0.35 0:00:42 0:00:00 End of Curve 4 15.75 0:00:00 0:24:52 30 0.04 0:00:05 0:00:00 Start of Curve 5 15.79 0:00:00 0:24:57 30 0.24 0:00:29 0:00:00 End of Curve 5 16.03 0:00:00 0:25:26 75 4.04 0:04:22 0:00:00 III North I-25 EIS Appendix C Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages IBerthoua-:SH 56 • 10.07 0S1:00!..; 0:30sA8 I • 50 0.78 0:01:26 0:00:00 Start of Curve 1 20.86 0:00:00 0:32:14 50 0.51 0:00:36 0:00:00 End of Curve 1 21.36 0:00:00 0:32:50 55 033 0:00:25 0:00:00 Start of Curve 2 21.69 0:00:00 0:33:15 55 0.14 0:00:09 0:00:00 End of Curve 2 21.83 0:00:00 0:33:24 55 0.02 0:00:02 0:00:00 Start of Curve 3 21.85 0:00:00 0:33:26 60 0.18 0:00:15 0:00:00 End of Curve 3 22.04 0:00:00 0:33:41 65 0.70 0:00:43 0:00:00 Start of Curve 4 22.74 0:00:00 0:34:24 60 0.13 0:00:08 0:00:00 End of Curve 4 22.87 0:00:00 0:34:32 60 0.04 0:00:02 0:00:00 Start of Curve 5 22.91 0:00:00 0:34:34 60 0.14 0:00:09 0:00:00 End of Curve 5 23.05 0:00:00 0:34:43 60 0.11 0:00:07 0:00:00 Start of Curve 6 23.17 0:00:00 0:34:50 60 0.25 0:00:15 0:00:00 End of Curve 6 23.42 0:00:00 0:35:05 60 1.36 0:01:23 0:00:00 Start of Curve 7 24.78 0:00:00 0:36:28 45 0.19 0:00:15 0:00:00 End of Curve 7 24.97 0:00:00 0:36:43 50 0.44 0:00:35 0:00:00 Start of Curve 8 25.41 0:00:00 0:37:18 40 0.26 0:00:23 0:00:00 End of Curve 8 25.67 0:00:00 0:37:41 75 1.80 0:0225 0:00:00 ILn of C •SH 66 27A6 • 0:01:00 •741:06 I • 40 1.91 0:03:12 0:00:00 Start of Curve 1 29.37 0:00:00 0:44:18 35 0.26 0:00:27 0:00:00 End of Curve 1 29.63 0:00:00 0:44:45 35 0.01 0:00:01 0:00:00 Start of Curve 2 29.64 0:00:00 0:44:46 35 0.19 0:00:20 0:00:00 End of Curve 2 29.84 0:00:00 0:45:06 35 0.53 0:00:54 0:00:00 Start of Curve 3 30.36 0:00:00 0:46:00 35 0.18 0:00:19 0:00:00 End of Curve 3 30.54 0:00:00 0:46:19 35 0.01 0:00:01 0:00:00 Start of Curve 4 30.56 0:00:00 0:46:20 35 0.06 0:00:06 0:00:00 End of Curve 4 30.61 0:00:00 0:46:26 35 0.07 0:00:07 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 5 30.68 0:00:00 0:46:33 35 0.11 0:00:12 0:00:00 End of Curve 5 30.80 0:00:00 0:46:45 35 0.22 0:0022 0:00:00 Start of Curve 6 31.01 0:00:00 0:47:07 35 0.06 0:00:06 0:00:00 End of Curve 6 31.07 0:00:00 0:47:13 35 0.03 0:00:04 0:00:00 North 1-25 EIS Appendix C Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • Stan of Curve 7 31.11 0:00:00 0:47:17 35 0.05 0:00:06 0:00:00 End of Curve 7 31.16 0:00:00 0:47:23 35 0.04 0:00:04 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 8 31.20 0:00:00 0:47:27 35 0.10 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 8 31.30 0:00:00 0:47:37 25 0.05 0:00:13 0:00:00 Sugar Mill 31.34 091:00 0:48:60 TOTAL 31.34 0:41:50 0:00:00 0:07:00 0:48:50 Avg Stn Spacing = 4.48 miles Avg Speed= 38.51 Notes. Distances and curve restrictions from plan drawings provided by Carter Burgess.July 2006. Some design curves[row drawings not noted since operating speeds dictated by acceleration/deceleration rather than design speed. North Metro Line extension to Longmont via SH 119 DEIS Package A Max Spd. Distance(miles) Run Time Delay Time Dwell Time Total Time Station (mph) Incr. Total (hr:min:sec) (hr:min:sec) (hr:min:sec) (hr:min:sec) Longmont(1st&Terry. 0.00:. :0:00:00' -0:00:00.. 45 0.46 0:01:01 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 1 0.46 0:00:00 0:01:01 35 0.32 0:00:33 0:00:00 End of Curve 3 0.78 0:00:00 0:01:34 35 0.18 0:00:18 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 4 0.95 0:00:00 0:01:52 35 0.10 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 4 1.05 0:00:00 0:02:02 • 35 0.13 0:00:13 0:00:00 Start of Curves 1.18 0:00:00 0:02:15 35 0.10 0:00:14 0:00:00 End of Curve 5 1.27 0:00:00 0:02:29 10 0.01 0:00:06 0:00:00 Sugar Mfg 1.28 0:01:00- 0:03:38 55 0.80 0:01:30 0:00:00 Start of Curve 1 2.09 0:00:00 0:05:05 35 0.10 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 1 2.19 0:00:00 0:05:15 35 0.03 0:00:03 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 2 2.22 0:00:00 0:05:18 35 0.10 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 2 2.32 0:00:00 0:05:28 75 1.31 0:01:48 0:00:00 Start of Curve 3 3.63 0:00:00 0:07:16 75 0.21 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 3 3.84 0:00:00 0:07:26 75 0.02 0:00:01 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 4 3.86 0:00:00 0:07:27 75 0.21 0:00:10 0:00:00 End of Curve 4 4.07 0:00:00 0:07:37 75 1.26 0:01:03 0:00:00 Start of Curve 5 5.33 0:00:00 0:08:40 45 0.51 0:00:41 0:00:00 End of Curve 5 5.84 0:00:00 0:09:21 75 6.35 0:05:43 0:00:00 Stan of Curve 6 12.20 0:00:00 0:15:04 45 0.32 0:00:26 0:00:00 End of Curve 6 12.52 0:00:00 0:15:30 65 0.91 0:01:26 0:00:00 • North I-25 EIS Appendix C Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages (County Rd 8/1-25 13.43 - 0:01:00 O:17:58 I • 50 0.42 0:01:00 0:00:00 Start of Curve 9 13.85 0:00:00 0:18:56 60 0.40 0:00:33 0:00:00 End of Curve 9 14.25 0:00:00 0:19:29 60 0.06 0:00:04 0:00:00 Start of Curve 10 14.31 0:00:00 0:19:33 60 0.25 0:00:15 0:00:00 End of Curve 10 14.57 0:00:00 0:19:48 70 0.60 0:00:41 0:00:00 Start of Curve 11 15.17 0:00:00 0:20:29 70 0.24 0:00:12 0:00:00 End of Curve 11 15.41 0:00:00 0:20:41 70 0.14 0:00:07 0:00:00 Start of Curve 12 15.55 0:00:00 0:20:48 75 0.46 0:00:28 0:00:00 End of Curve 12 16.01 0:00:00 0:21:16 75 1.32 0:01:03 0:00:00 Start of Curve 13 17.33 0:00:00 0:22:19 75 0.28 0:00:14 0:00:00 End of Curve 13 17.62 0:00:00 0:22:33 75 1.06 0:00:57 0:00:00 Start of Curve 14 18.68 0:00:00 0:23:30 75 0.46 0:00:26 0:00:00 End of Curve 14 19.14 0:00:00 0:23:56 40 0.13 0:00:22 0:00:00 ISH7/Dent .19.27 0:01:00 O:25:18 TOTAL 19.27 0:22:18 0:00:00 0:03:00 0:25:18 Avg Stn Spacing= 6.42 miles Avg Speed= 45.70 Notes: Distances and curve restrictions from plan drawings provided by caner Burgess,July 2006. Total travel time from SH 7 to DUS provided by Ceder Burgess based on modeled times. • III North 1-25 EIS Appendix C Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages APPENDIX D BUS OPERSTAT WORKSHEETS • • North 1-25 EIS Appendix D Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages North 1-25 EIS • BUS OPERATING PLANS LOCAL CORRIDOR ROUTES - DEIS NO-ACTION Run Time Distance Headway Peak Daily Rev. Annual Rev. Route (minutes) (miles) Day Peak Base Veh. Veh Mlles Veh Hrs Veh Miles Veh Hrs Foxtrot 30.4 10.2 M-F 60.0 60.0 2.00 264.2 26.0 67,100 6,600 exist Sat n/a 60.0 264.7 26.1 13,500 1,330 ave mph 2008 Sun n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 7,930 Transfort 5 23.3 5.4 M-F 60.0 60.0 1.00 141.3 13.0 35,900 3,300 modified South Transit Center Sat n/a 60.0 141.2 12.9 7,200 660 ave mph 13.96 Sun n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 3,960 Transfort 6 26.2 6.9 M-F 60.0 60.0 1.00 179.5 13.0 45,600 3,300 modified South Transit Center Sat n/a 60.0 180.4 12.9 9.200 660 ave mph 15.82 Sun n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 3.960 Transfort 7 19.3 5.3 M-F 30.0 30.0 2.00 272.8 26.0 69,300 6,600 modified South Transit Center Sat n/a 60.0 137.3 12.9 7,000 660 ave mph 16.30 Sun n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 7,260 Jitterbus 57.1 15.8 M-F 60.0 60.0 1.00 205.5 6.5 52,200 1,650 exist(one-way loop) Sat n/a 60.0 205.9 6.5 10,500 330 ave mph 16.62 Sun n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 62,700 1,980 • LOCAL BUS TOTALS 7 peak vehicles M-F 270.100 21,450 8 fleet vehicles Sat. 47,400 3,640 Sim. 4 4 Annual 317,500 25,090 Notes for North I-25 corridor bus statistics: (1) Distance based on coded distances provided by Carter Burgess from transportation model(PKG RouteStatistics). (2) Run time based on calculated travel times from transportation model. (3)Service span based on existing service span(as of October 2005). (3) Calculated total fleet=peak vehicle requirement'1.2(20%spare ratio). NO ACTION OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: approx 6am-7pm based on existing span of service WKDYPEAKHR 5.0 6am-9am:3pm-5pm WKDYBASEHR 8.0 9am-3pm;5pm-7pm WKDYEVEHR 0.0 WKDYELHR 0.0 13 SATPEAKHR 0.0 SATBASEHR 13.0 6am-7pm SATELHR 0.0 13 SUNPEAKHR 0.0 SUNBASEHR 0.0 SUNELHR 0.0 0 ANNUAL WEEKDAYS 254 ANNUAL SATURDAYS 51 ANNUAL SUNDAYS,HOL 60 365 ANNUALPEAK 1270 ANNUALBASE 2695 ANNUALEL 0 North 1-25 EIS Appendix D Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEN Packages • North I-25 EIS BUS OPERATING PLANS LOCAUFEEDER CORRIDOR ROUTES- DEIS PACKAGE A Run Time Distance Headway Peak Daily Rev. Annual Rev. Route (minutes) (miles) Day Peak Base Eve E/L Veh. Veh Miles Veh Hrs Veh Miles Veh Hrs Transiorl 5 30.2 6.7 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.25 213.8 20.0 54,300 5,080 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 174.5 16.3 8,900 830 ave mph 13.27 Sun n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 5,910 Transiort 6 30.5 7.4 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.25 237.4 20.0 60,300 5.060 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 192.2 16.3 9,800 830 ave mph 14.58 Sun n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 5,910 Transfort 7 26.0 6.5 M-F 30.0 30.0 n/a n/a 2.00 416.1 32.0 105,700 8,130 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 168.6 12.9 8,600 660 ave mph 15.02 Sun n,'a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 8,790 Fox Trot 30.5 10.4 Mt 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.50 331.1 24.0 84,100 6,090 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 268.6 19.4 13.700 990 ave mph 20.34 Sun n/a n,'a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 7,080 Jitterbus(one-way loop) 51.9 15.1 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.00 240.9 8.0 61,200 2.030 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 196.1 6.5 10.000 330 ave mph 1741 Sun n,'a n/a nib. n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 2,360 • Tango 44.5 15.5 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.00 24].2 8.0 62.800 2.030 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 200.0 6.5 10,200 330 ave mph 20.83 Sun n/a n/a n/a n,ia 0.0 0.0 0 0 2.360 Milliken-Berthoud Feeder 32.6 15.1 Mt 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 2.00 483.1 32.0 122,700 8.130 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 392.2 26.1 20.000 1,330 ave mph 27.78 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 393.3 26.0 23,600 1,560 166.300 11,020 52.9 15.5 M-F 30.0 60.0 n/a n/a 4.00 679.9 44.0 172,700 11.180 Firestone-Erie Feeder Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n,/a 402.0 26.1 20,500 1,330 ave mph 1754 Sun n'a 60.0 n/a n,/a 401.7 26.0 24,100 1,560 217,300 14,070 Grly-FC Feeder 85.0 31.7 M-F 30.0 60.0 n/a n/a 6.00 1,393.3 66.0 353,900 16,760 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n,ia 823.5 39.0 42,000 1,990 ave mph 22.35 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a Ala 823.3 39.0 49,400 2,340 445.300 21.090 Grly-Loveland Feeder 63.8 23.9 M-F 15.0 30.0 n/a n/a 10.00 2,106.3 110.0 535,000 27,940 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 621.6 39.0 31,700 1,990 ave mph 2251 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 621.7 39.0 37,300 2.340 604,000 32,270 LOCAL AND FEEDER BUS TOTALS 30 peak vehicles Mt 1,258,800 75,690 36 fleet vehicles Sat. 133.400 8.620 $fin. 85 000 5.460 Annual 1.477,200 89,770 1432,900 78.450 IIII North I-25 EIS Appendix D Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages COMMUTER BUS CORRIDOR ROUTES- DEIS PACKAGE A • Run Time Distance Headway Peak Daily Rev. Annual Rev. Route (minutes) (miles) Day Peak Base Eve E/L Veh. Veh Miles Veh Hrs Veh Mlles Veh Mrs US 85 commuter bus 97.8 57.6 M-F 30.0 60.0 60.0 n/a 7.00 2,881.1 94.0 731,800 23,880 Grly to DUS Sat n/a 60.0 60.0 Na 1,958.8 68.0 99,900 3,470 ave mph 35.36 Sun n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 1,958.3 68.0 117,500 4,080 31,430 US 85 commuter bus 76.1 54.1 M-E 60.0 60.0 60.0 n/a 3.00 2,055.5 57.0 522,100 14,480 Grly to DIA Sat n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 1,840.0 51.0 930 3,060 ave mph 42.65 Sun n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 1,640.0 51.0 110.400 3,060 20,140 COMMUTER BUS TOTALS 10 peak vehicles M-F 1,253,900 38,360 12 fleet vehicles Sat. 193,700 6,070 Sun 227 900 Lao, Annual 1.675,500 51,570 Notes for North 1-25 corridor bus statistics: (1) Distance based on coded distances provided by Carter Burgess from transportation model(PKG_RouteStatistics). (2) Run time based on calculated travel times from transportation model. (3)Distance and run times for each route use representative model data from a single package(rather than varying by package if route is identical) See cell comments for documentation on what package was used. (4) Calculated total fleet=peak vehicle requirement'1.2(20%spare ratio). MODIFIED ROUTES OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: approx 6am-7pm based on existing span of service WKDYPEAKHR 5.0 Gam-9am;3pm-5pm WKDYBASEHR 8.0 9am-3pm;5pm-7pm • WKDYEVEHR 5.0 4am-6am:7pm-10pm WKDYELHR 0.0 18 SATPEAKHR 0.0 SATBASEHR 13.0 6am-7pm SATELHR 0.0 13 SUNPEAKHR 0.0 SUNBASEHR 13.0 6am-7pm SUNELHR 0.0 13 ANNUAL WEEKDAYS 254 ANNUAL SATURDAYS 51 ANNUAL SUNDAYS,HOL 60 365 ANNUALPEAK 1270 ANNUALBASE 3475 ANNUALEL 1270 North I-25 EN Appendix D Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages • North I-25 EIS BUS OPERATING PLANS LOCAL/FEEDER CORRIDOR ROUTES- DEIS PACKAGE B Run Time Distance Headway Peak Daily Rev. Annual Rev. Route (minutes) (miles) Day Peak Base Eve E/L Veh. Veh Miles Veh Hrs Veh Miles Veh Hrs Transfori 5 23.2 5.4 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.00 173.6 16.0 44,100 4.070 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 141.2 12.9 7,200 660 ave mph 14.07 Sun n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 4,730 Transfort 6 26.0 6.9 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.00 220.9 16.0 56.100 4,070 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 180.4 12.9 9,200 660 ave mph 15.93 Sun n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 4,730 Transfort 7 19.2 5.3 M-F 30.0 30.0 n/a n/a 2.00 335.8 32.0 85,300 8.130 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 137.3 12.9 7.000 660 ave mph 16.38 Sun n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 8,790 Fox Trot 29.5 10.3 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 2.00 328.3 32.0 83,400 8,130 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 266.7 26.1 13.600 1,330 ave mph 20.89 Sun nia n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 9,460 Jitterbus(one-way loop) 647 20.2 M-F 30.0 60.0 n/a n/a 3.00 445.3 16.5 113,100 4,190 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 262.7 9.8 13,400 500 ave mph 1878 Sun n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 0 126.500 4,690 Tango 44.6 13.5 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 1.00 215.4 8.0 54,700 2,030 • Sat n/a 60.0 n/6 n/a 174.5 6.5 8,900 330 ave mph 18.12 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 350.0 13.0 21.000 780 3,140 Windsor.FC Feeder 32.2 29.3 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 2.00 937.8 32.0 238,200 8,130 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 762.7 26.1 38,900 1.330 ave mph 54.52 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 761.7 26.0 45,700 1,560 322,800 11.020 Johnstown-5H-119 Feeder 67.2 27.0 M-F 60.0 60.0 n/a n/a 3.00 862.2 48.0 219,000 12,190 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 700.0 39.0 35,700 1,990 ave mph 24.08 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 700.0 39.0 42,000 2.340 296,700 16,520 Fon Lupton-Niwot Feeder 62.5 20.5 M-F 30.0 60.0 n/a n/a 5.00 901.6 55.0 229,000 13,970 Sat n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 533.3 32.5 27,200 1,660 ave mph 19.68 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 533.3 39.0 32,000 2.340 288,200 17.970 Loveland-Crossroad Feeder 16.6 5.8 M-F 30.0 60.0 n/a n/a 2.00 253.5 22.0 64.400 5,580 Sal n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 149.0 12.9 7,600 660 ave mph 20.78 Sun n/a 60.0 n/a n/a 150.0 13.0 9,000 780 81,000 7,020 LOCAL AND FEEDER BUS TOTALS 22 peak vehicles M-F 1,187,300 70,490 26 fleet vehicles Sat. 168,700 9,780 $yp, 149 700 7 800 Annual 1,505.700 88,070 • North I-25 EIS Appendix D Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages BRT CORRIDOR ROUTES- DEIS PACKAGE B • Run Time Distance Headway Peak Daily Rev. Annual Rev. Route (minutes) (miles) Day Peak Base Eve EL Veh. Veh Miles Veh Kra Veh Mlles Veh Hrs Greeley to DUS BRT 847 63.6 M-F 60.0 60.0 60.0 n/a 3.00 2,416.9 57.0 613,900 14480 Sat n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 2,162.7 51.0 110.300 2,600 ave mph 45.07 Sun n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 2,163.3 51.0 129,800 3,060 Greeley to DUS BRT Tripper 84.7 63.6 M-F 30.0 n/a n/a Ma 6.00 763.4 16.9 193.900 4,300 24,440 FC to DUS BRT 97.0 57.6 M-F 60.0 60.0 60.0 n/a 4.00 1,843.7 64.0 468,300 16.260 Sat nta 60.0 60.0 n/a 1,958.8 136.1 99.900 6,940 ave mph 35.36 Sun n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 1,958.3 136.0 117,500 8,160 FC to DUS BRT Tripper 97.8 57.6 M-F 30.0 n/a n/a n/a 6.00 691.3 19.6 175,600 4,970 36.330 FC to DIA BRT 78.1 59.7 M-F 60.0 60.0 60.0 n/a 3.00 2,269.3 57.0 576,400 14.480 Sat n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 2,029.4 102.0 103,500 5,200 ave mph 45.88 Sun n/a 60.0 60.0 n/a 2,030.0 102.0 121,800 6,120 25,800 BUS RAPID TRANSIT TOTALS 22 peak vehicles M-F 2,028,100 54,490 26 fleet vehicles Sat. 313.700 14.740 $un. 3&91QQ 1734Q Annual 2.710,900 86,570 Notes for North I-25 corridor bus statistics: (1) Distance based on coded distances provided by Carter Burgess from transportation model(PKG_RouteStatistics). (2) Run time based on calculated travel times from transportation model. • (3)Distance and run times for each route use representative model data from a single package(rather than varying by package if route is identical). See cell comments for documentation on what package was used. (4) Calculated total fleet=peak vehicle requirement*1.2(20%spare ratio). CORRIDOR BUS ROUTES OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: 4am-11pm based on using similar service span as rail lines to Ft.Collins WKDYPEAKHR 6.0 5am-Sam; 3pm-6pm WKDYBASEHR 10.0 8am-3pm;6pm-9pm WKDYEVEHR 3.0 4am-5am;9pm-11pm WKDYELHR 0.0 19 SATPEAKHR 0.0 SATBASEHR 13.0 6am-7pm SATELHR 0.0 13 SUNPEAKHR 0.0 SUNBASEHR 13.0 Gam-7pm SUNELHR 0.0 13 ANNUAL WEEKDAYS 254 ANNUAL SATURDAYS 51 ANNUAL SUNDAYS,HOL 60 365 ANNUALPEAK 1524 ANNUALBASE 3983 ANNUALEL 762 IIII North I-25 EIS Appendix D Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages APPENDIX E RAIL OPERSTAT WORKSHEETS • • North 1-25 EIS Appendix E Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans,Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages 000 000 OOO 000 a� • J 000 000 0 0 0 000 0 C W 000 000 000 000 M N 0 0 0 O O O MMM coo 0 888 888 oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m 0 o O o 0 o O > o 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 c C W m M M odd �'i MM 6 0 0 m N '° q O C N O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 mm non 000 000 O O O O 0 q .n Mth odO m a 006 M of M MOM F. ro Y 000 000 y 000 coo coo coo O 0 y 0 0 0 coo coo c o o ^ C a 666 466 M O O N MM mm C 0 = 0 O U ymt s o 0 m 0 N O O 0 N 02 `?. e O 000 ° o n L0i o O 0 $ L M U a666 mow e e cC U y r E N Z CO = 800 O 0 O O o O F/ C , 00 0 O O V (mJ t. 000 N `y �/� « W N N M N M M N L_ E U, To O J 0 ame 01 EE y Q d_ 200 O 000 O o c CO a C 0. 0 O O O 000 O 000 0 000 0 O O O 0 D U {LO �W V ac p N m m V O O m 0 � 0. O M J '0 O. y y 0 U 0 y ^ 0 O o 88 O 00 O O O0 00 — = \ c M 0 0 Opp o O 4 R o o e c c m 2r n m o a m o a �? E �° a'2 Cr, N 0 Coc s ro y V/ CO d N O 10 N C C W CN NQ C >a m m m 0 o K • m t w 0 0 r ` O 'C. M m m m m m 999 m et ro m a ° n a OZ O W C C C C C c ,- � - C C C air O Z = d V O m coo m N m coo N mm a ro C E 7 tO y W N N N C C C N N N c C c y O 2 a a N C y d a . N 0 U W 000 O m m 000 O m m = 0 0 0, 0 N m N N N C C C N N N C c C 0 O x E Y 5 — 0w N m o c m O m m O m c O m m0` 2 m U a N C N C C (7 C M C C m .O 3 y m N E o .� o F J m C m m m m 999 g N ^ N N m m m v a= f W C C C C C 0 0 0 C C C > N = M m mad r LL m ti o o y C y ° ° 0mom = 0X0 ggg o C 0,W m {o co C C m m eo') c C c d OM 2 m N O N D O 0, m 000 mom 0 ° 0 C m m O N 666 C c rt. y 0 m M (O C m M M M C C O a _C m O O M (O q m C _m 0 000 o m C N LL y (O C R a g . C 2 . m c C m c c m �m c o 7 `Q . a = = o ` LL C LL Cu_ _ . C C m U1 N .� LL C 0 OW 2 (n W 2O W � Ny mD O .- N = N D O - 0 a, — m in o w a E E a p cc N O N 0 Cr) U y 0 E 'O U N E < N N in ro y y 0 a U .N m y a 0 C N CO y v J E d i v o M a o m m o a m N _m V' c.= N V M N 4 D R N C a C1 E c c O m a o 'gip eo m 0 N mG . C m b- 'm m' o u o 0 `m Et- coi .0 £ S r W a E m o m .. J Z o m o 13 r 0, s E 3 U N a J m (m') =0 0 n CO G L co o C 00-0' C U 500) (00 D r P Fa � ' F t a o ? N o Z N Z w r N of V N C- = • Z O • J O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O a W O O O O O O O O O O O O m [7 M _ h O O O th U N T C 8 C N O O co O O O O O O co O O co O O O O O 0 g In W m m m6 O O O O O V V V N N N0 O O T p -, S N 0 D 0. ~ N O O O c,00 000 coo 00c, 000 O O C O O 0 0 0 V V V 0 0 0 r a m m m m N N N N rr j _ y m P a O O O O O O O O o 000 000 0 O O 0 O C a U 7 C t 0 0 0 0 V O 0 0 0 0 O O C J N 0 C J c co c 0 — U 2 co ` m O = m o 0 0 0 y o CO 0 0 0 a n d O a N O O CO O O N N N n lmf 0 o O L U CO '� (D o V a r 0 W O V V ED C 7 N N Z N = a o o p o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0E O _o •C ° N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,n W ct 0 b V CO vmj o o 'O TO F R N m N N N CO d' C6 N N 0 E O ] O Cu,13 o o $ m it a d 00 0 0 0 0 C Q 2 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 9 0 0 0 0 0.1 N a o6 06 0 p O o 0 0 (p a s a ,j a a a a N O N N X ( p 10 ((0 a V O in N co (N'1 0 O V is 0 O N m a y v — N v E O N U ID q_ o o - co C p a a O a O O O O O O 00 0 O it• C J -o 0 0 0 o R o c' 0 R N m o o m o o ,in C c 3 a, 03 CV f0 I- in r m N 1(n) m ,_ a m � W v N .� o .2 M a a N s O N N co W W ' t O O Cn N O n Ho ca T. O _ O D N N N C • N a c o OJ p 0 N (n K o D N C it c t GI'B` m . awn a yO Y V W C C C C C C C C C—I nal can can 000 O O O C ? ? a N O` is o Q Z 03 C n > o 0 o m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 o m m m a d c E a LL 'q W N N N C C C C C C N N N N N N C C C N `p 0 N L 0 O o 000 on N nee N 000 000 N N N a) 0 00 N coca. F. O m N N N N0 C C C C N N N N N N C C C (00 x E y Y d d A 7 a a o C C C N N OW c 000 C •C C N p C C 3 _ = O N N C C C C N 1- m C C C m .O N E o >o _O• ` r J m m m m m O m m m m m m o 0 'if; m o m a C CJ N W C C C C C C C C C C C C m a m C C C j y N L y O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- a) ¢CD T 3 0 C 3 W m tOo SOD C G C C C C a a a a a a C C C a ,,, a) O_Z A d 2 N nN C J . . o 0 o o A C mom 999 99c. C C -a m N = W o o O O C c c C ? o o o O O o C C L a) Q CO ED tO (C (D CD CD LO CD CO <D C O C C = W ^J Y p N . 0 R O C C C C C E C N O C N N to °C C C C N D- co CO fn :0 L a a C C C C C m C C a C C C C C a C C N C V) C y lL = D O r co LL U)N LL N 7 ' N c LL C LL N o LL N o LL N C O O C L C V:Z O 2 u) 2 (n W CI) U) 2 CO U) 2 u) U) 2 V) CD N a) O O �- N . CL co O O E _ $i m aJ cc Lc m m n E a) a C al N a W h V U) U J ` N N'E O R. OI O f V+ E co H E V V (N CO N U N 'A y O r-C� a 5 C N b N L weir ea E a Lc, vii Ti.co al o mo (0 ') `m o ca c — P o N m N m co N J -O — O C —y ,y, C C (O Lc. V O m N Q _ O o0 E . m 'm m b m " (mi , .— c ,_ Q C C C O L- mJ J J F d _O N ! J CO 0 3 3 m m o 2 0 G E m E - o ¢: m r C C L N O 0 a) W O. E 0 o t C.r c 2m (D `,u) m 5 - = (' 5 o � 2 o2 ¢ m m c O n = ,_ U • J m J m d = n — J m o = t is J C L t �L a) 4-= ._ A cow 50U) WOW UO o o e o �' Fd � � ~ r c � Q (j O J _000 d 0 LL O Z O Z Z W . N C6 V U) Z F C APPENDIX F RAIL O&M COST MODEL • North I-25 EIS Appendix F Connetics Transportation Group • Transit Operating Plans.Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages 0 Denver North 1-25 Commuter Rail O&M Cost Estimate No-Action Alternative OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Input Variable Code Name Statistics Peak Locomotives PKLOCO 14 Peak Passenger Cars PKCAR 33 Annual Rev, Car-Miles CARMI 3,314,000 Annual Rev. Train-Miles LOCOMI 1,614,000 Annual Rev. Train-Hours TRNHR 55.590 Passenger Stations STATION 18 Route Miles RTMILE 60.46 Yards (storage yard= .25) YARD 2 Inflation Factor"' INFLATE 0.964 Year of Dollars n/a 2005 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Product'y Average Dept. Div. Dept. Cost Item Cost Type Factor Driver FTEs Salary Expenses Cost Totals Risk Mgmt. & Gent Liability Casualty& Liability(50%) INSUR $635,977 Fixed $635,977 Casualty& Liability(25%) INSUR $52 TRNHR $2,786,616 Casualty& Liability(25%) INSUR $3,868 RTMILE $225,440 $3,648,032 Vehicle Maintenance Diesel Fuel FUEL $2.563 ' 1.5 gallons/mile ' train-miles '1.10 $6,579,806 $6,579.806 Facility Maintenance Earnings • Mechanic LABOR 10 1/10 Stations, min. of 1 2.0 $46.800 $90.230 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $49,627 Contract Services, Stations SERV $42,075 STATION (50%) $730,085 Contract Services. Yard& Leads SERV $75,000 YARD $144,600 Materials& Supplies. Stations MATL $8,333 STATION $144,600 Utilities, Yard UTIL $57,500 YARD $110,860 Utilities. Station UTIL $5,278 STATION $91,580 Other OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $1,928 $1,363,511 Finance/Revenue Collection/Money Counting Earnings- Administrative LABOR n/a Fixed 1.0 $83,200 $80,205 Earnings - Accounts Payable LABOR 25000 1/25k trainmi, min. of 1 2.0 $41,600 $80,205 Earnings - Money Counting LABOR 10 1/10 Stations, min. of 1 2.0 $39,520 $76,195 Fnnge Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $130,132 Money Counting Security SERV $11.000 STATION $190,872 Ill NM Maintenance & Repair SERV $5,556 STATION $100.000 Other Contractual Services SERV $21,000 Dept. employee $101,220 Materials & Supplies MATL $4.000 STATION $72,000 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $4,820 $835,648 Purchasing Earnings LABOR Na Fixed 1.0 $49.920 $48,123 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $26,468 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $964 $75,554 Marketing/Customer Services/Public Relations Earnings • Administrative LABOR n/a Fixed 1.0 $62.400 $60,154 Earnings - Gust. Service Rep. LABOR 25,000 1/25k trainmi, min. of 1 2.0 $39,520 $76,195 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $74,991 Contractual Services SERV Na Fixed $250.000 Materials & Supplies MATL $50,000 Fixed $48,200 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $2,892 $512,432 Safety/Police/Security Earnings - Safety Specialist LABOR n/a Fixed 1.0 $58,240 $56.143 Earnings - Police Officers LABOR 10,000 1/10k traiinml, min. of 2 6.0 $58.240 $336,860 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $216.152 Security Services SERV $200,000 YARD $385.600 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $5,784 $944,396 Train Expenses Train Operations/Equip.Maintenance/Track Usage/Maint. Engineer/Conductor/Crew Exp. RR $402 TRAINHR $22,324,908 Maint. of Equip (Labor) RR $45.480 PKLOCO+PKCAR $2,137,560 Maim. Materials/Handling RR $17,147 PKLOCO+PKCAR $805,893 Other RR 64.31% % of Train Ops/Equip. Mart. Costs $16,249,332 Track Maintenance (750/s) RR $56,016 RTMILE $3.386.705 Track Maintenance (25%) RR $0.80 CARMI $2,661,780 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET $61,581,702 Ill North I-25 EIS Appendix F Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans, Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages Denver North 1-25 Commuter Rail O&M Cost Estimate • DEIS Package A Alternative OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Input Variable Code Name Statistics Peak Locomotives PKLOCO 19 Peak Passenger Cars PKCAR 48 Annual Rev. Car-Miles CARMI 5,295,000 Annual Rev. Train-Miles LOCOMI 2.455.000 Annual Rev. Train-Hours TRNHR 78.960 Passenger Stations STATION 28 Route Mites RTMILE 111.07 Yards (storage yard - .25) YARD 3 Inflation Factor"' INFLATE 0.964 Year of Dollars n/a 2005 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Product'y Average Dept. Div.,Dept..Cost Item Cost Type Factor Driver FTEs Salary Expenses Cost Totals Transit Agency_Expenest Risk Mgmt. & Gen'I. Liability Casualty& Liability(50%) INSUR $635.977 Fixed $635,977 Casualty& Liability (25%) INSUR $52 TRNHR $3,958,107 Casualty& Liability(25%) INSUR $3,868 RTMILE $414.152 $5,008,236 Vehicle Maintenance Diesel Fuel FUEL $2.563 ' 1.5 gallons/mile ' train-miles '110 $10.008,318 $10,008,318 Facility Maintenance Earnings - Mechanic LABOR 10 1/10 Stations, min. of 1 3.0 $46,800 $135,346 Fnnge Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $74,440 Contract Services. Stations SERV $42,075 STATION (50%) $1,135,688 Contract Services, Yard& Leads SERV $75,000 YARD $216,900 Materials& Supplies. Stations MATL 58.333 STATION $224,933 Utilities, Yard UTIL $57,500 YARD $166,290 Utilities, Station UTIL $5278 STATION $142,458 Other OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $2,892 $2,098,947 Finance/Revenue Collection/Money Counting Earnings - Administrative LABOR rile Fixed 1.0 $83,200 $80.205 Earnings - Accounts Payable LABOR 25000 1/25k trainml, min. of 1 3.0 $41.600 $120.307 Earnings - Money Counting LABOR 10 1/10 Stations. min. of 1 3.0 $39.520 S114,292 Fnnge Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $173,142 Money Counting Security SERV $11,000 STATION $296,912 NM Maintenance & Repair SERV $5.556 STATION $155.556 III Other Contractual Services SERV $21,000 Dept. employee $141,708 Materials & Supplies MATL $4.000 STATION $112.000 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $6,748 $1,200,870 Purchasing Earnings LABOR n/a Fixed 1.0 $49,920 $48.123 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $26,468 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1.000 Dept. employee $964 $75,554 Marketing/Customer Services/Public Relations Earnings - Administrative LABOR Na Fixed 1.0 $62,400 $60.154 Earnings - Gust. Service Rep. LABOR 25.000 1/25k trainmi, min. of 1 3.0 $39,520 $114,292 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $95,945 Contractual Services SERV n/a Fixed $250,000 Materials& Supplies MATL $50,000 Fixed $48,200 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER $1,000 Dept. employee $3.856 5572.446 Safety/Police/Security Earnings - Safety Specialist LABOR n./a Fixed 1.0 $58.240 $56,143 Earnings - Police Officers LABOR 10,000 1/10k tralinmi, mm. of 2 8.0 $58.240 $449,147 Fringe Benefits LABOR 55.0% Dept. earnings $277.910 Security Services SERV $200,000 YARD $578,400 Other Non-Labor Expenses OTHER 51.000 Dept. employee $7,712 $1,313,169 Train Operations/Equip. MaIntenance/Track Usage/Maint. Engineer/Conductor/Crew Exp. RR $402 TRAINHR $31.710.285 Maim of Equip(Labor) RR $45,480 PKLOCO+PKCAR $3,047,160 Maint. Matenals/Handling RR $17,147 PKLOCO+PKCAR $1,148.827 Other RR 64.31% %of Train Ops/Equip. Maint. Costs $23,090256 Track Maintenance (75%) RR $56,016 RTMILE $6.221,655 Track Maintenance (25°, ) RR $0.80 CARMI $4,252.904 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET 589.804,771 111 North I-2.5 EIS Appendix F Connetics Transportation Group Transit Operating Plans. Operating Statistics and January 2007 O&M Costs for DEIS Packages NORTH 1-25 • EIS MI information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX I Minimal Rail Alternative Request • • Final EIS .August 2011 ' North 1-25 EIS Protect Office • 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland, Colorado 80637 (970)352.5455 (303)779.3384 sus r, www.cdot.info/northi25els/ -Af < o f <„ November 9,2006 Vicky McLane North Front Range MPO 235 Matthews Street Fort Collins,CO 80524 Re: North 1-25 EIS Minimal Rail Alternative Request Dear Ms.McLane At the request of the North Front Range MPO,the North I-25 EIS transit team has undertaken an evaluation of minimal commuter rail options. This information was expected to save as the basis for our RTD/NFRMPO coordination meeting on October 26,which was cancelled due to weather. We have summarized our efforts in the attached memo. Our key conclusions include: • Two minimal options were evaluated. • Ridership for the minimal options is forecasted to be between 6%and 23%of the Package A ridership. • Capital costs for the minimal options are expected to be about 27%of the Package A costs,and • O&M costs are expected to be between 13%and 24%of the Package A O&M costs. Based on these conclusions,a minimal option is feasible as part of a phasing plan for the commuter rail package. Please refer to the memo for more details. Further evaluation of these minimal options is expected to occur during the Final EIS process. We look forward to continuing our dialogue on this project effort. Please let us know if you have any questions. Yours truly, Ik�yU Gina McAfee Deputy Project Manager Cc: Liz Rao,RTD John Daggett,NFRMPO Lee Cryer,RTD Dave Beckhouse,FTA Henry Stopplekamp,RTD Bob Garcia,CDOT R4 Bill Van Meter,RTD Dave Martinez,CDOT R4 Chris Quinn,RTD Stan Elmquist,CDOT R4 Dave Shelley,RID Carol Parr,CDOT R4 Cliff Davidson,NFRMPO File • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Final EIS August 2011 • This Page Left Intentionally Blank. • • Final EIS August 2011 • NORTH I--25 EIS Commuter Rail Phasing information. cooperation. transportation. Due to a variety of requests, the commuter rail component for the North 1-25 EIS has been examined in further detail to evaluate how phasing and minimal options may affect the transit portion of the project. Although a full phasing analysis will not be undertaken until the Final EIS, this memo provides an initial look at potential phasing options. A summary of the options will be documented in the DEIS, along with phasing options that could be considered for BRT, Commuter Bus, and highway elements of the two packages. The first section of this white paper outlines the current DEIS packages and their transit components, including commuter rail. The second section provides information on several commuter rail phasing options that have been examined. DEIS PACKAGE SUMMARY The two DEIS packages reflect different transit approaches for the North 1-25 study area. These packages are shown in the attached figures. Only Package A includes a commuter rail component; Package B provides Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Both packages have been coded into the project's travel demand model and the model has been run to develop 2030 daily • ridership forecasts. These forecasts are summarized in the table below. 2030 DEIS Daily Transit Ridership Forecasts Package A Package B Major investment transit boardings' 5,825 5,850 Commuter rail boardings 4,300 (none) Costs have also been developed for both packages. The unit costs used for commuter rail components were based on typical costs for similar projects. These costs have been compared to RTD data being used for their FasTracks effort. The results of this comparison indicate that there are very few differences. These differences are less than 5%, and they tend to balance out (costs that are low compared to RTD are offset by costs that are high compared to RTD). The team is comfortable that the unit costs being used represent appropriate Colorado experience and are acceptable at the DEIS level of analysis. The costs are summarized in the table below. DEIS Package Capital Costs (2006 dollars) Package A Package B Major Investment (roadway&transit) $1.868 $1.53B Commuter Rail $818M (none) These costs include capital expenditures (tracks, lanes, etc.), right-of-way (ROW), and transit vehicle fleets costs. Package A includes Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus boardings; Package B includes BRT boardings. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 - . • EIS Commuter Rail Phasing information. cooperation. transportation 2 o1 4 Annual operating and maintenance costs are shown below. DEIS Package O&M Costs (2006 dollars) Package A Package B Major Transit Investment $38.5M $12.2M Commuter Rail $28.5M (none) MIMINAL COMMUTER RAIL OPTION SUMMARY Given various requests for nominal commuter rail options in the project study area,the team undertook a supplemental analysis of what a minimal commuter rail option could consist of. Several other commuter rail agencies (peer systems) were reviewed to see how they began service and how service has developed since the initial startup. • Many startup systems begin with peak period (morning and evening), peak direction (AM inbound, PM outbound) service. Others begin with bi-directional peak period service. Given the significant directionality of the DEIS Package transit ridership (both bus and rail), a peak period, peak direction service was assumed. • • To maximize their return on investment, start-up systems often use existing rail lines for their initial segments. ROW acquisition and new rail line construction could be time- consuming and costly, so it was considered inconsistent with the goal of a minimal option. Therefore, the minimal options exclude the proposed new alignment connecting Longmont to the North Metro FasTracks line. The minimal option follows the BNSF line from Fort Collins to Longmont, where it connects with RTD's Northwest Rail FasTracks corridor. • The existing BNSF line allows for a maximum freight speed of 49 mph, with speed reductions in several segments of the corridor due to geometric or other constraints. It was assumed that this speed would not be changed for passenger service under the minimal alternative since geometric improvements can require substantial ROW acquisition and construction costs. However, a signal system was assumed to help coordinate passenger and freight operations along the corridor. • Many startup systems begin with as few stations as possible, with an eye toward serving key population centers and allowing other stations to be implemented gradually as demand grows. Given the forecasted ridership from Package A, stations were sited at South Transit Center(Ft Collins), 4'" Street (Loveland), Berthoud, and 1•'/Terry (Longmont). • Peer systems include Sounder (Seattle, WA), Rail Runner(Albuquerque, NM), Altamont Commuter Express (San Jose, CA) and Coaster (San Diego, CA) • Two operator scenarios were considered. If a contract were established with RTD, service could continue through 151/Terry along Northwest Rail to Denver Union Station. If a separate operator is assumed, a forced transfer at 1'/Terry may be required. Since funding is still undecided,these two options were forwarded through the analysis. • Final EIS August 2011 • NORTH I-2S EIS Commuter Rail Phasing information. cooperation. transportation. 3 of 4 These evaluations resulted in two minimal commuter rail options. These options have been shown graphically on the attached figure. • Minimal Commuter Rail Option 1 includes three AM inbound and three PM outbound trains on 60 minute headways, with a forced transfer at RTD's 1"/Terry station (part of FasTracks). New stations include South Transit Center, SH 402, and Berthoud. • Minimal Commuter Rail Option 2 includes three AM inbound and three PM outbound trains on 60 minute headways, with through service at 1'/Terry. Stations are the same as those in Option 1. PURPOSE: 4 PURPOSE: Test impact to i � Test impact to ridership with = ridership with _ minimal rail A \ - minimal rail solution VVV \\\ solution �\ al Fort II —1) • rL Longmont _. _- ._• -. _ — � c 1 . — / G Both options were coded into the travel demand model in place of the Package A commuter rail alternative. The ridership results are shown in the table below. 2030 Minimal Option Daily Transit Ridership Forecasts Minimal Option 1 Minimal Option 2 Commuter rail boardings 250 1000 Costs were also developed for the minimal options. Assumptions included: • No maintenance facility would be provided—the maintenance would be contracted to RTD or another entity instead. • Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 • EIS Commuter Rail Phasing Information cooperation transportation 40/4 • The BNSF line under consideration would require signals to ensure appropriate separation from freight trains. Other capital improvements include stations and some minor track upgrades. The resulting costs are shown in the table below. Minimal Option Costs (1996 dollars) Minimal Option 1 Minimal Option 2 Capital Costs $222M $219M O & M Costs $3.8M $6.8M CONCLUSIONS This memo describes potential commuter rail phasing options for minimal commuter rail operations of DEIS Package A. The evaluation presents the operating plans and the resulting ridership forecasts and cost estimates. Reducing the commuter rail operations as described in this paper results in much lower capital and operating costs but also results in substantial reductions in ridership. • A summary of this analysis will be described in the DEIS to identify that a range of phasing options can be considered for the Package improvements. The Final EIS will include a more comprehensive evaluation of phasing plans. If commuter rail is carried forward into the Final EIS other phasing elements that might be evaluated include a single track system with more frequent service, passing sidings to allow directional service, track upgrades to improve travel times, phasing of station construction, phasing from peak period to full day service, and the full rail alternative as defined in Package A. ):_Transportation\071609.400\working\pfb\TransitMtgs\NFRMPO Coord Transmittal.doc • Hello