The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112390.tiff j II . North ill NORTH I-?5 EIS information. cooperation. transportation . - 25 FiPa ErIvlioriffieilt ail ill I] a C t 4 Statemerit ,, .. .,... ..._..„_. -a :4 • ..,„„...„ '' : L- •- �S�:a t fillr-�� itieillt - _ ef • �H o 7 .- T •� l•I 0 a-ice t _ `. 'd" / Lj C--_` ' ", I I ! r' • r `c '..'a 1 , 1. I. Y ,, q tit U• . �•I_••alit . y..t e..• "..sift i 1 '� J •.;Y�r.tr.••.01/4".tr.•-•‘-pati,,,•-- , .-dfld!YyA �, d'i .{ r., t ify .-. . . t,`.,lNiietie • . " . . , •_ . y ,I. ..+-.j.. rad.ter s :•.A�iAC9"4.'Ea�..c :t"+•Y'.SbC ,r,,.-...lily�x�fi'�1;f,9f..2G • • i�hy . ' i Cr ...r V 0 [ UW [ 1 of 2011 -2390 ll()T 2011 -2391 imumane Deparrmenrof Tron;po•ta'on + 2011 -2392 1 Federal Highway I I I I c t2011 Administration U U V t 2011 -2393 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,^ , O1 Region Four • 1420 2"d Street T— Greeley,CO 80631 MI NT OF TRANSPORTATION(970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 August 11, 2011 ALL PUBLIC VIEWING LOCATIONS RE: North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement To Whom It May Concern: With this letter, the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) is transmitting a copy of the North I- 25 Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS). Please make this document available at your location for public review. A 30 calendar-day public review period begins on August 19, 2011 and concludes on September 19,2011. We request that you make this copy available through at least the conclusion of the comment period. We will notify you if there is any change in the schedule. Additional information is available on the project website at www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i25-eis including information on the time and locations of the public hearings to be held September 12"', 13i°, and 15c°, and ways to comment. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik Project Manager Senior Operations Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W.Dakota Avenue- Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720)963-3012 (970) 350-2170 Written comments on this Final EIS can be submitted through the project website,or by mail at the following address: North I-25 Project Team c/o Tom Anzia Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, / C ^ n C Carol H. Parr N I-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement "Taking Care To Get You There" NORTH 1-25 EIS 1420 2ND STREET NORTH 1-25 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 (970)350-2170 EIS (970)350-2177 WWW.CDOT.INFO/NORTHI25EIS/ information cooperation. transportation. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Weld County Administration Building Date: August 11, 2011 Address: Weld County Administration Building 1150 "0" Street Greeley, 00.80631 Subject: North 1-25 FEIS Public Review Documents The following items are transmitted: Herewith N Under Separate Cover ❑ via Courier N U.S. Mail ❑ Overnight Delivery ❑ Item Copies Description/Remarks 1 1 FEIS Volumes 1-3— Hard Copy 2 1 FEIS Alternatives Development & Screening Report— Hard Copy 3 1 FEIS Package Concept Plans— Hard Copy Enclosed is the North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)which is to be made available for public review starting August 19, 2011. The 30 calendar day public review period concludes on September 19, 2011. Additional information is available on the project website at www.coloradodot.info/protects/north- i25-eis, including the time and locations of the public hearings. Please call if you have any questions. Carol Parr (tom (970) 350-2170 (C) (970) 397-3143 Carol.partdot.state.co.us The above items are submitted: At your request ❑ For your review ❑ For your files N For your approval ❑ For your action ❑ For your information N cc: N125EIS FHU Project File 03-225 Sender Carol Parr— CDOT Region 4 Project Manager FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-F CDOT Project IM 0253-179 • North I-25 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332 (2)(c), 49 USC 303, & 16 USC 460 By the US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATING AGENCIES Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Regional Transportation District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Submitted by: Jo non, P.E. Date • egio 4 Transportation Director Colorado Department of Transportation Concurred by: :1,9444 W77 Timoth P.E. Date Chief Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Approved by: o,„ Douglas Bennett, P.E. Date Acting Division Administrator, Colorado Division Federal Highway Administration • The Federal Highway Administration may publish a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) § 1390), once the Record of Decision is approved. If such notice is published, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal agency for a highway or public transportation capital project shall be barred unless it is filed within 180 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license, or approval is final pursuant to the law under which the agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in the Federal law pursuant to which judicial review is allowed. If no notice is published, then the periods of • time that otherwise are provided by the Federal laws governing such claims will apply. • Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. ABSTRACT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), in late 2003, initiated an Environmental Impact Statement to examine improvements to the 1-25 corridor from Denver to Wellington in northern Colorado. The improvements are needed to provide modal alternatives, correct geometric deficiencies, improve safety, mobility and accessibility, and replace aging and obsolete infrastructure. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies and evaluates impacts of multi-modal transportation improvements including three build alternatives and a No-Action Alternative, which provides a baseline for comparison. The Preferred Alternative was developed based on public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and working with public agencies and elected officials through a collaborative decision making process. The Preferred Alternative combines elements of the two build alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS, and includes 1-25 improvements (general purpose lanes, tolled express lanes, and interchange reconstruction), 1-25 express bus, US 85 commuter bus, and commuter rail service. The Preferred Alternative meets the project purpose and need and has public support. Following public comment on this Final EIS, FHWA and CDOT plan to prepare a Record of Decision to address public comments and select an initial project phase for implementation. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this • document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik Project Manager Senior Operations Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1420 2nd Street 12300 W. Dakota Avenue - Suite 180 Greeley, CO 80632 Lakewood, CO 80228 (970) 350-2170 (720) 963-3012 More information about the project can be found on the project website: www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis. Written comments on this Final EIS can be submitted through the project website, by fax (303-721-0832), or by mail to the following address: North 1-25 Project Team do Tom Anzia Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 • Abstract This Page Left Intentionally Blank. • • III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :,.......:.,,,,,..„..... ,,_..„ _ _ ...r., ...... ...____ • _ ._ ..,.......„. ..„..., _ Ilnlre•--- S- ; „eat ` r oar— .... i i • . Ai, - Q , � ' a 4114 4W a_l4 • • _ r ' ..o�•.., . ♦ae. Ir j _t ,•-at ti _ • 3 ' �� t I 1J.. r . ID ..• l "s t .;_ .. ti i i a , • • N ORTH I-25 -•,.....„.. _,..,„ EIS --------- information . cooperati • on . transportation . Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES .1 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION The Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA), in cooperation with the Colorado What's In Executive Summary? Department of Transportation (CDOT), has Executive Summary prepared this Final Environmental Impact ES. 1 Summary of the Action Statement ( Final EIS) to identify and ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study Area evaluate multi-modal transportation ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives improvements along the 61 -mile Considered 1-25 transportation corridor extending from ES.4 Decision Making Process the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. ES.5 Summary of Major Environmental and Other Impacts The improvements being considered in this ES.6 Other Federal Actions Required Final EIS would address regional and inter- ES.7 Next Steps in the NEPA Process regional movement of people, goods, and ES.8 Phased Project Implementation services in the 1-25 corridor. The improvements are needed to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices. The regional study area ( Figure ES-1 ) that encompasses these proposed improvements includes • 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the regional study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). Three multi-modal build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) are being evaluated , as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvements being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction . Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail , commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. ES .2 OTHER ACTIONS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Two other major actions are being proposed in the regional study area by other governmental agencies. These are: ► Glade Reservoir and the Relocation of US 287. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is proposing to build a new reservoir in the northwestern corner of the regional study area . This would require relocation of a segment of US 287 north of Fort Collins. ► FasTracks Corridors. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the existing agency providing transit service in the Denver Metro Area. RTD will build commuter rail along two corridors that will provide service to communities in the regional study area . The FasTracks North Metro Corridor is located along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor just to the east of 1-25, terminating in Thornton . The FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor is located along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) corridor (which is located adjacent to SH 119 between Boulder and Longmont) on the far western edge of the regional study area . Executive Summary ES-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure ES-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area LEGEND1. ;: 4 Burlington Northern Santa Fe ,� Wellington Great Western Railway °' , fr -,-- )287 - - - - - - - • - Union Pacific Railroad •s-\.,-- \ \ • `� ---`�- - - - - - - - - Abandoned Railroad v 14 Auk , Right-of-Way - F J t 00041 US or Interstate Highway , is 85 ; State Highway zsr ` anc. Eaton. � f�� Comoro 287 1Nlwdsec r 3, vel nd f _� � 34 ( N. Greele Garden city 1 - - ._.. Evans \ gas n 60 Johnstown LAUD LARIMER •''Ws i i , i - au CI Milliken)38 - aw-ii • ' ..j A crest e • v, . rt d WEI r'b CR 31 frk' Mead - Plattevill I Lon ont - / . 4 p--..I,,,/7 l `- F 36 ta r c IuLDER ss� 110 I 287 . r F ode rick 1 52 -I rL. ,j ��52 Boulder - ,r— / 7. I. pats ; 93 ' 36 Lawson. 1 I Oft :-i / � tyaA0 Broomfield `tAc ^ Thornton T,- Co C. as y `72? Hart ylenn / ri nster E470 Demer International /' Airport I 5) I JEFFERSON - - t 7 Unio Station _•• t - 40 , 0 2 4 6 8 10 6 De ver • ha, a.>✓ r._.il,Nks North VE 0 Executive Summary ES-2 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ES.3 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 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, Package A and Package B, which were evaluated in the Draft EIS. The evaluation of these two packages, as well as input from the project's advisory committees and the public, was used to develop the Preferred Alternative (which is evaluated in this Final EIS)from elements of Package A and Package B. Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, together with the No-Action Alternative, are considered the reasonable alternatives for this proposed action and all of these alternatives have been fully evaluated in this Final EIS. No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative (Figure ES-2) would include those transportation projects that have not been built, but for which funding has been committed, including the two FasTrack corridors. The bridge over 1-25 at 84th Avenue is currently being reconstructed as part of a separate project expected to be completed in 2012. The SH 392/1-25 interchange will also be reconstructed as part of a separate project starting in the middle of 2011 and expected to be completed in 2012. The No-Action Alternative also would include replacement of pavement on 1-25, installation of signals at five interchange ramp termini, and widening of 1-25 off-ramps at the Prospect/I-25 • interchange. Package A Package A (Figure ES-3)would include adding one additional general purpose lane on 1-25 in each direction, for a total of six lanes from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60) and a total of eight lanes from E-470 to SH 52. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location — adjacent to a historic residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. This would result in bi-directional service along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to the residential property in Longmont. Also included in Package A would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that would connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Because Package A commuter rail includes a double-tracked system, a parallel maintenance road would not be needed. Maintenance access would be provided by the second track. Package A also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; a commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes; and commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport (DIA). • Executive Summary ES-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 4111 Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative 5M1 SM1 Ella.Cep! LEGEND t " CR 58 • Minor Structure Rehab by 2035 6iCR 52 Eldn G 1�1�Dan*• Major Structure Rehab by 2035 . rai rriaueeitV .CR5o Replace / Rehab Pavement by 2035 +r SE,"MI • Minor Safety Modifications by 2035 to , ,li n . CS GeV Drtrn Bat EI er rear t 14 F , ' � a RR yes FasTracks Rail Line SH 1 t. us 3. Cache 1a,iall64. � M RTD Boundary P 5 " • YLi ,. larcenies oads rasuoaos � fr eta 3s u40 ' re G •, 's Caner (5 % �' J LARIMER L' a� e La Sal 1 SH . �� 60 �lSll`fi . SSH556 46 ZTT O et US 3 t. SH . . CR 38GWRA Iw R 34 WELD c E' CR 34 CR32 .86 CR 28 St Yuen Rive 119 85 BOULDER 7 ,1/9 ' .• woe ss hi 5s52 tt9 L Ara•shoe .1,. 93 id rt se \S ROSH Ave TT / E47 Rd Ramp 1 • PadNorthwest RNI Corridor `1 ' r 2• 36 North/ Corridor (7-qJ. /\ Deny r 4 6 8 10 ! 1 Unro Station Milt<, North — UEI�lULK Executive Summary ES-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure ES-3 Package A 1 —, 5 LEGEND SH 1 �■ 1 New General Purpose Lane •• (GPL) in Each Direction t Correct geometric deficiencies ■ • l• 1 New General Purpose Lane 4 and replace aging (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each infrastructure Direction Fort Coffins Downtown '' ■ , Transit Center - BNSF and Maple St wan Commuter Rail (C R) OW - Mason St. between , „ Uninsity Ave and W. Pitkin St. Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort i Ilins' P,c t ! es US 85 south Fort Collins Transit center - Hrmary . , _ Matson St.and W. Fairway Lane near r Severson Eaten Feeder Bus Service 6 I Lucerne 0 Interchange Upgrades 87 wa. Greeley -US85 34 St 0 Love nd • `ro`uoro`BNd - ° Number of Lanes 411, North Loveland -(NSF and 29th is South Greeley - `O Commuter Bus Station / Stop °owntownLoveland -[NSF and • • 404 Greele i 8n12 sip VP-Maly 6th St 6+ Gara.n City 0 Commuter Rail Station or ' •57 Evan Evans-us 85 and 42nd S. ca ,6 . :R 50 a FasTracks Rail Line LARIMEri C• •n • JeAnstMtta La Salle so Berthoud BNSF and SH 56 Milken © FasTracks / RTD Transit Station •r GFir ■ Potential Commuter Rail 6 Operational & Maintenance III Facility 36 hlo ont Ii CR34 WE LL.1 mead* PIMgMal ■ Potential Commuter Bus Operational & Maintenance Facility7ongrnontL66Lon9mo1atx• alignment, . ! -,119 1• w 6 85 3V V L E _ Firestone 1119 287 nisi in wet I 52 I• - • I-25 and WCR8 -NW 0 * — oorner d I-25 and CR 8 w; a t' Dane Erie " 44 0.19 = oulder 8 kiCimow III,Itt• 7 1.10 O 36 i eras Ili7 5 • . r 1 t s Right-of-Way NorthwestIle / Preservation Rail Corridor arena T taw • Cerw PP 6 Implement r* �n� o•n�•r 40 North Metro �1 No-Action n. a � Corridor aae Ainp•f,rr•i Alternative U• 84v4 (2 Projects 121 illiimp r JEFFER ON aV *Ate . 70 0 Derive Union ration ao' 0 / 6 Den er 225 0 1 1 6 8 10 a r -eLhRs North 0 Executive Summary ES-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Package B Package B (Figure ES-4) would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane (TEL) to 1-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated lanes would be added. TELs would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue in Thornton. TELs would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll, and by buses. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would also provide a bus rapid transit system including 12 bus stations providing service along 1-25, along US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, bus service would be provided along E-470 from 1-25 to DIA. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative (Figure ES-5) would combine elements presented in Packages A and B and would include multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and TELs and substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs. The Preferred Alternative also includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to Northwest Rail at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Nine • commuter rail stations and a commuter transit maintenance facility are included in the Preferred Alternative. The commuter rail would consist of a single track with occasional passing tracks at four locations. The BNSF railroad is requiring that commuter rail 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. Express bus service would operate in the TEL to connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA and serve 13 stations along Harmony Road, US 34, and 1-25. Commuter bus service along US 85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with five stops at the communities along the route. A bus maintenance facility would be constructed to accommodate both express buses and commuter buses. • Executive Summary ES-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure ES-4 Package B a LEGEND s 85 1 /_ ' w.Itln• n Correct geometric Buffer-Separated Tolled Ilou Vida Express Lane (TEL) in Each deficiencies 4 and replace aging Direction 287 infrastructure • • 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled •.R Express Lanes (TEL) in Each Hannonyfd.and •' Direction Timberline -Fort Collins t Transit Center - CO . Pr • 4/2 US 34 and SH 257 EMMA, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route , FortCollins . O. Eaton\ (Uses TELs on 1-25) _ moth , .7 s•vr•ss• West Greeley - US 34 and L. -Fat Collins — Aira63rd Ave., Greeley Feeder Bus Service -' �i°Sli�z • ` Weis• Greeley Downtown Transfer 1 287 Gelder -Blh Ave. and 4 Interchange Upgrades cun.fo.ase 4/4k - 7-1118th St,Greeley 34 Lovel - nd ,tip k - 7-111© Number of Lanes: General •' . 34 Greeley ( Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes , Garden City • •7 Evans M. CJ Bus Rapid Transit Station 60 . `R Aso La Sail. . J•Mst.wra FasTracks Rail Line 1� eo 'IN111 Milliken 0 FasTracks / RTD Transit Station ' Gann.! LARIMER 4/2 • Potential Commuter Bus a-- Operational & Maintenance 36 CR34 ELC Facility pl.tt.vilt 0 7 4 bmida ongmont :36 ' I 85• OULDER Flints 19 rick .e 52 - •1and SH 52 . . ' • 1 Edo 6/ 2 19 = oulder — — 76 0 LTip,. w 7 93 86 L.•Isvtl ✓ ' _ Gil e M Right-of-Way Oil , Preservation c .ISr•.mf.ld *' .. .ton clii,D, r • r Northwest } CRail Corridor) Mi North72 '� !II 441 Metro et" oorrv.r nal Wit 6/2 Int•irp rt Corridor Airport il . IIP JEFFER ON V e t .f L . — _ J l , . .v • 70 Deny= 70 Union .tation iiiiilIII 6 ay. Den er `V r U 1 ti n 11 rill., North 11. Executive Summary ES-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure ES-5 Preferred Alternative 25 LEGEND • Reconstruct mainline Tolled Express Lanes Express Bus Transit Station Wellle• • to correct geometric 1 t� General Purpose Lanes Commuter Bus Transit Station deficiencies and replace aging Express Bus Commuter Rail Transit Station �i.i n:'r ,,.,s! )1.._, infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 CR1 • Commuter Rail ® Commuter Rail Operational * j> Ault & Maintenance Facility---------- Passing Track Fort CR2 6/2 Commuter Bus Operational (roll s * :v.road Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance FacilityEr CR3t• ,,,•,, 0 Iue11 Eaton O Interchange Reconstruction ,., - >• FasTracks Rail Line • 1 t r Severance ,f 5 cro Number of Lanes: O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station I�t E4 __ Lucerne General Purpose/ k!.. ' Tolled Express INktdser •i Lov : : nd * ' �° EB7 ER8 A81 CR4 • .±6/2 E:',t_ • •,re! 34Greele • , CB /� Gordon City ■ TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS O2• Ivan • Zoe 0Commuter Rail Express Bus LA RIMER cR so CB3 oknetowa - Le Salle CR1 Fort Collins Dr EB1 Sotto Fort Collins Transit ♦- eo Transit Center - BNSF and Center - US 287 and Maple St. Harmony Rd 11:�-I,, I r� ** EB9 Milliken CR2 CSU - BNSF between EB2 Timberline - Harmony Rd. ' - of cre University Ave. and W. Pekin and Timberline I St. E83 East Fon Collins - I-25 and - -1 all CR? South Fort Collins Transit Harmony Rd ... _6/2 Center - US 287 and 40EB4 Windsor I-25 and SH 392 36 �= R 34 W E t n Harmony Rd. CR4 North Loveland - BNSF EBb Crossroads Loveland .. M• Piattevul 29th St. between Crossroads Blvd. —� •— r• • C84 and US 34 CR7 { CRS Downtown Loveland ERG West Greeley US 34 and Longmont • f BNSF and approximately SH 257 6m SL R8='.119 �EB10 CR6 Berthoud - BNSF and EP, Greeley US 34 and 83rd 36 — ) 65 O U L D E R Ave. CR7 North Longmont BNSF EB8 Greeley Downtown Transfer f 0 - Firestone - Center - 8th Ave and 287 and SH 66 ' 8th St. II L 52 IEB11 CR8 Longmont - Sugar Mill, • • CB5 south of Rogers Rd. Ebci Berthoud - 1-25 and SH 56 I EB12 ort CR9 Erie 125 and CR 8 i EB10 Firestone - 1-25 and 717 - CR"s•_:Dace** non SH 119 Erie 6/2 ' O FaDowntown Rail Stations t0- EB 11 FrederickJDacono - 1-25 119lib'I : O u l d e r I ( 76 Downtown Denver _ _ and SH 52 EB12 Erie - 1-25 and CR 8 Ilku 4 4 Commuter Bus 0 I.EB1 3 Broomfield 125 and SH 7 18 . 3e Loetsvu• • Sri • . CB1 Greeley - US 85 and 0 L . ; S .3...- O DIA t119� w. e C82 South Greeley 8m Ave :. e'''- Northwest `7 = 9 n 24m St. • .it Corridor sup•` erwtntteN- • neon Right-of-Way ion a ROOM t CB3 Evans - US 85 and 42nd St. e t cam A p ' CM Platteville - US 85 and Grand ` r la• Ai• e Ave. / 72 `•£ NoIan Denver CB5 Fort Lupton US 85 and AS "' North Metro E470 International CR 14.5 6/2 , 2 Corridor Airport O Brighton • US 85 and SH 7 121 ` • 11lnluu»'q O Commerce City - 72nd and • Colorado 76 iJ !% JEFFERS .l Nr 70 70 QOIY • vvn ../ . 40 teen IV 0 a 4 6 8 e I en er �'J .., .� ■�M,irs North / v: 25 225 0 Executive Summary ES-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ES.4 DECISION MAKING PROCESS 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 and the phasing plan. 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 and, 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 allows FHWA and CDOT to take responsibility for the decision and implementation. Through this process consensus was achieved on the Preferred Alternative and its phasing plan. ES.5 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts of this Final EIS include information describing environmental and other impacts to all resources in the affected area. Section 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts includes a summary of all • impacts and Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary includes a summary of all mitigation. This section provides a summary of only the major impacts that would occur. Environmental Impacts Land Use Implementation of Package A would support regional planning and municipal planning efforts (including transit oriented development). Under Package B, anticipated development along 1-25 would continue in accordance with city and county plans. Bus rapid transit would support this development. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements in Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, development would most likely continue to spread outward from city centers. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Package A and Package B, and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. The Preferred Alternative would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans, with impacts similar to those described for Package A. Conversion of agricultural and open lands into urban uses will continue regardless of whether a build package is implemented or not. Implementing Package A or the Preferred Alternative could minimize the conversion of agricultural land in the outlying areas of communities along the BNSF rail line as development shifts toward higher densities and urban centers in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont. Right-of-Way Relocation impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include 51 residences and 23 businesses, compared with 59 residences and 33 businesses associated with Package A • and 24 residences and 16 businesses associated with Package B. All acquisition or relocation needed for this project would fully comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Executive Summary ES-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Air Quality Air pollutant emissions associated with all three build packages would be slightly greater than those anticipated under the No-Action Alternative because vehicle miles of travel would be expected to increase. These emissions in 2035 would, however, be lower than existing levels for all pollutants and in all alternatives. Noise and Vibration Traffic noise impacts would occur under all three build packages as well as the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would impact a few less sites (816 sites) than the Preferred Alternative (840 sites), Package A (826 sites) or Package B (848 sites). Mitigation of traffic noise is recommended for two areas under Package A and for seven areas under Package B and the Preferred Alternative. Noise impacts also would occur as a result of rail transit operations associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative, with severe impacts projected to occur at 697 residences, 6 schools, and 1 church along both the Package A and the Preferred Alternative commuter rail corridors. Vibration impacts, affecting 40 residences, would be expected as a result of commuter rail operations associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Noise and vibration mitigation would be installed. The identified mitigation actions for Package A and the Preferred Alternative of quiet zones, noise barriers, special trackwork and tire-derived aggregate would remove rail transit noise and vibration impacts such that no receivers would be impacted by rail noise or rail vibration. The implementation of quiet zones for rail transit • noise will require the involvement of several local governments. Other mitigation measures (such as noise barriers) have been identified in the event that one or more quiet zones cannot be implemented. Quiet zones are the best and preferred train horn mitigation because quiet zones would eliminate the noise source. The direct involvement and sponsorship of local government agencies is required for quiet zone implementation, and they must apply to the PUC for quiet zone approval. CDOT and FHWA cannot guarantee such local government agency actions; however, CDOT and FHWA anticipate that local government agencies will agree that quiet zones will be beneficial and be willing to sponsor the required Public Utilities Commission (PUC) applications. If for any reason, one or more quiet zones cannot be implemented, the recommended mitigation would change to additional noise walls for those locations along the rail corridor. With the proposed mitigation: ► Package A would impact 623 Category B and 153 Category C receivers from traffic noise, while no receivers would be impacted by commuter rail. ► Package B would impact 504 Category B and 163 Category C receivers from traffic noise. ► Preferred Alternative would impact 498 Category B and 161 Category C receivers from traffic noise, while no receivers would be impacted by commuter rail. • Executive Summary ES-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E1S • information. cooperation. transportation. Wetlands Wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be impacted by all three build alternatives along highway and transit corridors; Package A would impact 21.9 acres, Package B would impact 21.3 acres, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 18.2 acres. Mitigation would be provided for all wetland impacts in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act and requirements of Executive Order 11990. Floodplains Impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains situated along the corridors. Package A would impact 12.8 acres of floodplains, Package B would impact 13.5 acres of floodplains, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 13.0 acres of floodplains. All floodplain impacts would be mitigated in accordance with Executive Order 11988, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650, and local regulations. Wildlife Wildlife and aquatic species habitat would be negatively affected. Package A would impact 2.0 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.8 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat, Package B would impact 2.4 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 2.3 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 1.9 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.5 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat. All impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. • Threatened, Endangered, State Sensitive and Protected Species There would be impacts to threatened, endangered, state sensitive and protected animal species habitat. Package A would impact 292 acres, Package B would impact 353 acres, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 341 acres. Most of these impacts would occur to bald eagle foraging habitat and black tailed prairie dog colonies. All impacts would be mitigated. Historic Preservation There are many archaeological and historic properties along the transportation corridors. Seventy-two of these are either on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Package A would cause an adverse effect to seven of these properties, Package B would result in an adverse effect to one of these properties, and the Preferred Alternative would cause an adverse effect to four of these properties. Mitigation for impacted properties would occur in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). Parks and Recreation There are 41 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the corridors. Package A would affect eight of these properties, Package B would affect six of these properties, and the Preferred Alternative would affect six of these properties. Mitigation for all impacts would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. • Executive Summary ES-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Hazardous Materials All three build alternatives would have hazardous materials impacts associated with sites to be acquired for right-of-way (partial and full). Hazardous materials impacts include sites with either potential or known soil and/or groundwater contamination. Package A would impact 96 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 18 parcels with recognized environmental conditions. Package B would impact 40 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions. The Preferred Alternative would impact 67 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 20 parcels with recognized environmental conditions. Compatibility with Area Plans Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative were designed to accommodate future population and employment growth, increased traffic volumes, and expansion plans of municipalities in the regional study area, and to be compatible with both regional and local area transportation plans. Transit improvements were designed to connect and be compatible with RTD's planned FasTracks rail system. Not all of the improvements included in Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are included in the fiscally constrained plan for Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). CDOT has submitted amendments requesting DRCOG to include Phase 1 Preferred Alternative improvements in the fiscally- constrained plan. The amendments are expected to be adopted in September 2011. Adoption of these amendments must occur prior to inclusion of these improvements in a Record of Decision (ROD). • Transportation Impacts Transportation travel demand forecasts for 2035 were produced through the use of a multi- modal travel demand model, which was developed by combining the existing DRCOG and NFRMPO travel demand models. Additional expertise was utilized for toll and revenue forecasts. Key transportation impact findings are summarized below. All three build alternatives provide improvements in travel time compared to the No-Action Alternative. In the general purpose lanes, travel would be improved by 16 minutes with Package A and Package B, and 26 minutes with the Preferred Alternative. Using the tolled express lanes, travel time would be 51 minutes faster for Package B, and 52 minutes faster for the Preferred Alternative as compared to the No-Action Alternative. Package A commuter rail would be 40 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative while the Preferred Alternative commuter rail would be 39 minutes faster. Travel on bus rapid transit (Package B) would be 63 minutes faster. Package A would result in a reduction in traffic on regional study area arterial streets of 10,000 to 35,000 vehicles (each arterial per day), Package B would reduce volumes from 5,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day, and the Preferred Alternative would reduce arterial volumes 5,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day compared to the No-Action Alternative. The reduction in volumes has a notable range, reflecting the natural range in daily total volumes on minor and major arterials. The No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to social, economic, and environmental resources. Air pollution related to traffic congestion would • continue to increase and noise impacts from increased traffic also would worsen. Over time, the No-Action Alternative could have a dampening effect on the local economy. Executive Summary ES-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Travel Demand 1-25 capacity improvements attract traffic to 1-25 over the No-Action Alternative. The increase in traffic varies by segment reflecting differing origin and destination patterns along the 60-mile corridor. Larger traffic increases occur near mid corridor activity centers. Small increases occur at the northern end of the study area reflecting lower trip generation and at the south end reflecting less available capacity on 1-25 south of E-470. Package A projected 2035 daily traffic volumes on 1-25 segments between SH 1 and E-470 would generally be 8 percent to 33 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, while Package B 2035 daily traffic projections would be about 1 percent to 27 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative projected 2035 daily traffic volumes would generally be 2 percent to 40 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, with similar pattern across the range as Package B. In general, the increased traffic on 1-25 with the build alternatives would reduce traffic on the roadways parallel to 1-25. Package A and the Preferred Alternative would have a greater effect on parallel arterial volumes than Package B in the northern area. In the Denver metropolitan area, only Package B and the Preferred Alternative have some effect on parallel arterials due to the addition of the TELs. The build alternatives would attract more highway users (people) to 1-25 than the No-Action Alternative. Package B would generate slightly more total users than Package A. The Preferred Alternative would have the highest level of users at over 990,000 daily (number of vehicles entering this length of 1-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy). The transit components • of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would not appreciably reduce 1-25 highway traffic volumes because transit ridership projections are an order of magnitude smaller than vehicular demand projections. Transit ridership (not including the feeder buses) in 2035 would be about 5,850 riders per day for Package A, about 6,800 riders for Package B, and about 6,500 riders per day for the Preferred Alternative. Station activity for commuter rail, BRT, and express bus would increase from north to south while station activity for the commuter bus generally would be the same at stations along the route. System Operation Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would experience similar peak hour operation at the 1-25 interchange ramp termini but the Preferred Alternative would operate with substantially fewer miles of congestion on 1-25 than either Package A or Package B. South of E-470, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would experience fewer miles of congestion on 1-25 than Package A due to the increased capacity with the additional TELs. Safety Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would modify newer interchange structures, rehabilitate older structures, or replace the existing structures to address geometric and capacity-related safety concerns. To minimize the potential for conflict between the proposed commuter rail line and private automobiles, railroad grade crossings were designed to comply with both Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and RTD safety standards through • either grade separation or other treatment and warning methods. Along the BNSF alignment in Package A and the Preferred Alternative, existing grade separations would be maintained but Executive Summary ES-13 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • no new structures would be added. For the new alignment from Longmont to North Metro Corridor in Package A and the Preferred Alternative, six new grade separations would be incorporated into the design. Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative are expected to experience approximately the same number of total crashes in 2035 with slightly fewer injury and fatality crashes anticipated under Package B. Barrier-separated sections of Package B were predicted to have fewer accidents than the same sections of 1-25 in Package A or the Preferred Alternative. Freight Traffic on I-25 Neither Package A, Package B, nor the Preferred Alternative would affect the current growth rate for freight traffic (estimated to be two percent on the south end and three percent on the north end). In general, freight traffic would benefit from improved traffic operations in the GPLs and reconstruction of the highway to a maximum grade of four percent included in all build packages. In Package B and the Preferred Alternative, freight traffic would be prohibited from using the TEL. Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the 1-25 corridor. All build package improvements along 1-25 generally would facilitate future bicycle/pedestrian travel, because reconstruction plans would include provisions for future • bicycle/pedestrian facilities to cross the interstate and new bridges over waterways would accommodate planned trails. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would be located along the BNSF rail line, US 85, and 1-25. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in Package B would be focused along 1-25. Proposed queue jumps along US 34 (Package A, Package B, and Preferred Alternative) and US 85 (Package A)would require acquisition of some new right-of- way, which could affect some pedestrian crossings and on-street bicycle facilities. All connections and trails would be maintained. Construction Impacts Highway construction methods would be similar for all build packages, although Package B and the Preferred Alternative would require additional signage and striping, as well as installation of the toll collection system. In all packages, new highway segments would open as phases are completed and a design-build method could be sought for any of the package improvements. Transit construction methods in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would temporarily disrupt freight rail traffic for the construction of grade crossing improvements and construction of the vertical elements of the commuter rail stations. Transit construction methods in Package B would require night-time closures of the interstate to install the vertical elements of the BRT stations in the interstate median. Regardless of the build package selected, there would be temporary noise, vibration, and visual impacts, although they would be minimized as much as possible. Furthermore, mitigation measures would be needed to avoid air quality, water quality, and traffic impacts. The Section 404 permit would assign additional detailed mitigation measures. Under all build packages, travel demand management measures could be used to minimize traffic impacts. • Executive Summary ES-14 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ES.6 OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED The following is a list of other federal actions required for all build packages: ► Issuance of a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is required prior to impacting any waters of the U.S. A Section 404 permit application has been submitted to the USAGE. ► Issuance of a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)will be included with the ROD. ► Consultation with USFWS regarding Platte River water usage. ► The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be submitted to the Department of the Interior during the Final EIS comment period. For more information, see Chapter 5, Section 4(1) Evaluation. ► Ongoing compliance with the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. ► Air quality conformity findings are needed for the Phase 1 ROD and all subsequent RODs. ES.7 NEXT STEPS IN THE NEPA PROCESS This Final EIS has been prepared in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500), FHWA environmental impact and related procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations on highway transportation projects • (23 CFR 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, and other applicable laws. This Final EIS is available to interested parties for review and comment for 30 days. During the review period, public hearings will be held and all comments recorded. The next step in the NEPA process following the Final EIS review period is preparation of a ROD, which will document the federal agency decision for the project. ES.8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Because there are not enough funds in the long range plan to build the entire Preferred Alternative, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into three phases. The first phase would cost approximately $670 million (2009 dollars) and would be constructed with funding available in the fiscally-constrained 2035 RTPs, as amended. The second and third phases would together cost approximately $1.5 billion (2009 dollars). These later phases would be constructed over time as additional funds become available. Phasing for Package A and Package B could also be developed in a similar manner. Given that all three build alternatives could be phased, identification of the Preferred Alternative was not based on phasing considerations. Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure ES-6 and includes the following elements: ► Widening 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 56 —with one tolled express lane in each direction. Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features as well as the • right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section. Executive Summary ES-15 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Widening 1-25 between SH 392 and SH 14—would initially be used as continuous accel/decel lanes, but would ultimately become part of the general purpose lanes. Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section is also included. ► Widening 1-25 between 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 —one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction. Widening would include sound walls, water quality ponds, and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section. ► Interchange replacement and upgrades —SH 14, Prospect, SH 56, CR 34, and SH 7 would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. US 34/Centerra Parkway intersection would be reconstructed to a single point urban interchange. SH 392 and 84th Avenue would be completed as part of a separate project. Minor modifications to 84th Avenue, Thornton Parkway, 104th Avenue, and SH 392 will be completed as part of Phase 1 highway widening. ► Six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges. ► Commuter Rail right-of-way preservation — all right-of-way necessary to construct the ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1. ► Initial 1-25 Bus — regional bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1 and 27 buses would be purchased. ► Commuter Bus— commuter bus along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver • would be implemented in Phase 1. This would include construction of five stations and the purchase of five buses. Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont, constructing TELs and associated interchange upgrades between SH 14 and SH 56 and between E-470 and 120th Avenue. Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the commuter rail, constructing the general purpose lanes from SH 14 to SH 66, and constructing TELs from SH 66 to E-470. Metropolitan Planning Regulation (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 450.322) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.104) work together to require that a project located in a Metropolitan Planning Area and/or in a CAA nonattainment or maintenance area, be contained in a conforming, fiscally-constrained long-range regional transportation plan. Through a ROD, FHWA can approve project improvements that are included in conforming, fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans. After this Final EIS has been made available to the public and the review period concludes, FHWA and CDOT will identify an initial phase for the ROD. Phase 1, as identified in this chapter, is proposed as Phase 1 for the ROD. Consideration of the Final EIS and the first ROD will be part of future implementation of projects. Improvements included in Phase 2 and Phase 3 can be re-evaluated, as necessary, based on future safety needs, funding availability, and transportation needs and identified in subsequent RODs as additional funding becomes available. Phases 2 and 3 do not necessarily need to be selected in their entirety or in order in subsequent RODs. This will be determined at the time of a subsequent ROD, considering • available funding, priorities at that time, and the results of any reevaluation that may be needed. Executive Summary ES-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The identification of a Preferred Alternative for the entire project in this Final EIS is consistent with FHWA's objective of analyzing and identifying transportation solutions on a broad enough scale to provide meaningful analysis and to avoid segmentation. The identification of an initial phase for implementation is consistent with FHWA requirements to have funding for projects identified before final decisions are made. As funds become available, it is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to work toward implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety through this phased approach. • • Executive Summary ES-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure ES-6 Preferred Alternative Phase 1 t Wellington 85 1 — 287 Mountain Vista ♦ 14 - Ault a on g. Fort C lin ♦=ospect No Phase 1 ia� Station Construction I Harmony nath Severance Eaton I _ - 257 No Phase 1 (On-Street Stop Only) Station 392 Lucerne Construction LEGEND Windsor 34 Crossroads (On-Street MENCmi Commuter Bus & Stations Lov = I nd — Blv� •� Stop Only) uunuOlmn,u Initial I-25 Express Bus & Stations ' • uY- 34 Greeley ( ) Commuter Rail ROW Preservation I • Garden City 402 IIIIIIIOII Continuous Accel/Decel Lanes 8CR 16 257 Evan • Tolled Express Lanes - I 60 CR 50 C n Johnstown La Salle O Interchange Reconstruction 60 O NFR Separate Action Interchange /'I 56 Milliken Upgrade(No-Action Alternative) th' d G en Phase 1: FasTracks Rail Line Ph o FasTracks/ RTD Transit Station Construction of - 38 interchange at US 34 / • Existing Interchange ♦ R 34 w E �_ r Centerra Parkway Ill 7 Mee• ltlattevlll 66 • Longmont IC9 Jr 36 rI - i85 119 Firestone 287 d•rick Iwot L 52 • 52 • WC- ' eW ewn: . 8 Fort Damon* Upton •y •T s Erie • • • •119 • • , • • La yetb 7 • e • �71� 7 • 93 36 Low •'ul Sri on Northwest 144th Ave. • • • Rail Corridor supers areondieidI- •• • ROOMIEI T• Igo" . e ft Ave. • Com c• ve • • r ; i / 72 t etir'a' North Metro E470 Denver Corridor International 84 hAve Alrpa►t • • .uir s • 2 • m•n.n1•nt .f � k 'CsG's •T• • :;luniuillt1 JEFFER - ON , 76 • 70 7t _ _ ,,SfoigyLOWn 40 [U1@@AA�� V 0 2 4 6 8 10 s : Denver • ... Mnes North / ►• ve 25 III Executive Summary ES-18 TABLE OF CONTENTS =''_' 41. —:-. ;: 1 - . A'R's Y'•' . x ' f1" t 4. `:'r?-.aka- . -T-.Y •'�!r��Q .•, • %., p NoRTH 1-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 ES.1 Summary of the Action ES-1 ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study Area ES-1 ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives Considered ES-3 ES.4 Decision Making Process ES-9 ES.5 Summary of Major Environmental and Transportation Impacts and Mitigation ES-9 ES.6 Other Federal Actions Required ES-15 ES.7 Next Steps in the NEPA Process ES-15 ES.8 Phased Project Implementation ES-15 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Project Location 1-1 1.3 Background and Project History 1-3 1.4 Project Purpose 1-4 4111 1.5 Need for the Action 1-4 1.5.1 Highway Safety Concerns 1-5 1.5.2 Highway and Transit Mobility and Accessibility 1-8 1.5.3 Aging and Obsolete Highway Infrastructure 1-10 1.5.4 Highway and Transit Modal Alternatives and Interrelationships 1-12 1.6 Relationship to the Transportation Planning Process 1-14 1.6.1 North Front Range 1-14 1.6.2 Upper Front Range 1-14 1.6.3 Denver Area 1-16 1.6.4 Statewide Plan 1-16 1.7 Recent Corridor Studies 1-17 1.7.1 US 287 Environmental Assessment 1-17 1.7.2 US 287 Environmental Overview Study 1-17 1.7.3 SH 392 Environmental Overview Study 1-17 1.7.4 US 34 Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.5 US 34 Business Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.6 SH 60 Environmental Overview Study 1-19 1.7.7 SH 402 Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.8 SH 7 (Arapahoe Road) Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.9 US 36 Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 1.7.10 Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study 1-20 1.7.11 1-70 East Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 1.7 12 FasTracks 1-20 • 1.7.13 Northwest Rail Environmental Evaluation 1-21 1.7.14 North Metro Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 1.7.15 East Corridor Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 Table of Contents Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page 1.7.16 Denver Union Station Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 1.7.17 Colorado Rail Relocation Implementation Study 1-22 1.7.18 Colorado Tolling Enterprise/High Performance Transportation Enterprise 1-22 1.7.19 High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study— Phase Ill - Colorado Springs to Pueblo and Denver to Fort Collins 1-22 1.7.20 Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment 1-23 1.8 Relationship to NEPA 1-23 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES P-1 2.1 Description of Process 2-2 2.1.1 State and Federal Requirements 2-2 2.1.2 Purpose and Need, Reasonableness, and Potential to Impact Environmental Resources 2-3 2.1.3 Regional Planning Context 2-3 2.1.4 Public Input 2-6 2.1.5 Alternatives Screening Process 2-7 2.1.6 Decision Making Process 2-7 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed Evaluation 2-8 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative 2-9 • 2.2.2 Package A 2-12 2.2.3 Package B 2-36 2.2.4 Preferred Alternative 2-51 2.2.5 Preliminary Opinions of Probable Cost Comparison 2-77 2.3 Other Alternatives Considered 2-78 2.3.1 Question 1: Where should alternatives begin and end? 2-79 2.3.2 Question 2: What alignment(s) should be used? 2-82 2.3.3 Question 3: What facility type and transit mode should be evaluated? P-87 2.3.4 Outcome of Question 3: What facility type and transit mode should be evaluated? P-95 2.3.5 Question 4: How do the highway and transit alternatives fit together? 2-96 2.3.6 Question 5: What is the Basis for Identifying the Preferred Alternative? 2-98 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1 3.1 Land Use 3.1-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3.1-1 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.1-12 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 3.1-31 3.2 Social Conditions 3.2-1 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.2-1 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2-6 • 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 3.2-25 3.2.4 Environmental Justice 3.2-25 Table of Contents Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page 3.3 Economic Conditions 3.3-1 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3.3-1 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3-4 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures 3.3-15 3.4 Right-of-Way 3.4-1 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.4-1 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4-3 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3.4-13 3.5 Air Quality 3.5-1 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework 3.5-1 3.5.2 Affected Environment 3.5-4 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3.5-16 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures 3.5-48 3.6 Noise and Vibration 3.6-1 3.6.1 Methodology 3.6-2 3.6.2 Affected Environment 3.6-4 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 3.6-14 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures 3.6-30 • 3.6.5 Construction Noise 3.6-45 3.6.6 Summary 3.6-46 3.7 Water Resources 3.7-1 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations 3.7-1 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3.7-3 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 3.7-11 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures 3.7-23 3.8 Wetlands 3.8-1 3.8.1 Affected Environment 3.8-2 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3.8-6 3.8.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 3.8-13 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures 3.8-13 3.9 Floodplains 3.9-1 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework 3.9-1 3.9.2 Affected Environment 3.9-2 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 3.9-6 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures 3.9-21 3.10 Vegetation 3.10-1 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3.10-1 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10-4 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures 3.10-10 3.11 Noxious Weeds 3.11-1 3.11.1 Affected Environment 3.11-1 • 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3.11-2 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures 3.11-7 Table of Contents iii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page 3.12 Wildlife 3.12-1 3.12.1 Regulatory Framework 3.12-1 3.12.2 Affected Environment 3.12-2 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 3.12-9 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures 3.12-29 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species 3.13-1 3.13.1 Regulatory Framework 3.13-1 3.13.2 Affected Environment 3.13-2 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 3.13-10 3.13.4 Indirect Impacts For All Build General Purpose Lanes, Commuter Rail, and Tolled Express Lanes 3.13-33 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures 3.13-34 3.14 Visual Quality 3.14-1 3.14.1 Introduction 3.14-1 3.14.2 Affected Environment 3.14-2 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3.14-6 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures 3.14-46 3.15 Historic Preservation 3.15-1 3.15.1 Affected Environment 3.15-1 • 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 3.15-10 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures 3.15-252 3.15.4 Native American Consultation 3.15-255 3.16 Paleontological Resources 3.16-1 3.16.1 Affected Environment 3.16-1 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences 3.16-1 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures 3.16-3 3.17 Hazardous Materials 3.17-1 3.17.1 Affected Environment 3.17-2 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17-6 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures 3.17-47 3.18 Parks and Recreation 3.18-1 3.18.1 Affected Environment 3.18-1 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences 3.18-7 3.18.3 Summary of Impacts 3.18-18 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures 3.18-19 3.19 Section 6(f) 3.19-1 3.19.1 Existing Section 6(f) Resources 3.19-1 3.19.2 Environmental Consequences 3.19-2 3.19.3 Coordination and Mitigation 3.19-2 3.20 Farmlands 3.20-1 3.20.1 Affected Environment 3.20-1 • 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences 3.20-5 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures 3.20-9 Table of Contents iv Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page 3.21 Energy 3.21-1 3.21.1 Introduction 3.21-1 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences 3.21-1 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures 3.21-4 3.22 Public Safety and Security 3.22-1 3.22.1 Affected Environment 3.22-1 3.22.2 Environmental Consequences 3.22-5 3.22.3 Preferred Alternative 3.22-10 3.22.4 Mitigation Measures 3.22-10 3.23 Construction 3.23-1 3.23.1 Construction Schedule 3.23-1 3.23.2 Environmental Consequences 3.23-2 3.23.3 Mitigation Measures 3.23-10 3.23.4 Summary 3.23-14 3.24 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 3.24-1 3.24.1 No-Action Alternative 3.24-1 3.24.2 Package A, Package B, and Preferred Alternative 3.24-1 • 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.25-1 3.26 Cumulative Impacts 3.26-1 3.26.1 Methodology 3.26-1 3.26.2 Affected Environment 3.26-20 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences 3.26-22 3.26.4 Conclusion 3.26-36 3.27 Permits Required 3.27-1 3.27.1 Water Quality/Water Resources 3.27-1 3.27.2 Air Quality 3.27-2 3.27.3 Biological Resources 3.27-3 3.27.4 Access 3.27-3 3.27.5 Other Local Permits 3.27-3 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-1 3.29 Mitigation Summary 3.29-1 CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 4-1 4.1 Compatibility with Transportation Plans and Policies 4-1 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative 4-1 4.1.2 Package Compatibility 4-1 4.2 Travel Demand 4-4 4.2.1 Overview of Travel Forecasting 4-4 4.2.2 Hours and Miles of Travel 4-5 4.2.3 Highway Volumes 4-5 • Table of Contents V Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page 4.3 Travel Time 4-22 4.3.1 Existing Travel Time 4-22 4.3.2 2035 Travel Time 4-23 4.3.3 Travel Time Reliability 4-27 4.3.4 Travel Rate Index 4-28 4.4 Level of Service 4-29 4.4.1 Existing 1-25 Mainline 4-29 4.4.2 2035 1-25 Mainline 4-33 4.4.3 US 85 Operation 4-39 4.4.4 US 34 Operation 4-39 4.4.5 Harmony Road Operation 4-40 4.4.6 Downtown Denver Operation 4-40 4.4.7 Interchange Operation 4-40 4.4.8 Transit Stations and Car Pool Lots 4-44 4.4.9 Maintenance Facilities 4-49 4.5 Transit Operations 4-50 4.5.1 Existing Conditions 4-51 4.5.2 Package A 4-51 4.5.3 Package B 4-52 • 4.5.4 Preferred Alternative 4-53 4.5.5 Transit User Experience 4-54 4.6 Safety 4-54 4.6.1 Functionally Obsolete 1-25 Infrastructure 4-54 4.6.2 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings 4-56 4.6.3 Safety Statistics for Rail versus Highway 4-56 4.6.4 Highway Crash Prediction 4-56 4.7 Freight Traffic 4-57 4.7.1 Truck Freight 4-57 4.7.2 Rail Freight 4-58 4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems 4-58 4.8.1 Existing Conditions 4-59 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative 4-59 4.8.3 Package A 4-59 4.8.4 Package B 4-61 4.8.5 Preferred Alternative 4-61 4.9 Construction Impacts 4-61 4.9.1 No-Action Alternative 4-61 4.9.2 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative 4-62 4.9.3 Construction Mitigation Measures 4-64 4.10 Summary of Transportation Findings 4-66 • Table of Contents vi Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 5-1 5.1 Application of Section 4(f) 5-1 5.1.1 Introduction 5-1 5.1.2 Section 4(f) "Use" 5-3 5.2 Section 4(f) Project Information 5-4 5.2.1 Purpose and Need 5-4 5.2.2 Corridor-Wide Alternatives 5-6 5.2.3 Alternatives 5-11 5.3 Project Process and Identification of Section 4(f) Resources 5-19 5.3.1 Consultation and Coordination 5-20 5.3.2 Identification of Section 4(f) Resources 5-20 5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Resources 5-28 5.4.1 Introduction 5-28 5.4.2 Approach/Methodology 5-28 5.4.3 Temporary Occupancy of Trails 5-28 5.4.4 Use of Historic Properties 5-30 5.4.5 Use of Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and • Waterfowl Refuge Resources 5-63 5.5 De minimis Impacts 5-69 5.5.1 De Minimis for Historic Resources 5-70 5.5.2 De minimis for Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge 5-208 5.6 Least Overall Harm Analysis 5-245 5.6.1 Ability to Mitigate Adverse Impacts 5-250 5.6.2 Relative Severity of the Remaining Harm 5-251 5.6.3 Relative Significance of Each Property 5-253 5.6.4 Views of the Officials with Jurisdiction 5-254 5.6.5 Degree to Which Each Alternative Meets the Purpose and Need of the Project 5-254 5.6.6 Magnitude, After Mitigation, of Adverse Impacts to Other Resources 5-257 5.6.7 Substantial Differences in Cost 5-258 5.6.8 Summary 5-259 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 6-1 6.1 Capital Costs 6-1 6.1.1 Package A 6-1 6.1.2 Package B 6-2 6.1.3 Preferred Alternative 6-2 6.1.4 Cost Estimate Review 6-3 6.1.5 Current Allocated Funding 6-4 • 6.1.6 Capital Cost and Revenue Summary 6-5 Table of Contents vii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Pape 6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 6-5 6.2.1 Transit O&M Costs 6-5 6.2.2 Highway O&M Costs 6-6 6.3 Revenue Projections 6-6 6.3.1 Transit Farebox Revenues 6-7 6.3.2 Tolled Express Lane Toll Revenues 6-7 6.4 Annual Cash Flow Assessment 6-8 6.4.1 Transit Cash Flow Assessment 6-8 6.4.2 Highway Cash Flow Assessment 6-8 6.5 Cost per User 6-9 6.6 Summary of Funding Shortfall 6-10 CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7-1 7.1 Evaluation Framework 7-1 7.2 Responsiveness to Purpose and Need 7-1 7.2.1 Effectiveness at Improving Mobility and Accessibility 7-1 7.2.2 Effectiveness at Improving Safety 7-2 7.2.3 Effectiveness at Replacing Aging Highway Infrastructure 7-2 • 7.2.4 Effectiveness at Providing Modal Choices 7-2 7.3 Environmental Consequences 7-3 7.4 Capital and Operating Costs 7-3 7.5 Summary of Evaluation 7-4 CHAPTER 8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.2 Identification of Project Phases 8.3 8.2.1 Decision Making Process 8-3 8.2.2 Project Prioritization Process 8-3 8.2.3 Prioritization of Improvements for Phase 1 8-5 8.3 Implementation of Future Project Phases 8-6 8.4 Detailed Discussion of Project Phases 8-9 8.4.1 Phase 1 8-10 8.4.2 Phase 2 8-18 8.4.3 Phase 3 8-21 8.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 8-23 CHAPTER 9 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 9.1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Coordination 9-1 9.2.1 Agency Coordination 9-1 9.2.2 Technical Coordination 9.2 • 9.2.3 Technical Coordination 9-5 9.2.4 Public Coordination 9-5 Table of Contents viii Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 (cont'd) Page 9.3 Scoping and Pre-Draft EIS Concerns 9-18 9.3.1 Transit 9-19 9.3.2 Highway 9-19 9.3.3 Environment 9-20 9.3.4 Other Comments 9-20 9.4 Release of the Draft EIS 9-21 9.4.1 Summary of Comments 9-22 9.5 Future Public Involvement Activities 9-24 CHAPTER 10 LIST OF PREPARERS 10-1 CHAPTER 11 LIST OF REFERENCES 11-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 OF 3 • APPENDIX A PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE/REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DECISION MAKING PROCESS APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION ► Land Use ► Environmental Justice ► Noise Maps ► Wildlife Technical Report and Addendum ► Biological Assessment ► Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 3 OF 3 APPENDIX D PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL AGENCY COORDINATION APPENDIX E FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY COORDINATION • Table of Contents ix Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • TECHNICAL REPORTS (BOUND SEPARATELY) ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING REPORT (Incorporated by reference and provided with this Final EIS in a separate volume) PACKAGE CONCEPT PLANS (Separate 11x17 volume) OTHER TECHNICAL REPORTS (Available for review at CDOT Region 4 — Greeley; two volumes) ► Air Quality Technical Report and Addendum ► Traffic Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment and Addendum ► Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment ► Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report and Addendum ► Wetlands Technical Report and Addendum ► Historic Resources Survey ► Paleontological Resources Report ► Modified Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Addendum • ► Transportation Analysis Technical Report and Addendum ► North 1-25 Project Cost Estimate Review— Final Report • Table of Contents x Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure ES-1 North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area ES-2 Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative ES-4 Figure ES-3 Package A ES-5 Figure ES-4 Package B ES-7 Figure ES-5 Preferred Alternative ES-8 Figure ES-6 Preferred Alternative Phase 1 ES-18 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Figure 1-1 North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area 1-2 Figure 1-2 Year 2005 and 2035 Households and Employment in the Regional Study Area 1-4 Figure 1-3 Current and Future Daily Traffic Volumes and Capacities 1-10 Figure 1-4 Transportation Planning Region Boundaries 1-15 Figure 1-5 Recent Corridor Studies 1-18 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES • Figure 2-1 Regional Planning Context 2-5 Figure 2-2 No-Action Alternative 2-10 Figure 2-3 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section—SH 1 to SH 66 2-11 Figure 2-4 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 66 to SH 7 2-11 Figure 2-5 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section — South of SH 7 2-11 Figure 2-6 Package A 2-13 Figure 2-7 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 1 to SH 14 2-14 Figure 2-8 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section—SH 14 to Crossroads Boulevard 2-14 Figure 2-9 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — Crossroads Boulevard to SH 60 2-14 Figure 2-10 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 60 to SH 66 2-14 Figure 2-11 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section (same as No-Action)—SH 66 to SH 52 2.15 Figure 2-12 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 52 to SH 7 2-15 Figure 2-13 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 7 to E-470 2-15 Figure 2-14 SH 14 Interchange 2-17 Figure 2-15 US 34 Interchange 2-17 Figure 2-16 SH 402 Interchange 2-18 Figure 2-17 LCR 16 Interchange 2-18 Figure 2-18 SH 56 Interchange 2-19 Figure 2-19 SH 7 Interchange 2-19 Figure 2-20 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Design 2-28 • Figure 2-21 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Cross Section 2-29 Figure 2-22 Commuter Bus (and Express Bus) Downtown Denver Circulation 2-32 List of Figures xi Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (C0NT'D) Page Figure 2-23 Package B 2-37 Figure 2-24 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 1 to SH 14 2-38 Figure 2-25 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 14 to Harmony Rd. 2-38 Figure 2-26 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — Harmony Rd. to SH 60 2-38 Figure 2-27 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 60 to SH 66 2-39 Figure 2-28 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 66 to SH 7 2-39 Figure 2-29 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 7 to US 36 2-39 Figure 2-30 Tolled Express Lanes Access and Egress Locations 2-41 Figure 2-31 Slip-Ramp Design Concept 2-42 Figure 2-32 BRT Station Layout at Windsor (Northbound Lanes with Barrier Separation) 2-46 Figure 2-33 Package B Typical BRT Station Cross Sections 2-46 Figure 2-34 Preferred Alternative 2-54 Figure 2-35 Origins and Destinations from North Front Range to South of SH 66 2-80 Figure 2-36 Highway Alignments Considered 2-83 Figure 2-37 Transit Alignments Considered 2-86 Figure 2-38 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process 2-88 • Figure 2-39 Typical Capacity of Facility Types Considered 2-92 Figure 2-40 Capital Cost of 1-25 Lane Options Considered 2-93 Figure 2-41 Miles of Congestion in 1-25 General Purpose Lanes 2-93 Figure 2-42 Comparing Transit Alternatives by Cost and Ridership 2-95 Figure 2-43 Modes Considered for Combining into Packages 2-97 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Figure 3.1-1 North 1-25 Regional Study Area Municipal and County Boundaries (as of May 2005) 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-2 North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use 3.1-6 Figure 3.1-3 North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use 3.1-10 Figure 3.1-4 Induced Growth Impacts— No-Action 3.1-14 Figure 3.1-5 Induced Growth Impacts — Package A 3.1-20 Figure 3.1-6 Induced Growth Impacts— Package B 3.1-24 Figure 3.1-7 Induced Growth Impacts— Preferred Alternative 3.1-32 Figure 3.2-1 Future Population Growth Summarized by Municipal Area 3.2-3 Figure 3.2-2 Community Facilities 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-3 Minority and Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Data 3.2-28 Figure 3.2-4 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources 3.P-29 • List of Figures xii Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D) Page Figure 3.3-1 Future Employment Summarized by Municipal Area 3.3-2 Figure 3.4-1 Package A Displacements 3.4-8 Figure 3.4-2 Package B Displacements 3.4-10 Figure 3.4-3 Preferred Alternative Displacements 3.4-12 Figure 3.5-1 Non-Attainment and Attainment/Maintenance Areas 3.5-6 Figure 3.5-2 National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 to 2050 for Vehicles Operating On Roadways Using EPA's Mobile 6.2 Model 3.5-9 Figure 3.5-3 2002 Ammonia Emissions for the Front Range Area 3.5-13 Figure 3.6-1 Transit Noise Impact Criteria 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-2 Noise Sensitive Areas along Project Corridors 3.6-5 Figure 3.6-3 Existing Noise Barriers along Project Corridor 3.6-7 Figure 3.6-4 Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations 3.6-9 Figure 3.6-5 Existing Traffic Noise Impacted Receivers 3.6-12 Figure 3.6-6 Noise-Impacted Areas for the No-Action Alternative (Year 2035) 3.6-16 Figure 3.6-7 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package A (Year 2035) 3.6-19 Figure 3.6-8 Proposed Bus Transit Facilites for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alterntive 3.6-20 • Figure 3.6-9 Projected Package A and Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Noise Exposure at 75 MPH Train Speed 3.6-21 Figure 3.6-10 Projected Package A and Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Ground Vibration Levels at 75 MPH 3.6-24 Figure 3.6-11 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package B (Year 2035) 3.6-26 Figure 3.6-12 Noise-Impacted Areas for Preferred Alternative (Year 2035) 3.6-29 Figure 3.6-13 Locations of Traffic Noise Barriers Evaluated 3.6-33 Figure 3.6-14 Recommended Noise Barrier near Wellington 3.6-37 Figure 3.6-15 Recommended Noise Barrier near Mountain Range Shadows 3.6-37 Figure 3.6-16 Recommended Noise Barrier near Thorncreek Village 3.6-38 Figure 3.6-17 Recommended Noise Barriers near Community Center Drive 3.6-38 Figure 3.6-18 Recommended Noise Barrier near Badding Reservoir 3.6-39 Figure 3.6-19 Recommended Noise Barrier near Brittany Ridge 3.6-39 Figure 3.7-1 South Platte River Basin 3.7-4 Figure 3.7-2 Watersheds in the Regional Study Area 3.7-5 Figure 3.7-3 Impaired Streams in the Regional Study Area 3.7-8 Figure 3.7-4 Dricoll Model Results by Watershed for Dissolved Copper 3.7-15 Figure 3.7-5 Package A—Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments 3.7-27 Figure 3.7-6 Package B—Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments 3.7-28 Figure 3.7-7 Preferred Alternative—Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments 3.7-29 Figure 3.8-1 Water Resources in the Project Area 3.8-4 • Figure 3.9-1 Watershed Boundaries 3.9-3 Figure 3.9-2 Floodplain Impacts for the No-Action Alternative 3.9-7 List of Figures xiii Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (coNr'D) Page Figure 3.9-3 Package A Floodplain Impacts 3.9-9 Figure 3.9-4 Package B Floodplain Impacts 3.9-16 Figure 3.9-5 Preferred Alternative Floodplain Impacts 3.9-20 Figure 3.12-1 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Regional Study Area 3.12-7 Figure 3.13-1 Bald Eagle Roost/Nests and Possible Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat in the Regional Study Area 3.13-6 Figure 3.14-1 Visual Resources Identified in the Regional Study Area 3.14-5 Figure 3.14-2 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Plaza 3.14-14 Figure 3.14-3 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Station 3.14-15 Figure 3.14-4 Windsor Station, View from BRT Plaza 3.14-27 Figure 3.14-5 Windsor Station, View from BRT Loading/Unloading Zone 3.14-27 Figure 3.15-1 Non-Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect 3.15-4 Figure 3.15-2 Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect 3.15-5 Figure 3.15-3 5LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-14 Figure 3.15-4 LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-15 Figure 3.15-5 5LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm)—Packages A and B 3.15-19 Figure 3.15-6 LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-20 Figure 3.15-7 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal)—Packages A and B 3.15-22 • Figure 3.15-8 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-24 Figure 3.15-9 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-25 Figure 3.15-10 5LR.1731.2 (Colorado & Southern Railroad, Black Hollow Branch)— Packages A and B 3.15-27 Figure 3.15-11 5LR.1731.2 (Colorado & Southern Railroad, Black Hollow Branch)— Preferred Alternative 3.15-29 Figure 3.15-12 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad)—Package A 3.15-31 Figure 3.15-13 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad)—Package B 3.15-32 Figure 3.15-14 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-34 Figure 3.15-15 Typical Commuter Rail Station Design and Cross Section 3.15-35 Figure 3.15-16 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet)— Packages A and B 3.15-39 Figure 3.15-17 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet)— Preferred Alternative 3.15-40 Figure 3.15-18 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-43 Figure 3.15-19 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-44 Figure 3.15-20 5LR.8930 (Louden Ditch)—Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-46 Figure 3.15-21 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch)—Package A 3.15-48 Figure 3.15-22 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch)—Package B 3.15-49 Figure 3.15-23 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-51 Figure 3.15-24 LR.8930.2 (Louden Ditch — Preferred Alternative 3.15-52 Figure 3.15-25 5LR.1815 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)— • Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-54 List of Figures xiv Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (com-D) Page Figure 3.15-26 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)—Package A 3.15-56 Figure 3.15-27 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)—Package B 3.15-57 Figure 3.15-28 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)— Preferred Alternative 3.15-58 Figure 3.15-29 5LR.503 (Loveland and Greeley Canal)—Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-60 Figure 3.15-30 5LR.503.2 (Loveland and Greeley Canal)—Packages A and B 3.15-62 Figure 3.15-31 5LR.503.2 (Loveland and Greeley Canal)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-64 Figure 3.15-32 5LR.8928 (Farmers' Ditch)—Segments intersecting the project APE 3.15-68 Figure 3.15-33 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch)—Location Map 3.15-69 Figure 3.15-34 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-70 Figure 3.15-35 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-71 Figure 3.15-36 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm)—Package A 3.15-73 Figure 3.15-37 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm)—Package B 3.15-77 Figure 3.15-38 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm—Preferred Alternative 3.15-78 Figure 3.15-39 5LR.11210 (McDonough Farm)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-83 Figure 3.15-40 5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514 (Great Western Railway)—Segments • Intersecting Project APE 3.15-85 Figure 3.15-41 SLR.850.1 (Great Western Railway)-Package A 3.15-86 Figure 3.15-42 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway)-Package B 3.15-88 Figure 3.15-43 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-90 Figure 3.15-44 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railroad)- Package A 3.15-91 Figure 3.15-45 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway)-Package B 3.15-93 Figure 3.15-46 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-94 Figure 3.15-47 5WL.841.9 (Great Western Railway)-Packages A and B 3.15-96 Figure 3.15-48 5WL.841.9 (Great Western Railway)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-98 Figure 3.15-49 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator)-Package A 3.15-101 Figure 3.15-50 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator)-Package B 3.15-102 Figure 3.15-51 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-103 Figure 3.15-52 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm)-Package A 3.15-105 Figure 3.15-53 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm)-Package B 3.15-108 Figure 3.15-54 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-109 Figure 3.15-55 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch)-Packages A and B 3.15-112 Figure 3.15-56 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-113 Figure 3.15-57 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm)-Package A 3.15-116 Figure 3.15-58 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm)-Package B 3.15-117 Figure 3.15-59 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-119 • Figure 3.15-60 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm)-Package A 3.15-126 Figure 3.15-61 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm)-Package B 3.15-127 Figure 3.15-62 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm)-Preferred Alternative 3.15-129 List of Figures xv Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (coNro) Page Figure 3.15-63 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence)— Package A and B 3.15-131 Figure 3.15-64 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence)— Preferred Alternative 3.15-132 Figure 3.15-65 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm)—Package A 3.15-136 Figure 3.15-66 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm)—Package B 3.15-138 Figure 3.15-67 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-139 Figure 3.15-68 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch)—Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-143 Figure 3.15-69 5WL.1974.3 (Rural Ditch)—Package A 3.15-144 Figure 3.15-70 5WL.1974.3 (Rural Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-147 Figure 3.15-71 5WL.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch)—Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-149 Figure 3.15-72 5WL.1970.7 (Lower Boulder Ditch)—Package A 3.15-151 Figure 3.15-73 5WL.1970.7 (Lower Boulder Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-152 Figure 3.15-74 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-154 Figure 3.15-75 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch)—Packages A& B3.15-158 Figure 3.15-76 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch)—Preferred • Alternative 3.15-159 Figure 3.15-77 5WL.1966.8 (Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch)— Package A 3.15-161 Figure 3.15-78 5WL.1966.8 (Bull Ditch Segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch)— Preferred Alternative 3.15-163 Figure 3.15-79 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado-Fort Collins Sub-Station)—Package A 3.15-169 Figure 3.15-80 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado-Fort Collins Sub-station)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-170 Figure 3.15-81 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County Canal No.2)—Package A 3.15-172 Figure 3.15-82 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County No. 2)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-173 Figure 3.15-83 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot) Package A 3.15-175 Figure 3.15-84 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot) Preferred Alternative 3.15-176 Figure 3.15-85 5LR.1729.2 (Big Thompson Ditch)—Package A 3.15-178 Figure 3.15-86 5LR.1729.2 (Big Thompson Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-179 Figure 3.15-87 5LR.2552 (Ludlow Brothers Property)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-181 Figure 3.15-88 5LR.1710.1 (Handy Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-183 Figure 3.15-89 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch)—Package A 3.15-184 Figure 3.15-90 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-185 Figure 3.15-91 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch)—Package A 3.15-187 • Figure 3.15-92 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-189 Figure 3.15-93 5BL.4832 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Segment Intersecting Project APE 3.15-190 List of Figures xvi Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (coNTD) Page Figure 3.15-94 5BL.4832.28 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-192 Figure 3.15-95 5BL.4832.28 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-193 Figure 3.15-96 5BL.4832.26 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-194 Figure 3.15-97 5BL.4832.26 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-195 Figure 3.15-98 5BL.9163 (Kitely House)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-198 Figure 3.15-99 5BL.10636 (Boggs Residence)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-199 Figure 3.15-100 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-201 Figure 3.15-101 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-202 Figure 3.15-102 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot)—Package A 3.15-204 Figure 3.15-103 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-205 Figure 3.15-104 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Plant and Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds)—Package A 3.15-207 Figure 3.15-105 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Plant and Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-208 Figure 3.15-106 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch)—Package A 3.15-212 Figure 3.15-107 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-213 Figure 3.15-108 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch)—Package A 3.15-215 • Figure 3.15-109 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-216 Figure 3.15-110 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm)—Package A 3.15-218 Figure 3.15-111 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-220 Figure 3.15-112 5WL.6564 (Jillson Farm)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-222 Figure 3.15-113 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch)—Package A 3.15-224 Figure 3.15-114 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-225 Figure 3.15-115 5WL.1317, 5AM.472 (UPRR-Dent Branch)—Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-227 Figure 3.15-116 5WL.1317.11 (UPRR-Dent Branch)—Package A 3.15-228 Figure 3.15-117 5WL.1317.11 (UPRR-Dent Branch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-229 Figure 3.15-118 5WL.1969 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch)—Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-231 Figure 3.15-119 5WL.1969.41 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch)—Package A 3.15-233 Figure 3.15-120 5WL.1969.41 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-234 Figure 3.15-121 5WL.1969.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch)—Package A. 3.15-235 Figure 3.15-122 5WL.1969.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch) Preferred Alternative 3.15-237 Figure 3.15-1235 BF.130.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, • Denver & Boulder Valley Branch)—Package A 3.15-238 Figure 3.15-124 5BF.130.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch)—Preferred Alternative 3.15-239 List of Figures xvii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (coNro) Page Figure 3.17-1 Location of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination 3.17-4 Figure 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements 3.18-3 Figure 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area 3.20-4 Figure 3.22-1 Emergency Service Provider Locations within the Regional Study Area 3.22-3 Figure 3.23-1 Approximate Best-Case Construction Schedule for All Build Alternatives 3.23-2 CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Figure 4-1 Mainline 1-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison 4-7 Figure 4-2 Daily Highway Users (People) on 1-25 4-9 Figure 4-3 Parallel Arterial Effects (2035 Daily Volumes) 4-10 Figure 4-4 Package A 2035 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership 4-14 Figure 4-5 Package B 2035 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership 4-16 Figure 4-6 Preferred Alternative 2035 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership 4-19 Figure 4-7 2035 Travel Time Comparison 4-23 Figure 4-8 SH 1 to 20th Street - General Purpose Lane Travel Time 4-24 Figure 4-9 SH 1 to 20th Street—Tolled Express Lane Travel Time 4-25 • Figure 4-10 Fort Collins South Transit Center(STC)to Downtown Denver - Transit Travel Time 4-26 Figure 4-11 Downtown Greeley to Downtown Denver- Transit Travel Time 4-27 Figure 4-12 Travel Rate Index Comparison 4-28 Figure 4-13 Level-of-Service Category Definitions 4-30 Figure 4-14 Existing Peak Hour 1-25 Mainline Level of Service 4-31 Figure 4-15 Existing Peak Hour 1-25 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service 4-32 Figure 4-16 2035 Peak Hour 1-25 Mainline LOS SH 1 to SH 56 4-34 Figure 4-17 2035 Peak Hour 1-25 Mainline LOS from CR 34 to 84th Avenue 4-35 Figure 4-18 2035 Peak Hour 1-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from SH 1 to SH 56 4-37 Figure 4-19 2035 Peak Hour 1-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from CR 34 to 84th Avenue 4-38 Figure 4-20 Peak Hour 1-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS SH 1 to SH 56 Planning Horizon 4-42 Figure 4-21 Peak Hour 1-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS CR 34 to 84th Avenue Planning Horizon 4-43 Figure 4-22 No-Action Alternative Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon 4-45 Figure 4-23 Package A Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon 4-46 Figure 4-24 Package B Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon 4-47 Figure 4-25 2035 Preferred Alternative Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS • Planning Horizon 4-48 Figure 4-26 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area 4-60 List of Figures xviii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (cowl)) Page CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION Figure 5-1 Highway Alignments Considered 5-5 Figure 5-2 Transit Alignments Considered 5-10 Figure 5-3 Package A 5-12 Figure 5-4 Package B 5-16 Figure 5-6 Section 4(f) Historic Properties 5-26 Figure 5-7 Section 4(f) Park, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Resources 5-27 Figure 5-8 Louden Ditch Package A Use 5-35 Figure 5-9 Louden Ditch Package B Use 5-36 Figure 5-10 Louden Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-37 Figure 5-11 Louden Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-38 Figure 5-12 Old City Electric Building Package A Use 5-42 Figure 5-13 Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot Package A Use 5-46 Figure 5-14 Hingley Farm Package A Use 5-50 Figure 5-15 Hingley Farm Preferred Alternative Use 5-51 Figure 5-16 Jillson Farm Package A and Preferred Alternative Use 5-55 • Figure 5-17 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch—Package A Use 5-60 Figure 5-18 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch—Package A and Preferred Alternative Use 5-61 Figure 5-19 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch—Package A and Preferred Alternative Use 5-62 Figure 5-20 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park Packages A and B Use 5-67 Figure 5-21 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park Preferred Alternative Use 5-68 Figure 5-22 Larimer County Ditch—Packages A and B Use 5-77 Figure 5-23 Larimer County Ditch—Preferred Alternative Use 5-78 Figure 5-24 Einarsen Farm Package A Use 5-82 Figure 5-25 Einarsen Farm Package B Use 5-83 Figure 5-26 Einarsen Farm—Preferred Alternative Use 5-84 Figure 5-27 Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet—Packages A and B Use 5-87 Figure 5-28 Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet—Preferred Alternative Use 5-88 Figure 5-29 Boxelder Ditch Packages A and B Use 5-92 Figure 5-30 Boxelder Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-93 Figure 5-31 Loveland and Greeley Canal Package A and B Use 5-97 Figure 5-32 Loveland and Greeley Canal Preferred Alternative Use 5-98 Figure 5-33 Farmers Ditch Packages A and B Location Map 5-102 Figure 5-34 Farmers Ditch Package A Use 5-103 • Figure 5-35 Farmers Ditch Package B Use 5-104 Figure 5-36 Farmers Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-105 List of Figures xix Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (coNro) Page Figure 5-37 Schmer Farm Package A Use 5-109 Figure 5-38 Schmer Farm Package B Use 5-110 Figure 5-39 Schmer Farm Preferred Alternative Use 5-111 Figure 5-40 McDonough Farm Use 5-114 Figure 5-41 Great Western Railway Package A Use 5-121 Figure 5-42 Great Western Railway Package B Use 5-122 Figure 5-43 Great Western Railway Preferred Alternative Use 5-123 Figure 5-44 Hatch Farm Package A Use 5-127 Figure 5-45 Hatch Farm Package B Use 5-128 Figure 5-46 Hatch Farm Preferred Alternative Use 5-129 Figure 5-47 Hillsboro Ditch Packages A and B Use 5-133 Figure 5-48 Hillsboro Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-134 Figure 5-49 Mountain View Farm Package A Use 5-138 Figure 5-50 Mountain View Farm Package B Use 5-139 Figure 5-51 Mountain View Farm Preferred Alternative Use 5-140 Figure 5-52 Bein Farm Package A Use 5-144 Figure 5-53 Bein Farm Package B Use 5-145 Figure 5-54 Bein Farm Preferred Alternative Use 5-146 • Figure 5-55 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence Use Packages A and B 5-149 Figure 5-56 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence Preferred Alternative Use 5-150 Figure 5-57 Olson Farm Package A Use 5-154 Figure 5-58 Olson Farm Package B Use 5-155 Figure 5-59 Olson Farm Preferred Alternative Use 5-156 Figure 5-60 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch—Packages A and B Use 5-163 Figure 5-61 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch—Package A Commuter Rail Use 5-164 Figure 5-62 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch—Preferred Alternative Use 5-165 Figure 5-63 Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/ Loveland Depot—Package A Use 5-168 Figure 5-64 Supply Ditch Package A Use 5-171 Figure 5-65 Supply Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-172 Figure 5-66 Rough & Ready Ditch Package A Use 5-175 Figure 5-67 Rough & Ready Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-176 Figure 5-68 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use 5-180 Figure 5-69 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use 5-181 Figure 5-70 Oligarchy Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-182 Figure 5-71 Oligarchy Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-183 Figure 5-72 Kitely House—Preferred Alternative 5-186 Figure 5-73 Big Thompson Ditch Package A Use 5-189 • Figure 5-74 Great Western Sugar Factory Package A Use 5-192 Figure 5-75 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use 5-195 List of Figures xx Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (cowl)) Page Figure 5-76 Sandstone Ranch Preferred Alternative Use 5-196 Figure 5-77 Boulder and Weld County Ditch Package A Use 5-199 Figure 5-78 Boulder and Weld County Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-200 Figure 5-79 Rural Ditch Package A Use 5-203 Figure 5-80 Rural Ditch Preferred Alternative Use 5-204 Figure 5-81 UPRR-Dent Branch Package A Use 5-207 Figure 5-82 Arapaho Bend Natural Area Package A and B Use 5-214 Figure 5-83 Arapaho Bend Natural Area Preferred Alternative Use 5-215 Figure 5-84 Archery Range Natural Area Package A and B Use 5-218 Figure 5-85 Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area Package A and B Use 5-221 Figure 5-86 Little Thompson River Corridor Packages A and B Use 5-224 Figure 5-87 Little Thompson River Corridor Preferred Alternative Use 5-225 Figure 5-88 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use 5-228 Figure 5-89 Sandstone Ranch Preferred Alternative Use 5-229 Figure 5-90 Railroad Alignment (21st to Hwy 66)Trail Preferred Alternative Use 5-232 Figure 5-91 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass Preferred Alternative Use 5-236 Figure 5-92 Farmers Highline Canal Trail 5-240 • Figure 5-93 Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail 5-244 CHAPTER 8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Figure 8-1 Preferred Alternative 8-2 Figure 8-2 Phased Implementation Process 8-8 Figure 8-3 Preferred Alternative Phasing — Phase 1 8-11 Figure 8-4 Phase 1 — 1-25 Mainline Level of Service (LOS) 8-16 Figure 8-5 Preferred Alternative Phasing — Phase 2 8-19 Figure 8-6 Preferred Alternative Phasing — Phase 3 8-22 • List of Figures xxi Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF TABLES Page CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Table 1-1 1-25 Level of Service of Safety 1-6 Table 1-2 Preliminary Assessment of Locations on North 1-25 with High Potential for Crash Reduction by Crash Type 1-7 Table 1-3 Aging and Obsolete Structures 1-11 Table 1-4 RTD FasTracks Project Schedule to Begin Operations 1-21 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Table 2-1 Package A Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action 2-16 Table 2-2 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments 2-25 Table 2-3 Package A Commuter Rail Stations 2-28 Table 2-4 Package A Commuter Bus Stations and Stops 2-31 Table 2-5 Package A - Congestion Management Measures 2-34 Table 2-6 Initial Tolled Express Lane Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle Toll Rates 2-40 Table 2-7 Package B Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action 2-47 Table 2-8 Package B BRT Stations 2-47 Table 2-9 Package B Congestion Management Measures 2-49 Table 2-10 Package B Parking Summary 2-50 • Table 2-11 Tolled Express Lanes Toll Rates, Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle 2-55 Table 2-12 Preferred Alternative 1-25 Interchange Configuration 2-56 Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configuration 2-56 Table 2-14 Preferred Alternative Carpool Parking 2-64 Table 2-15 Preferred Alternative Express Bus Stations 2-65 Table 2-16 Preferred Alternative Queue Jumps 2-67 Table 2-17 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations and Stops 2-68 Table 2-18 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations 2-68 Table 2-19 Preferred Alternative Congestion Management Measures 2-76 Table 2-20 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs 2-78 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 3.1-1 Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans 3.1-4 Table 3.1-2 Generalized Zoning Classifications 3.1-8 Table 3.1-3 Component A-T1 Compatibility 3.1-16 Table 3.1-4 Component A-T2 Compatibility 3.1-17 Table 3.1-5 Component A-T3 Compatibility 3.1-17 Table 3.1-6 Component B-T1 Compatibility 3.1-22 Table 3.1-7 Commuter Rail Component Compatibility 3.1-27 Table 3.1-8 Express Bus Component Compatibility 3.1-28 • Table 3.1-9 US 85 Commuter Bus Component Compatibility 3.1-29 List of Tables xxii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D) Page Table 3.2-1 Population and Household Forecasts in the Weld, Broomfield, and Larimer County Portions of the Regional Study Area 3.2-2 Table 3.2-2 Impacts to Community Facilities Within 0.25 Mile of the Commuter Rail Alignment 3.2-12 Table 3.2-3 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements 3.2-34 Table 3.2-4 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes 3.2-37 Table 3.2-5 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail 3.2-41 Table 3.2-6 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus 3.2-42 Table 3.2-7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements 3.2-43 Table 3.2-8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes 3.2-45 Table 3.2-9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit 3.2-46 Table 3.2-10 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for the Highway Component of • the Preferred Alternative 3.2-49 Table 3.2-11 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Commuter Rail Component for the Preferred Alternative 3.2-52 Table 3.2-12 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for the Express Bus Component 3.2-53 Table 3.2-13 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Commuter Rail Component of the Preferred Alternative 3.2-54 Table 3.3-1 Study Area Employment by County 3.3-1 Table 3.4-1 1-25 Existing Right-of-Way Widths in the Project Area 3.4-1 Table 3.4-2 1-25 Existing Interchange Widths in the Project Area 3.4-2 Table 3.4-3 Existing BNSF Rail Corridor Widths Parallel to US 287 3.4-2 Table 3.4-4 Existing UPRR Right-of-Way Widths for Commuter Rail Alignment at Connection to North Metro Line 3.4-3 Table 3.4-5 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package A 3.4-4 Table 3.4-6 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package B 3.4-5 Table 3.4-7 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Preferred Alternative 3.4-5 Table 3.4-8 Property Displacements for Package A 3.4-6 Table 3.4-9 Property Displacements for Package B 3.4-9 Table 3.4-10 Property Displacements for Preferred Alternative 3.4-11 Table 3.5-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 3.5-3 Table 3.5-2 2009-2010 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Stations 3.5-7 Table 3.5-3 Uniform Rate of Progress for Each Colorado Class I Area 3.5-14 • Table 3.5-4 Daily Region-Wide Total Mobile Source Emissions Estimates 3.5-17 Table 3.5-5 Daily Fort Collins Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-21 List of Tables xxiii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (coNT'D) Page Table 3.5-6 Daily Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-22 Table 3.5-7 Daily Longmont Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-23 Table 3.5-8 Daily Denver Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates (Ozone and PM,o Area) 3.5-26 Table 3.5-9 Daily Denver Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimate (CO area) 3.5-27 Table 3.5-10 Results of Hot Spot Analyses for Carbon Monoxide 3.5-28 Table 3.5-11 2009 Maximum 24-Hour Particulate Matter Concentrations 3.5-32 Table 3.5-12 Fugitive Dust Emissions 3.5-33 Table 3.5-13 Characteristics of SH7 BRT (or Express Bus) Station and Parking Facility 3.5-34 Table 3.5-14 Comparison of PMtp Dispersion Model Data at SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Lot [B-T1 Component] and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility 3.5-35 Table 3.5-15 North 1-25 Commuter Rail Maintenance Yard 3.5-37 Table 3.5-16 Comparisons of Commuter Rail Maintenance Yards 3.5-37 Table 3.5-17 Comparisons of Physical Attributes of the Commuter Bus Maintenance Facility in Commerce City to Greeley Bus and BRT Maintenance Facility 3.5-39 Table 3.5-18 Comparison of Commerce City RTD and Greeley Maintenance Facilities 3.5-40 Table 3.5-19 MSAT Emissions (tons per year) by Package 3.5-41 Table 3.5-20 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package A 3.5-44 • Table 3.5-21 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package B 3.5-45 Table 3.5-22 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by the Preferred Alternative 3.5-46 Table 3.5-23 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Phase 1 3.5-47 Table 3.6-1 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) 3.6-3 Table 3.6-2 Existing Traffic Noise Measurement Results 3.6-8 Table 3.6-3 Rail Noise Measurement Results 3.6-11 Table 3.6-4 Number of Properties Currently Impacted by Traffic Noise 3.6-13 Table 3.6-5 Vibration Measurement Data for Freight Trains 3.6-14 Table 3.6-6 Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts 3.6-17 Table 3.6-7 Summary of Residential Noise Impacts from Package A and Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail 3.6-22 Table 3.6-8 Summary of Residential Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts Without Mitigation for Package A and Preferred Alternative 3.6-25 Table 3.6-9 Traffic Noise Mitigation Barrier Summary 3.6-35 Table 3.6-10 Potential Rail Noise Barrier Mitigation Locations 3.6-41 Table 3.6-11 Potential Special Trackwork Vibration Mitigation Locations 3.6-42 Table 3.6-12 Potential Track Vibration Isolation Mitigation Locations 3.6-42 Table 3.7-1 Surface Water Segments, Designated Uses, and Impairments within the Project Area 3.7-7 • List of Tables xxiv Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D) Page Table 3.7-2 Mean Contaminant Loading Per Storm Event From The Driscoll Model (Pounds per Event) in the South Platte River Watershed 3.7-9 Table 3.7-3 Common Highway-Related Surface Water Quality Impacts 3.7-12 Table 3.7-4 Summary of Total and Treated Impervious Areas 3.7-13 Table 3.7-5 Driscoll Model Results by Watershed 3.7-14 Table 3.7-6 Projected Traffic Volumes (AADT)from the North 1-25 Project Alternatives 3.7-16 Table 3.7-7 Summary of Groundwater Wells within the Project Area 3.7-17 Table 3.8-1 Total Wetland Acreage Existing within the North 1-25 Project Area 3.8-5 Table 3.8-2 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package A Components 3.8-7 Table 3.8-3 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package B Components 3.8-9 Table 3.8-4 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Waters from Preferred Alternative Components 3.8-10 Table 3.9-1 Estimated Area of Impacts to Floodplains 3.9-8 Table 3.10-1 Common Plant Species of the North 1-25 Regional Study Area 3.10-2 Table 3.10-2 Distribution of Vegetation Types 3.10-3 • Table 3.10-3 Summary of Direct Impacts 3.10-10 Table 3.11-1 State of Colorado, County, and CDOT Weed List Species Observed in the Regional Study Area 3.11-2 Table 3.11-2 Summary of Direct Impacts 3.11-7 Table 3.12-1 Summary of Wildlife Crossing Areas Identified in the Project Area. 3.12-4 Table 3.12-2 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area 3.12-6 Table 3.12-3 Common Wildlife Species in the Project Area 3.12-8 Table 3.12-4 Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Highway Components 3.12-12 Table 3.12-5 Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Highway Components 3.12-13 Table 3.12-6 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Transit Components 3.12-15 Table 3.12-7 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Transit Components 3.12-16 Table 3.12-8 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package B Highway Components 3.12-18 Table 3.12-9 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package B Highway Components 3.12-19 Table 3.12-10 Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Preferred Alternative Highway Improvement Components 3.12-22 Table 3.12-11 Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Preferred Alternative • Highway Improvement Components 3.12-23 List of Tables xxv Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (coNT'o) Page Table 3.12-12 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Preferred Alternative Transit Components 3.12-25 Table 3.12-13 Summary of Effect to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Preferred Alternative Transit Components 3.12-25 Table 3.12-14 Summary of Effects to Aquatic Habitat (Including Fish) by Component 3.12-27 Table 3.12-15 Summary of Effects to Raptor Nests within 0.5 Mile of Project Area by Component 3.12-28 Table 3.12-16 Overall Summary of Effects to Wildlife Habitat by Component 3.12-29 Table 3.13-1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 3.13-3 Table 3.13-2 Federally Listed Wildlife Species Potentially Affected by Depletions to the Platte River System 3.13-3 Table 3.13-3 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Terrestrial) 3.13-7 Table 3.13-4 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Aquatic) 3.13-8 Table 3.13-5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area 3.13-9 Table 3.13-6 Alternative Water Usage from Construction 3.13-12 • Table 3.13-7 Summary of Effects to Occupied Preble's Habitat by Component 3.13-27 Table 3.13-8 Summary of Effects to Bald Eagle Forage Habitat by Component 3.13-28 Table 3.13-9 Summary of Effects to Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Occupied Habitat by Component 3.13-29 Table 3.13-10 Summary of Effects to Potential Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake Habitat by Component 3.13-30 Table 3.13-11 Summary of Effects to Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Affected by Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative 3.13-31 Table 3.13-12 Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative 3.13-31 Table 3.13-13 Summary of Direct Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Other Federally- Protected and State Sensitive Species by Component, in Acres 3.13-33 Table 3.14-1 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H1 3.14-7 Table 3.14-2 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H1 3.14-8 Table 3.14-3 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H2 3.14-9 Table 3.14-4 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H2 3.14-9 Table 3.14-5 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H3 3.14-10 Table 3.14-6 Package A Highway Components Effects Analysis 3.14-11 Table 3.14-7 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T1 3.14-12 Table 3.14-8 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T1 3.14-13 • Table 3.14-9 Component A-T1 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-14 List of Tables xxvi Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF TABLES (coNT'o) Page Table 3.14-10 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis 3.14-15 Table 3.14-11 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T2 3.14-17 Table 3.14-12 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T2 3.14-17 Table 3.14-13 Package A Commuter Rail Effects Analysis 3.14-18 Table 3.14-14 Component A-T2 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-18 Table 3.14-15 Component A-T3 Commuter Bus Station Effects Analysis 3.14-19 Table 3.14-16 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis 3.14-19 Table 3.14-17 Wall Locations in Component B-H1 3.14-20 Table 3.14-18 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H1 3.14-21 Table 3.14-19 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H2 3.14-22 Table 3.14-20 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H2 3.14-22 Table 3.14-21 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H3 3.14-24 Table 3.14-22 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H4 3.14-25 Table 3.14-23 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H4 3.14-26 Table 3.14-24 Package B Highway Effects Analysis 3.14-26 Table 3.14-25 Package B BRT Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-28 Table 3.14-26 Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis 3.14-28 • Table 3.14-27 1-25 Highway Improvements (SH 1 to US 36)Wall Locations 3.14-31 Table 3.14-28 Sound Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative 3.14-35 Table 3.14-29 Express Bus Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-38 Table 3.14-30 Retaining Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative 3.14-40 Table 3.14-31 Sound Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative 3.14-41 Table 3.14-32 New Grade Separations for Commuter Rail in the Preferred Alternative 3.14-42 Table 3.14-33 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-43 Table 3.14-34 Commuter Bus Station Effects Analysis 3.14-45 Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor 3.15-6 Table 3.15-2 Archaeological Resources Identified as Needing Data within the North 1-25 APE Listed from North to South 3.15-9 Table 3.15-3 Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component 3.15-243 Table 3.15-4 Mitigation Measures—Historic and Archaeological Preservation 3.15-254 Table 3.16-1 Summarized Paleontological Resource Mitigation Recommendations by Geologic Formation 3.16-4 Table 3.17-1 Summary of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination 3.17-2 Table 3.17-2 Summary of Oil and Gas Facilities Within the Project Area 3.17-5 Table 3.17-3 Package A- Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-8 • Table 3.17-4 Package B - Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-22 List of Tables xxvii Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (cow':) Page Table 3.17-5 Preferred Alternative - Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-30 Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements 3.18-4 Table 3.18-2 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package A 3.18-8 Table 3.18-3 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package B 3.18-12 Table 3.18-4 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with the Preferred Alternative 3.18-15 Table 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area 3.20-2 Table 3.20-2 Package A- Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component 3.20-6 Table 3.20-3 Package B - Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component 3.20-7 Table 3.20-4 Preferred Alternative - Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component 3.20-8 Table 3.20-5 NRCS Site Assessment Scores 3.20-9 Table 3.21-1 Daily VMT in the North 1-25 Study Area 3.21-2 Table 3.21-2 Energy Consumption by Alternative (Daily BTUs) 3.21-2 Table 3.21-3 Daily CO2 Production by Alternative 3.21-3 Table 3.23-1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels at 50 Feet 3.23-6 • Table 3.23-2 Vibration Source Levels For Construction (From Measured Data) 3.23-7 Table 3.23-3 Energy Consumption for Construction 3.23-10 Table 3.23-4 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies 3.23-11 Table 3.26-1 Transportation Projects within the Regional Study Area 3.26-3 Table 3.26-2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area 3.26-6 Table 3.26-3 Major Infrastructure Projects within the Regional Study Area 3.26-19 Table 3.26-4 Census Population Totals by County 1950-2000 3.26-21 Table 3.26-5 Land Use Change in Acres 1950-2005 3.26-23 Table 3.26-6 Annual CO2 Emissions Comparison 3.26-34 Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-2 Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 3.29-2 CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Table 4-1 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed 4-6 Table 4-2 Mainline 1-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison 4-8 Table 4-3 2035 Weekday Transit Ridership 4-12 Table 4-4 Package A Commuter Rail Station Activity (2035) 4-13 Table 4-5 Package B Bus Rapid Transit Station Activity (2035) 4-15 Table 4-6 Preferred Alternative Station Activity (2035) 4-17 Table 4-7 Transit Market Share of Northern Commuters to Downtown Denver 4-18 • Table 4-8 Additional Average Ridership in 2035 Generated by Special Event Travel 4-20 Table 4-9 Existing Peak-Hour Travel Time 4-22 List of Tables xxviii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF TABLES (C0NT'D) Page Table 4-10 Miles of 1-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) 4-33 Table 4-11 2035 Interchange Ramp Merge/Diverge Locations Operating at LOS E or F 4-36 Table 4-12 Summary of Managed Lane Ramp Level of Service 4-36 Table 4-13 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersections Operating at LOS E or F Planning Horizon 4-41 Table 4-14 Annual Revenue Hours of Service 4-51 Table 4-15 Fleet Requirements by Package 4-51 Table 4-16 Functionally Obsolete Interchange Modifications 4-55 Table 4-17 Structure Replacement Summary 4-55 Table 4-18 2035 Crash Prediction Comparison 4-57 Table 4-19 Effect on Highway Travel Demand 4-70 Table 4-20 Physical Characteristics 4-70 Table 4-21 Summary of 1-25 Operation Evaluation 4-71 Table 4-22 Summary of Transit Operation Evaluation 4-71 CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION • Table 5-1 Section 4(f) Resources—Historic Properties 5-22 Table 5-2 Section 4(f) Resources—Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Areas 5-24 Table 5-3 Use of Section 4(f) Historic Resources 5-31 Table 5-4 Use of Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Section 4(f) Resources 5-63 Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources 5-71 Table 5-6 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge 5-209 Table 5-7 Section 4(f) Summary 5-246 CHAPTER 6 FINACIAL ANALYSIS Table 6-1 Package A Capital Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 6-2 Table 6-2 Package B Capital Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 6-2 Table 6-3 Preferred Alternative Capital Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 6-3 Table 6-4 Available Existing Funding Sources for the Preferred Alternative (2009 dollars) 6-4 Table 6-5 Capital Cost and Revenue Estimate Comparison (2009 dollars) 6-5 Table 6-6 Annual Transit O&M Cost Estimates (in 2009 dollars) 6-6 Table 6-7 Annual Highway O&M Cost Estimates (in 2009 dollars) 6-6 Table 6-8 Potential Annual Farebox Revenues and Recovery Ratios (2009 dollars) 6-7 • Table 6-9 2035 Potential Tolled Express Lane Annual Toll Revenues (2009 dollars) 6-8 Table 6-10 Annual Transit Fare Recovery Estimates (2009 dollars) 6-8 List of Tables xxix Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (coNro) Page Table 6-11 Annual Toll Revenue Estimates Compared to Operating and Maintenance Cost (2009 dollars) 6-9 Table 6-12 Cost per User (2009 dollars) 6-10 CHAPTER 7 EVALAUTION OF ALTERNATIVES Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (2035) 7-5 CHAPTER 8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Table 8-1 Phase 1 —Structures 8-12 Table 8-2 Phase 1 — Estimated Cost by Element 8-13 Table 8-3 Miles of 1-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) 8-15 Table 8-4 2035 Phase 1 Travel Time 8-15 Table 8-5 2035 Phase 1 Weekday Transit Ridership 8-17 Table 8-6 Phase 2 — Estimated Cost by Element 8-18 Table 8-7 Phase 3— Estimated Cost by Element 8-21 Table 8-8 Resources Impacted by Phase 8-24 Table 8-9 Phase 1 Impact and Mitigation Summary 8-28 CHAPTER 9 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT • Table 9-1 Regional Coordination Committee /Technical Advisory Committee Meetings 9-3 Table 9-2 Public Meetings 9-11 Table 9-3 Transit Station Working Group Meetings 9-12 Table 9-4 Specialized Outreach Meetings 9-13 Table 9-5 Specialized Outreach Events 9-14 Table 9-6 Local Group and Organization Meeting 9-17 CHAPTER 10 LIST OF PREPARERS Table 10-1 List of Preparers 10-1 • List of Tables xxx Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS A AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACM asbestos-containing material ACP Access Control Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APCD Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE) APE area of potential effects APEN Air Pollution Emission Notice APTA American Public Transportation Association AST above ground storage tank B BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway BRT bus rapid transit BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene BTU British Thermal Unit C C&S Colorado & Southern Railroad • CAA Clean Air Act CAMP Continuous Ambient Monitoring Program CAQCC Colorado Air Quality Control Commission CB commuter bus CB&Q Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad CBC concrete box culvert CBD Central Business District CC Colorado Central Railroad CCR Code of Colorado Regulations CDH Colorado Department of Health CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System • CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations List of Abbreviated Terms xxxi Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (CONT'D) CFRT Colorado Front Range Trail CGS Colorado Geological Survey CMP corrugated metal pipe CNG compressed natural gas CNHP Colorado National Heritage Program CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CORRACTS RCRA corrective action CORSIM corridor simulation traffic micro-simulation tool CPI Consumer Price Index CR County Road CR commuter rail CRS Colorado Revised Statute CSU Colorado State University CTE Colorado Tolling Enterprise D DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement • DIA Denver International Airport D&RG Denver& Rio Grande Railroad dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibel DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DMU diesel multiple unit DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DPM diesel particulate emissions DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments E EA Environmental Assessment EAC Early Action Compact EB eastbound EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOC Executive Oversight Committee EOS Environmental Overview Study EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ERO ERO Resources Corporation • List of Abbreviated Terms xxxii Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (CONT'information. cooperation transportation. D) ESA Endangered Species Act F FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FHU Felsburg Holt & Ullevig FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FINDS Facility Index System FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FRA Federal Railroad Administration FRCR Front Range Commuter Rail FREX Front Range Express FS feasibility study FTA Federal Transit Administration • FTTS FIFRA and TSCA Tracking System G GIS geographic information system g/mi grams of pollutant per vehicle mile traveled GHG greenhouse gas GPL general purpose lane gpm gallons per minute GPS global positioning system GWR Great Western Railway H H&S health and safety HC hydrocarbon HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HIRSYS Hotline Information Record System HMMH Harris, Miller, Miller& Hanson HOT high-occupancy toll HOV high-occupancy vehicle HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Hz hertz 1-25 Interstate 25 • IF isolated find IRIS Integrated Risk Information System List of Abbreviated Terms xxxiii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (coNro) ISA initial site assessment ISCST3 Industrial Source Complex Short-Term dispersion model IMPLAN Impact Analyses and Planning ITS intelligent transportation system L L&WCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of Assistance to States and Urban Parks Ldn day-night average sound level Leg equivalent continuous sound level LCR Larimer County Road LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative LEP limited English proficient LHC locomotive hauling coach LOS level of service LOSS level of service of safety LRT light rail transit LUST leaking underground storage tank M MBTE methyl tert-butyl ether • MESA Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment pg/m' micrograms per cubic meter mg/mi milligrams per mile MHWMB Mile High Wetland Mitigation Bank MIS Major Investment Study MMP Materials Management Plan MP mile post mph miles per hour MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSAT mobile source air toxics MSE mechanically stabilized earth MSPWM Middle South Platte Wetland Mitigation Bank N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NB northbound NDIS Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source NEPA National Environmental Policy Act • NFRAP no further remedial action planned List of Abbreviated Terms xxxiv Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERM information. cooperation. transportation. S (CONT'D) NFR North Front Range NFRMPO North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization NFRTAFS North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study NH3 ammonia NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NLEV National low emission vehicle N2O nitrous oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NO, oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTD National Transit Database • O O&M operation and maintenance O3 Ozone OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation OPS Division of Oil and Public Safety (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OUR Outreach United Resource Center P ParClo partial cloverleaf interchange Pb lead PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PEM palustrine emergent wetland PID photoionization detector PM afternoon and evening PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM,o particulate matter less than 10 microns in size POTW publicly owned treatment work ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity • PSI preliminary site investigation PSS palustrine, scrub-shrub wetland List of Abbreviated Terms xxxv Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 US information cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (CONT'D) PUC Public Utilities Commission PUD Planned Unit Development R R1 Residential 1 RAQC Regional Air Quality Council RCC Regional Coordination Committee RCP reinforced concrete pipe RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RFG reformulated gasoline RI remedial investigation RL Residential Low RMRA Rocky Mountain Rail Authority ROD Record of Decision ROE right-of-entry ROW right-of-way RTD Regional Transportation District • RTP Regional Transportation Plan S SB southbound SB Colorado Senate Bill SH State Highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPUI single-point urban interchange SRHP State Register of Historic Places STC South Transit Center SWF solid waste landfill STIP State Transportation Improvement Program T TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAFS Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDA tire derived aggregate TEL tolled express lane TEPH total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons TMDL total maximum daily load • TMP transportation management plan List of Abbreviated Terms xxxvi Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERM information. cooperation. transportation. S (CONT'D) TMU Transit Mixed Use TPR Transportation Planning Region tpy tons per year T-REX Transportation Expansion Project TRI travel rate index TSD treatment, storage, and disposal TSP total suspended particulates TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSS total suspended solids TVPH total volatile petroleum hydrocarbon U UDFCD Urban Drainage and Flood Control District UFR Upper Front Range UFRRPC Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission UPRR Union Pacific Railroad US United States • USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Department of Interior Geological Survey UST underground storage tank V VCUP CDPHE Voluntary Clean-up Program VdB vibration decibel VHT vehicle hours of travel VMT vehicle miles of travel VOC volatile organic compound vpd vehicles per day VRE Virginia Railway Express W WB westbound WCR Weld County Road WQCD Water Quality Control Division (CDPHE) WQCV water quality capture volume WTTN Western Transportation Trade Network • WWTP wastewater treatment plant Y YOE Year of expenditure List of Abbreviated Terms xxxvii Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • List of Abbreviated Terms • PURPOSE AND NEED • _ _ { J A \\ i , • .. N ORTH I-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION What's In Chapter 1? Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need The Federal Highway Administration 1.1 Introduction (FHWA), in cooperation with the Colorado 1.2 Project Location Department of Transportation (CDOT), has 1.3 Background and Project History initiated preparation of an Environmental 1.4 Purpose and Need Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and 1.5 Need for Action evaluate multi-modal transportation 1.6 Relationship to Transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles Planning Process 1.7 Concurrent Corridor Studies of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins- 1.8 Relationship to NEPA Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The Draft EIS was issued in October 2008. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The regional study area extends from Wellington at the north end to Denver Union Station on the south, and from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east. The regional • study area, depicted in Figure 1-1, spans portions of seven counties: Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. The regional study area includes 38 incorporated communities and three transportation planning regions (TPRs): the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC). Major population centers in the regional study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and the communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). • Purpose and Need 1.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area III LEGEND ',A _ Burlington Northern Santa Fe �, Wellington Great Western Railway �4 ' ..... ' -- -- - - -- - Union Pacific Railroad 's' -- \ - - - - - - - - - Abandoned Railroad � � i4 AAultRight-of-Way _ —•} rt oiui - US or Interstate Highway ), . e5 : ti State Highway 1 j Tlrth :i ult onic• Eaten i \ 257 ` lk 392 Luc ern 287 Windsor , 34 Lovel nd ..---}- 34 Greele .� --.-4. ,rtsi_ -.% Garden City �, Evans � CR 50 .-� Cam ,. own _ / La Sall\ , __. 1. r?I C1 Milliken 36 `, 56 hood 1 G crest 0 ° l+ CR34WE4.., je- , 1 I m, 'Tt II /naa•wU 86 r. D , o �,,� Lon • / 'l'7 36 , . n 60iJLDER .: r' • E85 11 I imstone E dsA0" Islet - 52 52 Fire !Fire- -\ a ton Bould : r E"e o 47_.is yett• 0 93 7 36 Louisville _ Sr • on iuprle aroomn•id �=�' Thornton \\' '(' 1 Corn CO Nort glen at inter E470 Dourer l International ;�� .--- - Airport 6214 II JEFFERSON \ _ ! /' Y }III * _n . r 7t ns nio Station _ 40 , o z . e 8 to 6 ` De ver i., - -.�_- --.i_ lANIes North t / ve - illi Purpose and Need 1-2 Final EIS NORTH I-2S August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT HISTORY This northern Colorado corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years, with 1-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. These growth pressures have resulted in considerable increases in travel demand to the corridor, including both travel between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area and travel between communities in northern Colorado. At the same time, this corridor is a major link in the nationwide interstate highway system serving long distance travel, and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network (WTTN). The WTTN is a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states; it carries the majority of freight through the western United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on 1-25 and connecting roadways, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this corridor has grown. Illustrating the growth in the North 1-25 corridor, Figure 1-2 compares year 2005 households and employment to projected year 2035 future households and employment in the regional study area. Projections show an increase of 74 percent in households, while projections for employment show a corresponding increase of 76 percent over the year 2005 levels. This growth will result in increases in travel demand throughout the regional study area. Providing transportation systems that operate safely, efficiently, and allow travelers to conveniently access shopping, recreational activities, work, and community services, as well as providing for efficient movement of freight, are important to maintain an economically viable • region. In 1993, CDOT initiated a feasibility study, with a subsequent 1995 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), for improvements to enhance the capacity and safety of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 7 and SH 66. This supported the decision making process for improvements on 1-25, which have recently been completed (between SH 7 and SH 66). Subsequently, CDOT, in conjunction with regional planning groups (North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, UFRRPC, and DRCOG), undertook a major investment study called the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study(TAFS), to evaluate an extensive range of alternative highway improvements, bus transit alternatives, passenger-rail alternatives, and travel demand management programs for the corridor from SH 7 to SH 14. This study, published in March 2000, recommended a Vision Plan that included, as major components, an inter-regional bus service, combination general purpose/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and passenger rail service. In more recent years, a number of studies have been conducted by communities or groups of communities to establish planning guidelines for growth in segments of this corridor. These plans have addressed both land use and transportation issues. The initiation of this North 1-25 EIS represents the next step in evaluating and planning for implementation of improvements in this corridor. • Purpose and Need 1.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-2 Year 2005 and 2035 Households and Employment in the Regional Study Area 1 ,200 — 1 , 178 1 ,000 — co 800 — 808 (11 670 z 600 — c 464 400 — 200 — 0 I 2005 2035 2005 2035 Households Employment Source: NFRMPO and DRCOG 2035 RTP data. 1 .4 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro Area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins- Wellington area . To meet long-term travel needs, the project must improve safety, mobility and accessibility, and provide modal alternatives and interrelationships. 1 .5 NEED FOR THE ACTION The need for the project can be summarized in the following four categories: ► Increased frequency and severity of crashes ► Increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems ► Aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure ► Lack of modal alternatives Purpose and Need 1 -4 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The project needs relate differently to highway and transit components of the solutions. Highway alternatives were evaluated in addressing all four of these needs. Transit alternatives were evaluated in addressing two of the needs: increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems, and lack of modal alternatives. Specific measures were developed for each of the needs in order to provide a means for evaluating the effectiveness of each alternative. These measures and results of the evaluation are included in Chapter 2 Alternatives. 1.5.1 Highway Safety Concerns Over the last decade, the number of crashes along 1-25 has increased, and a number of locations on 1-25 currently experience worse than expected safety performance when compared to other four-lane and six-lane interstate facilities in Colorado with similar traffic volumes. This, in part, can be attributed to congestion and the fact that portions of 1-25 do not meet current design standards. There is a need to reduce crashes on the portions of 1-25 that have worse than average safety performance, as described in Section 1.5.1.1. 1.5.1.3 CRASH DATA In 1991, 331 crashes were reported along 1-25 between SH 7 and Wellington. By 2001, this number had more than tripled to 1,130 crashes. The largest increases in the number of • crashes occurred on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 52 (the section improved in 2005) and between SH 66 and SH 56. In 1991, injury and/or fatal crashes accounted for 144 of the reported crashes along 1-25 between SH 7 and Wellington. By 2001, the number of injury and/or fatal crashes had increased to 351. Level of service of safety (LOSS) is a qualitative measure that characterizes safety of a roadway segment in reference to its expected performance (Kononov and Allery, 2004). Locations that are considered to be LOSS I and LOSS II operate more safely than other facilities of a similar size and with similar traffic volumes throughout the state. Locations identified as LOSS III and LOSS IV represent sections with a less than average safety performance when compared to similar facilities statewide. Sections of 1-25 that fall into the LOSS IV category are considered to have a "high potential for crash reduction," and were reviewed in more detail. As shown in Table 1-1, six locations in the regional study area along 1-25 are considered to have a high potential for crash reduction, and over half operate worse than other comparable facilities. When injury and fatality crashes are separated from crashes resulting only in property damage, 1-25 between SH 14 and Mountain Vista Road also falls into the high potential for crash reduction category. • Purpose and Need 1.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 1-1 I-25 Level of Service of Safety LOSS I LOSS II LOSS III LOSS IV Low Better than Less than High potential Location on 1-25 potential expected expected safety for crash for crash safety performance reduction reduction performance US 36 - 84th Ave. • 84th Ave. - Thornton Pkwy • Thornton Pkwy - 112th Ave. • 112th Ave. - 136th Ave. • 136th Ave. - SH 7 • SH 7 — County Road (CR) 8 • CR 8 — SH 52 • SH 52 - SH 119 • SH 119 - SH 66 • SH 66 - CR 34 • CR 34 - SH 56 • SH 56 - SH 60 • SH 60 - SH 402 • SH 402 - US 34 • US 34 — Crossroads • Crossroads — SH 392 • SH 392 — Harmony • Harmony — Prospect • Prospect — SH 14 • SH 14 — Mtn. Vista • Mtn. Vista — SH 1 • Average Safety Portion of 1-25 recently reconstructed and widened to six lanes. Performance Note: A median barrier to reduce the potential for crossover, head-on crashes was installed from SH 7 to US 34 in 2004 since these crash data were recorded. Source: CDOT crash records, January 2000 — December 2002. This is the most recent data set available prior to reconstruction of sections of 1-25. CDOT Safety Performance Functions Intersection Diagnostics, April 2004 (CDOT. 2004a). Table 1 -2 lists the locations identified as having high potential for crash reduction and identifies the types of crashes that are higher than what is anticipated. As shown , a preliminary assessment indicates that a number of the locations exceed the anticipated number of rear- end crashes, crashes involving the guardrail , and crashes involving other objects. On many facilities, rear-end crashes are a result of congestion, while crashes involving other objects are a result of debris, or other objects in the travel way. A more thorough diagnostic analysis was conducted to identify the cause of crashes and to then recommend mitigation measures. The safety analysis included the following : Purpose and Need 1 -6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► Review CDOT database of crashes compiled through Highway Patrol reports ► Perform statistical analysis in areas with a high-crash concentration to identify any abnormal crash patterns (i.e., identify trends) ► Review accident reports to obtain additional information on the accident experience ► Identify possible causes for areas of high-accident concentration/above-normal accident experience, focusing on statistically problematic accident types ► Identify possible roadway improvement options to help minimize specific accident types/improve overall accident experience The recommendations for mitigation measures were folded into the alternatives described in Chapter 2 of this EIS. It is anticipated that safety will improve between SH 7 and SH 52, where 1-25 was recently widened to six lanes and updated to current design standards. Rear-end crashes and crashes involving the guardrail will likely be reduced as a result of this improvement. In addition, a median barrier was installed in 2004 between SH 7 and US 34, reducing the potential for crossover head-on crashes. Table 1-2 Preliminary Assessment of Locations on North I-25 with High Potential for Crash Reduction by Crash Type Sideswipe Involving Other • Location Rear-end same Guardrail other Head-on* non-collision** direction object SH7-CR8 J J J J CR8-SH52 J J SH 52-SH 119 J J J J CR34-SH56 J J J J SH 56-SH 60 J J J J US 34—Crossroads J J J SH 14—Mtn. Vista J J J J=Types of crashes that exceed the number anticipated. * A median barrier, reducing the potential for crossover head-on crashes,was installed from SH 7 to US 34 in 2004 since these crash data were recorded. ** These include incidents creating a hazardous road condition but that did not involve a crash(e.g., losing cargo on road, losing wheel,engine or brake fire,or broken down or stopped vehicle in travel lane). Source: CDOT crash records, January 2000—December 2002. This is the most recent data set available prior to reconstruction of sections of I-25. CDOT Safety Performance Functions Intersection Diagnostics,April 2004(CDOT, 2004a). 1.5.1.4 1-25 ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES Roadway characteristics were evaluated along 1-25, and comparisons were made to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004) and CDOT (CDOT, 2006) standards. This assessment included shoulder widths, stopping • sight distance, horizontal alignment, and vertical alignment. The existing 10-foot outside shoulder width is substandard along the entire 1-25 corridor from SH 66 to SH 1. Current standards require a 12-foot outside shoulder width, which is important to provide continuous, Purpose and Need 1-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation • safe refuge for stopped vehicles and emergency use. The stopping sight distance is deficient at numerous locations between SH 66 and SH 1 based on a design speed of 80 miles per hour (mph). 1-25 has a maximum posted speed limit of 75 mph and a design speed of 5-10 mph in excess of the maximum posted speed limit, which is a standard design practice. Deficiencies in the horizontal alignment include curves that are too sharp and inadequate transitions coming into or out of curves. Horizontal deficiencies in the 1-25 corridor exist between Weld County Road (WCR) 34 and Larimer County Road (LCR) 26 and between SH 392 and Harmony Road. In 2005, 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 52 was improved and widened to six lanes. In 2009, 1-25 between SH 52 and SH 66 was improved and widened to six lanes. Design deficiencies on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 66 were corrected with these improvements. 1.5.2 Highway and Transit Mobility and Accessibility Population and employment growth are causing increasing traffic congestion, limiting mobility and accessibility within the regional study area. This situation is expected to continue to worsen, and there is a need for transportation improvements to address year 2035 transportation demand, which balances mobility and accessibility along the 1-25 corridor. There is also a need to plan transportation improvements in such a manner as to not preclude improvements which may be needed after year 2035. Within the regional study area, residential and commercial growth is occurring at a very high rate, which contributes to, and will continue to contribute to, increasing traffic volumes. Despite the fact that a large portion of the regional study area remains in agricultural use, new • development is springing up at a rapid pace. Forecasts indicate that households and employment in the study area are expected to increase by about 75 percent from year 2005 levels by the year 2035. This indicates that the high rate of growth is expected to continue over an extended period of time. Development is occurring or being planned for without the benefit of a coordinated, overall long-term strategy. Land use and development patterns in the 1-25 corridor are evolving on a daily basis. A significant number of new commercial developments have been recently developed or are planned, including a 700,000-square-foot regional mall (Centerra), a new regional hospital, and other regional retail and employment centers. In addition, south of the SH 7/E-470 area, there are a number of recently completed or planned major developments located along the 1-25 corridor in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, and unincorporated areas. At this time, there are no common development standards in place to ensure right-of- way preservation to accommodate future transportation needs along the 1-25 corridor. Without improvements, by year 2035, about 85 percent of 1-25 is projected to be congested and to operate over capacity during the peak periods of travel. Figure 1-3 illustrates year 2002 and 2035 daily traffic volumes along 1-25. As shown, in year 2035 the daily demand along 1-25 is expected to exceed capacity everywhere except the very northern segment. In addition, congestion on the arterial network that connects the residential and employment centers in northern Colorado to 1-25 is expected to substantially increase by year 2035. This situation is illustrated on Figure 1-3. In the year 2035 (the second illustration), the top red line shows demand on 1-25 while the pink bands below this show the capacity on 1-25. The differential between demand and capacity would typically show up as congestion on 1-25 and on the • adjacent arterial roadways. Purpose and Need 1-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. With regard to highway accessibility, many of the interchanges along 1-25 were built before 1966, when travel demand was much lower. Approximately 60 percent of the interchanges between SH 7 and SH 1 are currently considered functionally obsolete. These interchanges were designed to operate in a rural, low-volume environment, and do not have the capacity to safely or efficiently accommodate the higher traffic volumes that they are currently experiencing. The configuration of these interchanges impedes accessibility to and from 1-25 and restricts capacity east and west between the northern Colorado communities. Regarding freight movement, commodity flow projections made in the Eastern Colorado Mobility Study (Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig [FHUj, 2002a) indicate that freight tonnage in and out of Adams, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties is expected to increase from 96.2 million tons in 1998 to 192.3 million tons in 2025. This reflects more than a doubling of commodity movement to/from these four counties alone. Truck volume projections indicate that volumes could increase from approximately 8,000 trucks daily in 2004 to 19,000 trucks daily in year 2035. The anticipated congestion will create slower travel speeds and longer travel times for both freight and personal travel. AM peak hour southbound travel time between SH 1 and 20th Street (Denver) is expected to double compared to the existing travel time (20th Street in Denver is one of the major 1-25 interchanges that provide access to and from downtown Denver). Between SH 1 and 20th Street, the average peak hour speed in 2035 is expected to be less than 30 mph compared to the current average speed of 60 mph. Posted speeds on 1-25 are 75 mph north of 136th Avenue, 65 mph north of 120th Avenue, and 55 mph from • 120th Avenue through downtown Denver. • Purpose and Need 1.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-3 Current and Future Daily Traffic Volumes and Capacities 2002 180,000 - 160,000- O w 14— 140,000 - co - S 120,000- -- - co O 100,000- I-25 DAILY CAPACITY c 80,000 — C rn 60,000 — co a� Q 40,000 — — I-25 DAILY DEMAND 20,000 I 1 1 I I 1 1 SH-7 SH-52 SH-66 US-34 SH-68 SH-14 SH 1 SH-402 South • ► North 2035 180,000 160,000 U R 140,000- cte: 1-25 DAILY DEMAND ?4 120,000— co Cu 100,000 = 80,000 - C (rt co 60,000 - 1-25 DAILY CAPACITY > 40,000 20,000 T 1 1 1 I T 1 1 SH-7 SH-52 SH-66 US-34 SH-68 SH-14 SH-1 SH-402 South • ► North 1 .5.3 Aging and Obsolete Highway Infrastructure A number of structures along 1-25 are currently structurally deficient or are expected to be so by year 2035. Structurally deficient means that one or more components of the bridge rate poor or worse with regard to structural condition . Segments of pavement on 1-25 are reaching 111 the end of the pavement's life expectancy and surface conditions are deteriorating rapidly. Aging infrastructure along 1-25 needs to be replaced . Purpose and Need 1-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1.5.3.3 STRUCTURES Seventy-three percent of the structures on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 1 were constructed before 1966, according to CDOT's publication, Field Log of Structures (CDOT, 2005a). By the year 2035, it is anticipated that all of these structures will need to be replaced or rehabilitated. Also, the structures located from SH 52 to SH 66 have been replaced as part of the current widening projects adding general purpose lanes to 1-25. The following 12 interchanges and 5 railroad structures, shown on Table 1-3, would need to be replaced for the year 2035 design horizon due to deficiencies based on age or condition. An additional 39 structures serving pedestrians, waterways, and cross streets would also need to be replaced along the 1-25 mainline. Table 1-3 Aging and Obsolete Structures Interchange Structures Railroad Structures WCR 34 LCR 26 GWR—north of WCR 34(MP 246) SH 56 Prospect Rd. GWR—north of SH 56 (MP 252) SH 60 SH 14 UPRR—north of US 34 (MP 259) LCR 16 SH 1 BNSF—north of SH 68 (MP 267) SH 402 120th Avenue BNSF—north of SH 14 (MP 270) US 34 136th Avenue Notes: WCR...Weld County Road GWR...Great Western Railroad LCR....Larimer County Road UPPR .Union Pacific Railroad • MP Milepost BNSF..Burlington, Northern,and Santa Fe Railroad SH State highway According to CDOT's Field Log of Structures (CDOT, 2005a), two structures along this stretch of 1-25 have a minimum vertical clearance of less than 16.5 feet (the interstate highway standard). The structures are WCR 34 and WCR 38. Damage to these structures due to substandard vertical clearance could occur by the larger commercial vehicles using 1-25. 1.5.3.4 PAVEMENT CDOT data shows approximately 42 percent of the pavement on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 1 is rated as either "fair" (sufficient or adequate) or"poor" (less than adequate) and has a service life of less than 10 years remaining. By year 2035, it is anticipated that the pavement along 1-25 north of SH 66 would need to be replaced due to deficient conditions. 1.5.3.5 DRAINAGE Most of the existing drainage structures along 1-25 were built during the 1960s. At that time, the adjacent areas were rural, and flood damage was limited to agricultural land. The sizes of many of these drainage structures were based on limited rainfall data for what was estimated to be a 25- or 50-year storm event. The 100-year storm is now used for drainage design in urbanized areas and for floodplains under the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Many of the existing drainage structures constrict stormwater flows, cause flooding, and overtopping of the adjacent highways. In order to conform to newer criteria and control flooding, most drainage structures along 1-25 should be replaced. • There are no facilities in place along 1-25 to treat runoff from paved areas, except for the newly constructed facilities between SH 52 and SH 66. Prior to 2001, CDOT and many municipalities were not required to treat runoff from paved areas. CDOT now has a municipal separate storm Purpose and Need 1.11 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • sewer system (MS4) permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). This permit requires CDOT to implement a program to reduce the discharge of pollutants by installing permanent facilities. 1.5.4 Highway and Transit Modal Alternatives and Interrelationships Alternative modes of travel are very limited in northern Colorado, and between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. In 1999, when the Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (TAFS)was being conducted, residents of northern Colorado were asked to complete a transportation survey (Kimley-Horn and Associates, 1999). Results of this survey indicated a strong desire by residents to see regional transit options provided in northern Colorado. As evidenced through public input throughout this project, the results of the 1999 survey remain valid. In addition to a strong desire for transit options, there is a need for public transportation due to the increasing cost of gas, the decreasing supply of energy, and the aging population, which will likely result in more transit dependent individuals. In addition, the increasing unreliability of auto travel points out a need for other transportation mode alternatives. 1.5.4.3 RAIL SERVICE Participants in the TAFS survey were asked to rate potential transportation solutions such as bus service, highway widening, and rail service. On a scale of one to five with five being the best, "rail service on 1-25" received a 3.95, the highest score of all the potential solutions on • the survey. In addition, over 50 percent of the written comments received were in support of providing transit service or suggested ways to move away from single-occupant vehicle use. An electronic survey, conducted as part of the same study, found that 61 percent of respondents felt that the best transportation policy option for Coloradans was rail, while only 18 percent favored widening 1-25. In recent public opinion surveys conducted for NFRMPO (ETC Institute, 2002, 2005), 44 percent of respondents stated that they would like to see their tax dollars spent on providing commuter rail service between the northern Colorado communities and Denver. This option rated higher than any other improvement listed on the questionnaire. 1.5.4.4 Bus SERVICE There is very little intra-regional (such as Loveland to Greeley) and no inter-regional (Fort Collins to Denver) public transit service serving the 1-25 corridor. Existing public-transit service in northern Colorado is essentially limited to service within the individual communities. Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland each operate fixed-route and demand responsive service in their communities. FoxTrot is an intercity service connecting Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins. The Weld County Mini-Bus program provides connections between Weld County communities and Boulder, Fort Collins, Fort Morgan, and Loveland. The Town of Berthoud operates a demand responsive service that operates in the Berthoud Fire District. This service also connects to Longmont and Loveland. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) provides bus service from Longmont to Boulder or Denver or from communities south of SH 66 to Denver. The NFRMPO Household Survey and the Front Range Commuter Bus study both indicate that there is a demand for transit service connecting the North Front Range • communities to each other and to the Denver Metro Area. Purpose and Need 1.12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Private bus operators (such as Greyhound) provide limited service connecting northern Colorado to the Denver Metro Area. However, these trips are not scheduled around a typical commuter schedule. 1.5.4.5 VANPOOLS The NFRMPO operates a vanpool program that provides trips between Greeley, Fort Collins, and Loveland and to the Denver Metro Area. In September 2010, there were 82 van routes in service. Over 70 vans travel between the northern Colorado communities and the Denver Metro Area. Other vans travel within the northern region or from the Denver Metro Area to northern Colorado. Each week, NFRMPO responds to about 50 calls from residents interested in participating in the vanpool program and estimates that there is a demand for 150 vans. Almost all of these calls come from people traveling to the Denver Metro Area. The level of interest in this service indicates in part that there is an unmet demand for alternative modes of inter-regional travel in the region. 1.5.4.6 CARPOOLS The NFRMPO also operates an automated ride matching service on the NFRMPO web site. In the first few months of 2005, interest in ride sharing increased by about 400 percent over demand estimates made toward the end of 2004. Much of this was attributed to the increase in gas prices that occurred during that same period. • A number of well-utilized carpool lots are located along 1-25. A survey of these lots was conducted for CDOT Region 4 and also for the Front Range Commuter Bus Study (TransitPlus and FHU, 2003). Both studies showed that the 250 parking spaces located between SH 60 and SH 392 were approximately 85 percent occupied. The parking lots located along the south end of the corridor are not as well utilized, but demand for all of these lots is expected to increase as population and employment in the area continues to grow. • Purpose and Need 1.13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS A number of communities in the regional study area have developed transportation plans that recommend transportation improvements to accommodate the travel needs of their communities now and in the future. The three transportation planning regions (TPRs) in the regional study area coordinate the efforts of these local communities to create a comprehensive, fiscally-constrained, transportation plan for each region. The NFRMPO coordinates the planning efforts of the urban area including Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland. UFRRPC provides the same type of planning coordination efforts for rural portions of Larimer, Morgan, and Weld counties that are not part of NFRMPO. DRCOG coordinates efforts in the Denver Metro Area and north along the Front Range to just north of Mead. Figure 1-4 illustrates the three TPRs in the regional study area. The 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan (CDOT, 2008) melds the Colorado Transportation Commission policy with the goals and recommendations from each of the state's TPRs. Each document identifies a vision for the area's transportation network and establishes goals and policies for implementation of the transportation vision. Relevant regional and statewide transportation planning goals and policies are described briefly below. 1.6.1 North Front Range NFRMPO is in the process of updating the North Front Range (NFR) 2035 Regional • Transportation Plan (RTP) with the updated plan anticipated to be adopted in September 2011 (NFRMPO, 2011). The NFR 2035 RTP's value statement reads: "Recognizing the unique character of the region, we will provide an environmentally, socially, and economically sensitive multi-modal transportation system for all users that protects and enhances the region's quality of life." Other goals identified in the RTP that are relevant to the North 1-25 EIS are: provide a safe, balanced multi-modal system; foster regional coordination; minimize congestion; minimize environmental impacts; and provide a positive economic impact. The NFR 2035 RTP identifies the 1-25 corridor as one of the top three priority corridors. 1.6.2 Upper Front Range UFRRPC adopted the Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan in January 2008 (FHU, 2008a).The Upper Front Range RTP's stated goal is: "To provide a multi-modal transportation system that maximizes public input, fosters cooperation, and meets the transportation needs of all travelers in the Upper Front Range." The plan also states that UFRRPC would like to include 1-25 in any future strategic funding programs. UFRRPC has adopted a number of policy directives which support passenger rail service and expansion and coordination of bus transit service in the Upper Front Range. • Purpose and Need 1-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-4 Transportation Planning Region Boundaries (..\ , N; Wellington ,287• I 14 Ault LEGEND �___ :._I Fort ollin North Front Range eel Upper Front Range Imnath __ Severance Eaton Denver Regional Council Lucerne of Governments 28 • Windsor sill* 34 Lovel nd --- Greeley -- aoz± I Garden City Evans j60‘,..___ _ CR 50 LARIMER Ca Phan' Johns%.own La Salle I Milliken ' Bert56)--III ) Gilcrest '" �` CR3a WELD s . Mss! Platte ill• "66` . Longm t I X4-1 361 C r• BOULDER , - I ._ Firestone tt9I , 287 c - ederick Niwot ,--„—(-5-2).- L\ 2 I -� Fort Dacono ' upton K Erie j 119 Arapahoe Rd B ulder...\ Base eRd i I. •...... ...... _ � L aye. fe a„ Cr G 36 ouisv - Br ': hto , • o+ oomfljtld + S Sup. � ROOMfI : Thornton +�, Co eE470 Ci No thglenn es in seer 7 2 r , t l 7; r� • 0 Deny r 7' Unio Station �� 4 8 Miles North 40 r N NV ER R Purpose and Need 1-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1.6.3 Denver Area DRCOG adopted the year 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (2035 MVRTP) update in January 2011. DRCOG's 2035 MVRTP includes plans for three regional transit lines in the regional study area. The three regional transit lines are: 1. The proposed North Metro rail line from downtown Denver to SH 7 east of 1-25 2. The US 36 corridor that would include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along US 36 3. The Northwest Rail corridor that includes 38 miles of commuter rail between downtown Denver, Longmont, and Boulder. The plan also includes widening 1-25 between US 36 and Thornton Parkway with one additional general purpose lane in each direction. CDOT submitted an amendment to this plan to change the planned general purpose lanes from US 36 to Thornton Parkway to tolled express lanes (TELs) that would extend from US 36 to 120th Avenue. The amendment also requested the addition of one new TEL in each direction from SH 66 to CR 38. 1.6.4 Statewide Plan The Colorado Transportation Commission adopted the year 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan in March 2008 and an update is currently out for public review. The report states that the mission of the Transportation Commission is to: "Provide the best multi-modal transportation system for Colorado that most effectively moves people, goods, and information." The mission • statement was expanded to include the following: "Enhance the quality of life and the environment of the citizens of Colorado by creating an integrated transportation system that focuses on moving people and goods by offering convenient linkages among modal choices." The plan identifies a corridor vision for 1-25 with the following goals: ► Increase travel reliability and improve mobility ► Reduce fatalities, injuries, and property-damage-only crash rates ► Preserve the existing transportation system ► Accommodate growth in freight transport ► Optimize the transportation system through intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and travel demand management measures • Purpose and Need 1.16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1.7 RECENT CORRIDOR STUDIES A number of other corridor studies in the regional study area are being conducted simultaneously with the North 1-25 EIS, or have been recently completed. Coordination with each of these efforts has been occurring throughout the project. A summary of each of the other corridor studies that occurred or is occurring in the regional study area is provided below. Figure 1-5 shows the locations of other corridor studies within the regional study area. 1.7.1 US 287 Environmental Assessment FHWA, in conjunction with CDOT, completed an EA for US 287 north of Fort Collins, beginning at SH 1 and extending two miles northwest. The project addressed mobility and safety issues along this stretch of highway. This EA and FONSI are completed and design is underway. Construction is planned for 2011. 1.7.2 US 287 Environmental Overview Study CDOT completed an environmental overview study (EOS) for US 287 from 29th Street in Loveland to Harmony Road in Fort Collins. This study evaluated corridor route location alternatives. The No-Action Alternative was defined as the existing transportation system (including transportation improvements currently under construction) plus committed projects. As part of CDOT's comprehensive transportation planning process that integrates multi-modal transportation, land use, and environmental considerations, this EOS analyzed the need for • transportation improvements and identified environmentally sensitive sites along the corridor in order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive transportation network. CDOT initiated this study because of development pressure along the corridor. CDOT worked with local agencies, the public, stakeholders, and resource agencies to develop a highway footprint that addresses future improvements that may be financed through local agencies. This EOS is complete. 1.7.3 SH 392 Environmental Overview Study As part of CDOT's comprehensive transportation planning process that integrates multi-modal transportation, land use, and environmental considerations, this EOS analyzed the need for transportation improvements along SH 392 from US 287 to east of Windsor in order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive transportation network. CDOT initiated this study because of development pressure along the corridor. The purpose for studying SH 392 from US 287 to east of Windsor is to accommodate future growth and development in south Fort Collins and Windsor and ensure mobility given present and predicted future traffic conditions. CDOT is working with the local agencies, the public, stakeholders, and resource agencies to develop a highway footprint that addresses future improvements that may be financed through local agencies. This EOS is complete. S Purpose and Need 1.17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 1-5 Recent Corridor Studies US 287 Environmental ha7 I 1Ni01 ' SH 392 Environmental Assessment --.--------->1 I. k--h, i ' ( Overview Study 1 Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment @4 A. ,�� It F t N \ ' I ,6 US 287 Environmental Col I S Overview Study rlaltath TI � -r1 US 34 Business T2s .. Environmental • , - Assessment 392 Luce US 34 Environmental Assessment --7,-,4-4. ,— - 34 . t ► I ' gil Love n - ' 34 'r"' Greeley 40 , `\ i /8 'aaritaa Btt p SH 402 Environmental S * ' Assessment S ICR50\ L J�Ba / l taut 41 1' 1 ' La sa _ 80 L ..� / - LARIMER .- ' �� s6 - j SH 60 Environmental L - 1 / r /- or Overview Study - - - --- iIII l 1CR 34 we, n r.j ! • ,, es J FasTracks Northwest Rail Lon t YL / /. Environmental Evaluation ► tam Ei i�9 1863 BOU • ( i9 r 7 36 287 SH 7 (Arapahoe Road) woe52 Environmental - j , 52 Assessment ! �' . , ►�o, ' t Bould • � , Erie : _ ""c ;❑ FasTracks North Metro Environmental Impact 'illy-) f l • ��, Statement �VV` ',r Lafayette 7 ` 7 93 38 ' oubvlll r� a +•� , US 36 Environmental � � C Impact Statement Bari Broomfield / Corridor Environmentals East P rnton Corridor T com re. Impact Statement ` ,- } - 72 \ cry Northgl ' - Denver i ater International ' Northwest Corridor . I � \a- Airport Transportation and >y �- - 2 Environmental k. 121 Planning Study —r_ w �. 7 1 1-70 East Jr f� + Environmental ; E17� Impact Statement ' • � its — 2 4 6 to - - s , De ver �. `� r_ mon. North y; 1111 Purpose and Need 1-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 1.7.4 US 34 Environmental Assessment FHWA, in conjunction with CDOT and local agencies, initiated an EA for improvements to US 34 between Garfield Avenue and just east of Larimer CR 3. The EA addresses future mobility, safety, and access. The EA does not address interchange improvements at 1-25 and US 34. Planned improvements include multi-modal transportation and widening the highway from four to six lanes. This EA and FONSI are complete. 1.7.5 US 34 Business Environmental Assessment FHWA, in conjunction with CDOT and local agencies, initiated an EA for transportation improvements along US 34 Business Route between 71st Avenue and SH 257. The purpose of the project is to alleviate congestion, both current and future; improve safety; improve access; and connect this segment of the highway with four lanes that currently exist on the western and eastern boundary of the project. This EA and FONSI are complete and the construction has been completed. 1.7.6 SH 60 Environmental Overview Study As part of CDOT's comprehensive transportation planning process that integrates multi-modal transportation, land use, and environmental considerations, this EOS analyzed the need for transportation improvements and identified environmentally sensitive sites along SH 60 between 1-25 and SH 257 in order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive transportation network. • CDOT initiated this study because of development pressure along the corridor. The purpose and need for studying SH 60 from 1-25 to SH 257 is to ensure mobility especially given recent annexations by Milliken and Johnstown and the amount and rate of ongoing and planned developments in those areas. CDOT will work with local agencies, the public, stakeholders, and resource agencies to develop a highway footprint that addresses future improvements that may be financed through local agencies. This EOS is complete. 1.7.7 SH 402 Environmental Assessment FHWA, CDOT, and local agencies conducted an EA and subsequently approved a FONSI for improvements along SH 402 from US 287 to the 1-25 interchange. The purpose of the project was to improve travel and safety on SH 402 within the study area. The difficulty experienced by drivers making a left turn to or from SH 402 contributes to this need. As traffic volumes increase, current mobility and safety issues will become worse if improvements are not made to the existing roadway. This EA and FONSI are complete. 1.7.8 SH 7 (Arapahoe Road) Environmental Assessment The SH 7 EA evaluated transportation alternatives between Cherryvale Road and 75th Street. This is a major transportation corridor which serves the cities of Boulder, Erie, Lafayette, and Louisville, as well as Boulder County. This corridor has experienced tremendous growth over the last few years and motorists are encountering steadily increasing congestion. FHWA conducted the EA in cooperation with CDOT and the local agencies. This EA and FONSI are complete and design is underway. Construction of improvements at 75th Street is complete. • Purpose and Need 1.19 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1.7.9 US 36 Environmental Impact Statement The US 36 Mobility Partnership prepared an EIS to identify multi-modal transportation improvements between Denver and Boulder. Bus improvements associated with this EIS are in the FasTracks plan. The EIS study developed and evaluated highway and BRT alternatives developed in the MIS and considered all other reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, to ensure maximum multi-modal capacity for the corridor. The study area was roughly 18 miles of US 36 between 1-25 and the Table Mesa park-n-Ride in Boulder. The study area incorporated a number of communities in the northwest metropolitan Denver area, including the cities of Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, and Westminster, as well as unincorporated Boulder County. The Draft EIS was released for public review in August 2007. The Final EIS was released in October 2009 and the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in December 2009. Design is underway. 1.7.10 Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study CDOT is looking at long-range regional transportation needs in the northwest Denver Metro Area. By the year 2030, the Denver Metro Area, including the northwest region, will have an estimated population of approximately 3.2 million people. That is an increase of approximately 900,000 residents. Such growth demonstrates the need for the continuing study of future mobility in and through the region. CDOT's evaluation was documented in the Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study and was released in July 2008. 1.7.11 I-70 East Environmental Impact Statement The 1-70 East EIS is evaluating highway improvements for the 1-70 corridor between 1-25 and Tower Road. The EIS will decide which transportation projects, if any, will be built to improve safety and mobility, and address congestion in the corridor. The Draft EIS was issued in November 2008. The Final EIS is in progress, scheduled to be complete late 2011. 1.7.12 FasTracks FasTracks is RTD's comprehensive plan to build and operate 119 miles of new rail line, to expand and improve bus service, and to add 21,000 new park-n-Ride spaces throughout the Denver Metro Area. RTD currently estimates that FasTracks will cost $ 6.5 billion to construct, to be funded by a combination of a region-wide sales tax, federal funds, and local and private contributions. The four cent per$10 purchase sales tax went into effect on January 1, 2005. RTD's project implementation schedule for FasTracks is shown in Table 1-4. However, RTD currently projects a funding shortfall, which will result in some corridors being delayed until after 2035 unless additional funding sources can be put in place (RTD, "Completing the Vision", November 2010). • Purpose and Need 1.20 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 1-4 RTD FasTracks Project Schedule to Begin Operations Year Corridor Facilities 2013 West Corridor Light Rail 2015 Union Station East Corridor Rail 2016 Gold Line Commuter Rail Central Corridor Light Rail Extension Northwest Rail (Phase 1) 1-225 Corridor Rail North Metro Corridor Rail 2018-2042* Northwest Rail Corridor(Phase 2) Southwest Corridor Light Rail Extension Southeast Corridor Light Rail Extension US 36 Corridor Bus Rapid Transit(Phase 2) *The range of timeframes varies,depending on different funding scenarios, an increase in sales and use tax scenarios of 0.4 percent, 0.3 percent,0.2 percent, 0.1 percent,or no additional funds. The longest timeframe(2042)represents no increase in funding. Four of these projects are adjacent to the northern front range communities. These are described in the following sections in more detail. 1.7.13 Northwest Rail Environmental Evaluation • This Environmental Evaluation (EE) was conducted by RTD to evaluate passenger rail alignments from Longmont to Denver. These improvements are in the FasTracks plan. Potential improvements include a 38.1-mile commuter rail line along the existing railroad right- of-way between Denver Union Station in downtown Denver and Longmont (through Boulder). Like the US 36 EIS, the study area incorporates a number of communities in the northwest metropolitan Denver area, including the cities of Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, and Westminster, as well as unincorporated Boulder County. The Final EE was released in May 2010. 1.7.14 North Metro Environmental Impact Statement RTD is conducting an EIS of the 18-mile North Metro corridor that extends from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver north to 160th Avenue (SH 7). The commuter rail line (which is in the FasTracks plan) generally follows the UPRR right-of-way to the east of 1-25. The North Metro Corridor greatly expands transit access and service to the north metro area between 1-25 and I-76. This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the Denver Metro Area and is expected to more than double in population and employment by 2025. The Draft EIS was released in 2009 and the project team is developing the Final EIS, which is scheduled for release in early 2011. 1.7.15 East Corridor Environmental Impact Statement The East Corridor EIS evaluated high-capacity, fixed-guideway transit alternatives between downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). These improvements are in the FasTracks plan. The EIS identified the benefits and impacts associated with the various • alternatives being evaluated in the corridor. The East Corridor EIS included an extensive Purpose and Need 1.21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • community involvement process. FTA conducted the study in cooperation with RTD, and the City and County of Denver. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued the ROD in November 2009. This project is now in final design and construction. 1.7.16 Denver Union Station Environmental Impact Statement A Final EIS has been completed to evaluate the transportation recommendations of Phase 1 of the approved Master Plan for Denver Union Station. The Station currently offers RTD light rail service, bus service, and passenger service by AMTRAK. Through implementation of the Master Plan, Denver Union Station will be transformed into a transportation hub serving the needs of residents, tourists, and commuters. FTA issued a ROD in March 2010 and construction is underway. 1.7.17 Colorado Rail Relocation Implementation Study CDOT and the two Class One Railroads operating in Colorado, the BNSF and the UPRR, have been holding discussions regarding the possible relocation of rail infrastructure east, away from the Front Range. These preliminary efforts between CDOT and the railroads is known as the "Colorado Railroad Partnership Project" or alternatively as "Colorado's Safety and Mobility Partnership Project," and provide the backdrop for the current study. The purpose of this study is to identify public benefits, drawbacks and costs associated with a possible partnership project between CDOT, BNSF, UPRR, and other public entities. This will allow the parties to better assess the type and extent of their potential financial participation. The study's ultimate goal is to investigate whether there are likely to be sufficient benefits for the citizens of • Colorado to warrant consideration of the investment of public dollars in the proposed railroad project. The study has been finalized and was published in 2009. 1.7.18 Colorado Tolling Enterprise/High Performance Transportation Enterprise The Colorado Tolling Enterprise (CTE) was created by CDOT to finance, build, operate, and maintain toll highways. CTE was made possible by legislation that enables CDOT and the state Transportation Commission to issue bonds for new or additional highway capacity toll projects throughout Colorado. A recent study by CTE evaluated the feasibility of creating a tolling facility along I-25. Two scenarios were evaluated and found to be potentially feasible. The first includes three general purpose lanes plus two express toll lanes in each direction from 120th Street to SH 66. From 120th to US 36, 1-25 would have three general purpose lanes in each direction and two reversible express toll lanes. The second scenario includes three general purpose lanes in each direction and a two-lane reversible express toll lane facility between SH 7 and US 36. These tolling alternatives were considered in this North 1-25 EIS. In 2009, the CTE was replaced by the Colorado High Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE). 1.7.19 High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study - Phase III - Colorado Springs to Pueblo and Denver to Fort Collins The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA) is a multi-jurisdictional government body comprised of more than 50 Colorado cities, towns, counties, and transit authorities and has • determined that, based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) criteria, high-speed rail is feasible in Colorado's 1-70 and 1-25 corridors. The study included the evaluation of the 1-25 Purpose and Need 1.22 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. corridor from Cheyenne, WY to Trinidad, CO, passing through the metropolitan areas of Fort Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs and Pueblo along the way. 1-25 connects Colorado's growing metropolitan areas along the Front Range. In the March 2010 High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study, a preliminary set of implementation phases was developed with this portion identified as Phase 3. It proposed eight years of project development and environmental clearance and six years of design and construction. For this North 1-25 EIS, high-speed rail was considered but was eliminated because to achieve the desirable speeds, only one or two stops would be provided, which did not meet the Purpose and Need (See Chapter 2 Alternatives and the Alternatives Development and Screening Report). However, the build packages considered in this Final EIS would not preclude possible future implementation of high-speed rail as a separate action. 1.7.20 Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was conducted by the City of Fort Collins in conjunction with FTA to evaluate bus rapid transit along the Mason Corridor from Cherry Street to Harmony Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The multi-modal Mason Corridor includes a recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian trail, as well as the planned bus rapid transit system in a fixed guideway for the majority of the corridor. The corridor lies partially between/within Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway property, a few hundred feet west of College Avenue (US 287).The FONSI was completed in the fall of 2008, and the Mason Corridor project received funding in the FTA New Starts Program. The project is • currently in the final design stage of implementation and construction is set to begin in late 2011 to early 2012 with an opening day in late 2012. 1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO NEPA This EIS has been prepared pursuant to CEO regulations implementing NEPA, FHWA, and FTA environmental impact and related procedures (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, and other applicable laws. It details the process through which transportation alternatives have been developed; discloses foreseeable social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from the project; provides findings for public review; and outlines potential mitigation options. The lead federal agencies, FHWA and FTA, have signature authority on the ROD. CDOT is preparing this EIS under the guidance of the lead agencies. • Purpose and Need 1.23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • ALTERNATIVES _ . • T 1 1 ' .m=z- j M�I�nFN A ti .. its:441, A 41.11 tyr, N1rI k' t 1..11 � l • • \t .:410/ S•/� • '111 4 • NORTH 1-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES 2 This chapter provides information about alternatives development and the evaluation What's in Chapter 2? 4 process used to identify a Preferred Alternative. The identification, Chapter 2-Alternatives consideration, and analysis of alternatives 2.1 Description of Process - are essential to the NEPA process and the 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed goal of objective decision making. Evaluation Regulations for implementing NEPA require 2.3 Other Alternatives Considered the following in an alternatives chapter: ► Rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of all reasonable alternatives and brief discussion of the reasons for elimination of any alternatives from detailed study ► Devotion of substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail ► Inclusion of reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency (FHWA) ► Inclusion of the No-Action Alternative This Final EIS presents the environmental impacts of the alternatives in comparative form, - thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision makers and the public. • This chapter is organized into the following three sections: ► Section 2.1 Description of Process presents the process of developing and screening alternatives. ► Section 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed Evaluation provides a textual and graphical description of the reasonable alternatives advanced for full evaluation. ► Section 2.3 Other Alternatives Considered summarizes all alternatives considered and why they were either screened out from further consideration or advanced as part of a build package. The Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011a) is incorporated by reference per CEQ 40 CFR 1502.21. This report includes additional detailed information about the alternatives development and evaluation process conducted in support of the EIS. This report compiles the three levels of alternatives development and screening that took place as part of the North 1-25 EIS study process. It describes how alternatives were developed, how they were evaluated on their ability to meet the project's Purpose and Need, environmental impact and practicability. It also describes how the alternatives were combined to create the two build packages that were included in the Draft EIS. The Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011 a) will be available for review „, along with this Final EIS. All alternatives described in this chapter were developed with assumptions about current 2' available technologies. In the future, as projects are implemented, it is anticipated that newer technologies will be implemented as appropriate. • Alternatives 2-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • ! 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS 2 A wide range of alternatives was initially developed that included multiple transit technologies on various feasible alignments and highway improvements on both existing and new alignments. The process of developing and screening alternatives took into account the following: ► State and federal requirement ► Ability to avoid or minimize environmental impacts ► The purpose and need for the project ► The regional planning context ► The reasonableness of an alternative ► Public input 2.1.1 State and Federal Requirements - Federal agencies are required by NEPA to prepare an EIS for major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment. The intent of the '1 North 1-25 EIS is to identify a multi-modal transportation solution along the corridor through a process that complies with NEPA policies and procedures. The lead federal agency, FHWA, has signature authority on the Record of Decision (ROD). CD0T is preparing this EIS under the guidance of the lead agency. Requirements of other applicable laws were incorporated throughout the process. State and federal agency representatives were involved as this was occurring. Other laws that influenced the location and configuration of the alternatives include: • ► Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The North 1-25 EIS was conducted using a I - NEPA/Section 404 merger process as documented in a letter dated February 5, 2004 from FHWA and FTA to USACE. This included coordination with the USAGE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1, (USFWS). Written concurrence from USAGE has been received for the first two concurrence points: 1) at acceptance of Purpose and Need 2) at acceptance of the 2_ reasonable alternatives to be fully evaluated in the Draft EIS. Along with issuance of the - Final EIS, concurrence is being requested for the final two steps in the process. This correspondence is provided in Appendix B. Reasonable alternatives in this document, including the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, were located to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The next two steps of the NEPA/Section 404 merger process are: 1) concurrence that the Preferred Alternative appears to be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable :1, Alternative and 2) concurrence with the Compensatory Mitigation Plan. The request for concurrence with these final two steps has occurred in the Section 404 permit application which has been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. The public review for the Section 404 permit application will occur at the same time as the public review process for this Final EIS. The US Army Corps of Engineers will provide their concurrence with these two final steps at the same time they issue the Section 404 permit for the project. ► Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Section 106 process included consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHP0) and other consulting parties (mainly interested local governments) to identify historic properties • potentially subject to project impacts. The SHP0 has formally concurred that this project Alternatives 2-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. i will use a document substitution process, whereby this EIS is used for consultation of effects of the undertaking upon historic properties. ► Clean Air Act as Amended 1990. Coordination occurred with CDPHE and EPA to obtain concurrence on the methodology used for the air quality analysis for this project. • ► Section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act. A number of historic, park, and wildlife refuge properties protected by this legislation are located along the alternatives. These properties were avoided where feasible and prudent. • 2.1.2 Purpose and Need, Reasonableness, and Potential to Impact Environmental Resources Alternatives were developed to address the project's purpose and need, which included addressing safety concerns along 1-25, increasing mobility, improving accessibility, providing multi-modal transportation alternatives, and replacing aging infrastructure along 1-25. These are described in detail in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need. Alternatives were evaluated based on their reasonableness, as defined by 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. - Concerted efforts were taken as all alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize the effect • of the alternatives on wetlands and other waters of the U.S., on sensitive wildlife species, on historic properties, and on park properties. This effort influenced highway and transit corridor alignment selection, highway and transit corridor design recommendations, highway • i interchange configurations, transit station locations, and maintenance facility locations. Additional avoidance and minimization efforts will be undertaken as the NEPA process _ z proceeds through the ROD, and during final design. 2.1.3 Regional Planning Context • Consideration of regional plans throughout the regional study area also helped to shape the development of alternatives. Plans considered in the development process are depicted in Figure 2-1. Understanding the regional planning context helped the alternatives development process to avoid precluding other public transportation investments. It also improved the cost i effectiveness of alternatives by connecting them with planned and funded projects, such as FasTracks and the Mason Transportation Corridor. Regional plans considered include: ► Mason Transportation Corridor. This plan involves a bus rapid transit system, called MAX, running from Mason and Maple Streets to Mason Street and Harmony Road in Fort Collins. ► North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (commonly referred to as TAFS). TAFS examined how to increase mobility from the North Front Range to r, Denver; it was completed in 2001. TAFS recommended that commuter rail be built from Denver to a point just south of US 34, where it would branch, with one line extending to Fort Collins, and one line extending to Greeley. It also recommended that HOV lanes be added to I-25 and bus service be offered along 1-25 until rail service was available. i(I ► Access Control Plans. CDOT and local communities have worked together to develop •a and adopt Access Control Plans on a number of State Highways within the regional study 41 area including: US 85, SH 14, US 34, SH 392, SH 56, and SH 60. These plans provide Alternatives 2.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • guidance about the location and configuration of future access points along these State ' Highways. ► DRCOG Metro Vision. DRCOG's 2035 Metro Vision RTP (2035 MVRTP) includes new 4 general purpose lanes and HOV lanes on 1-25 from US 36 to SH 7 and a new interchange at Sheridan Parkway (north of SH 7). The fiscally constrained plan includes general purpose lanes from US 36 to Thornton Parkway. An amendment to this plan is proposed to include tolled express lanes from CR 38 to SH 66 and to modify the general purpose lane widening to tolled express lanes between US 36 and 120th Avenue. This amendment is anticipated to be adopted in September 2011. !! ► RTD FasTracks. This Denver metro area transit expansion project will include two i commuter rail lines extending north toward the regional study area, terminating in 2 Longmont and in Thornton. It also includes right-of-way preservation for additional transit service between Commerce City and Brighton. i a ► North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan. The NFR Fiscally Constrained 2035 i; RTP is being updated to include tolled express lanes from the NFRMPO southern boundary at CR 38 to SH 56 and auxiliary lanes from SH 392 to SH 14. It will also include commuter rail right of way preservation and express bus and commuter bus stations. The updated plan is anticipated to be adopted in September 2011. In addition, there are several private initiatives under discussion within the regional study area that influence public and agency opinion toward new transportation investments. These 2 1 discussions have been presented to various groups, communities, and agencies, but are not 22 included on a publicly adopted transportation plan, nor have they begun a NEPA process. • They include: 24 ► Rail "Loop" Plan. There is private and community interest in building a rail transit system _ in the North Front Range that would allow residents in Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland to connect by rail to the FasTracks system, DIA, and each of the three cities. _ - ► Front Range Rail. There is continuing private and citizen interest in rail service that could ' extend from Wyoming to New Mexico, primarily utilizing the BNSF railroad line for the 2,) northern part of the service. ► Prairie Falcon Parkway. There is a private interest pursuing the feasibility of building a new multi-modal facility that would relocate long-distance travelers and freight traffic, including trucks and rail, to the eastern plains of Colorado. ► High Speed Rail Feasibility Study. A publicly funded study by the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA)was completed in 2010 evaluating the potential for constructing high speed rail service in the 1-70 and 1-25 corridors. The study recommends further consideration of high-speed rail in the 1-25 corridor. The effect of the planning context on the North 1-25 project was substantial. It resulted in: ► Consideration of opportunities for connecting with and potentially interlining with the .k) FasTracks system and Mason Transportation Corridor. 4!! ► The need to avoid precluding future freight or passenger rail service on active and 4 i abandoned rail corridors in the regional study area. 12 ► The need to provide a flexible solution south of SH 7 to accommodate improvements • i z planned and included in DRCOG's Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP. 14 ► The need to avoid precluding 1-25 high-speed rail opportunities. Alternatives 2.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-1 Regional Planning Context J. 4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 Wellington Mr • Rail "Loop" Plan Mason Transportation Corridor (MAX) ' I Commuter rails stem connecting Greeley, Fort Bus rapid transit and trails a k" 25 t ' Collins and Loveland from Maple to Harmony " f , (not approved or funded) (funding has been , z approved by FTA) Er. L``' a 14 �, �, t �� - El Transportation Alternatives Collins '-' 85 ( • Feasibililty Study (TAFS) • Commuter Rail Element T 4 ` ranee EatonCommuter rail from Denver to Fort r Collins and Greeley. HOV lanes 392 I S from SH 7 to SH 66. Bus service on .r �r -25 prior to implementation of rail . . - , service. (not funded) i � II . . ,a _ reels L a l-25 1995 Environmental Lo Ala - Assessment i riif1* ` \ - 6-lane widening of 1-25 from Q Raar - ' � li SH7toSH66. R 20 .77- - / ■El -40 itiare-az.11'41\ R ■ t; V (6.e1 imi t, ii " jr, / illr ` Front Range Rail Access Control Plans y F Part of statewide rail plan 0 " R34 . seeking federal designation III US 85, SH 14, SH 392, , • . as a high-speed rail corridor US 34, SH60, SH56 I o Ili fr l r— Lon • mont ) I •D DRCOG Metro Vision �/i Prairie Falcon Parkway Widen 1-25 with a , e rid New multi-modal facility on buffer-separated HOV lane 85 eastern plains and a general purpose lane _ BOULDER '119 0 tV (not approved or funded) from 84th Avenue to SH 7, Mr t ' H - and construct a new tx 40 r 7 interchange at Sheridan © l rI ■ Pkwy. (partially funded) ` r • "`- cky Mountain Rail BOuld - r `~ 1 thority t.i 1 FRA developed N. I-25 rail 119 , -- - — LI - alignment for High-Speed (93 t `mrill a �, E� Rail Feasibility Study RTD FasTracks S S / f.. �6 • Northwest Rail commuter sups Broornfleld z i ■ rail line (funded) .. - Corn ,z ` N: J • RTD FasTracks . E470 Denver MI 4 International Airport North Metro commuter rail L 2 >ri •■ line (funded) ( 2ippp RTD FasTracks • Right-of-way preservation I I JEFFERSON \,„. g y .' 76�a ,7_ _ for passenger rail service �%� from Commerce City to • vBr _ 70 Brighton �. �nio Station ,� 413EMI 70 II- 6 Ve De ver rs 6.�� 2 4 t i .o lb r�r t_�Mlles North y . ' 0 Alternatives 2-5 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 2.1.4 Public Input 2 A substantial proactive public and local agency involvement program was conducted to provide input to the alternatives development and evaluation process. This program included: a ► Executive Oversight Committee (EOC). An EOC was established, consisting of representatives from the lead agency (FHWA) and CDOT, which met to determine policy decisions relating to the project. The EOC met at key project milestones. ► Regional Coordination Committee (RCC). The RCC was established at the beginning of the project. It consisted of elected officials from the 45 municipalities and counties that chose to participate as well as RTD and the metropolitan planning organizations in the North 1-25 regional study area. The RCC met about every other month throughout the study. Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, the RCC meetings were combined with the i 2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and were held on an as-needed basis. I ► Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC was established at the beginning of the i4 project. It included staff representatives from the 45 municipalities and counties in the regional study area that chose to participate, as well as representatives from RTD, EPA, and metropolitan planning organizations. The TAC met approximately monthly throughout the early part of the study and every other month beginning in 2007. Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, TAC meetings were combined with the RCC meetings and held on an as-needed basis. ,i ► Project Website. A project website was established in 2004. • ► Newsletters. Seven issues of the NorthLink newsletters were prepared and distributed to a mailing list of 5,007 people. In addition, six issues of an electronic newsletter, E-Link, were e-mailed to an electronic mailing list of 1,632 people. 2- ► Public Meetings and Working Groups. To date, 30 public meetings or working group meetings have been held; 11 in 2004, 4 in 2005, 12 in 2006, and 3 public hearings after the release of the Draft EIS, in addition to the TAC and RCC meetings. In addition, 45 interchange working group meetings were held with adjacent property owners between spring and fall 2006 to solicit input regarding interchange layout options. Eight transit station working group meetings were held to solicit input regarding locations for bus and rail transit stations. In 2008, during the Draft EIS process, three public hearings were held to solicit comments from the community. During development of the Final EIS, in 2009 and 2010, other meetings were held to solicit input from the public, including targeted populations and various city councils. ► Other Community Meetings. A total of 47 small group meetings were held to provide 35 presentations to civic organizations, such as Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions clubs, and other community groups. A total of 11 meetings were held specifically to solicit input about the EIS process from low income and minority groups. N ► Community Events. Project representatives had booths or participated in a total of 17 community events, such as the Taste of Fort Collins and the Milliken Beef and Bean 4 Festival. -i 1 This public outreach effort helped the team to understand the various transportation needs in 42 northern Colorado and the public's strong desire to see a multi-modal solution included in this • a', Final EIS, specifically a rail alternative. Alternatives 2.6 Final EIS NORTH I-2.5 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 2.1.5 Alternatives Screening Process The alternatives screening process was based on three primary project objectives: 1) address the project's purpose and need, 2) provide a solution that is practical (defined by cost and ability to implement), and 3) avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Evaluation criteria were used to determine how well each alternative could address the project's three objectives. r The criteria were applied to the alternatives three successive times, using increasingly detailed - measures, in order to screen and develop the alternatives that were ultimately identified for inclusion in this EIS. Applying the criteria narrowed the range of alternatives considered and provided a means of comparison between them as the project progressed. The three phases it of screening were as follows: ► The first phase of screening used select evaluation criteria to eliminate alternatives considered to have a fatal flaw, such as compromised safety or excessive cost. ► The second phase of screening compared alternatives against each other to identify which I met the project's purpose and need and which had the least potential to impact environmental resources. (, ► The third phase of screening used evaluation criteria such as miles of congestion, - accessibility to population and employment centers, cost, and impacts to built and natural • resources to identify which combinations or "packages" of alternatives would work best together (that is, create the most mobility benefits with the least redundancy and the least environmental impact). • ' These three levels of screening resulted in two build packages developed and evaluated in the :2 Draft EIS. The evaluation of these two packages, as well as input from the project's advisory committees and the public was used to develop the Preferred Alternative that is evaluated in 'a this Final EIS. The primary considerations for development of the Preferred Alternative included the ability to address the project's Purpose and Need, including the project's ability to 'r address aging infrastructure, future mobility corridor actions, the need to provide regional '- modal options, and the ability to address growing travel demand including freight traffic on 1-25. More information about the development of the Preferred Alternative and the elimination of Package A and Package B is included in Section 2.3 Other Alternatives Considered. 2.1.6 Decision Making Process 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 -it, Need in a manner that allows FHWA and CDOT to take responsibility for the decision and implement it. • Alternatives 2-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • I The format of the decision making process is consensus. Operating guidelines were 2 discussed with the stakeholders. These guidelines included the definition of consensus which does not necessarily mean unanimity. Some parties may strongly support a particular -i recommendation while other may accept it as a workable agreement. In a consensus agreement the parties recognize that given the combination of gains and tradeoffs, the n resulting agreement is the best one the parties can make at that time. If consensus is not - possible then the level of support and dissention will be noted and all deliberations and products of the collaborative decision making will be considered by CDOT and FHWA in their ,, decision making. After each major discussion each of the stakeholders present were asked to indicate their level of support. I I The discussion process that led to the Preferred Alternative entailed several steps. First, the stakeholders identified the goals and values important to their respective communities or I? agencies. Next, the stakeholders considered these values in relation to the major ]-1 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 r, 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. At this point, the recommended Preferred Alternative was brought to the _ Executive Oversight Committee for consideration and review. Upon receiving direction from 22 the EOC, the stakeholders finalized the recommended Preferred Alternative and all participants indicated their support for the Preferred Alternative, thus establishing consensus. • =4 Appendix B provides detailed description of the workshops conducted with the stakeholders during this collaborative decision making process. 2r, 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION 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 this EIS. A detailed description of the screening and evaluation process used to identify these four packages is described in Section 2.3 of this chapter. _ Improvements identified in the four packages assume that currently funded, programmed projects will be added to the existing transportation system. Some of the key programmed projects include: ► New tight diamond interchange at SH 392/1-25 ► New bridge at 84th Avenue/I-25 interchange ► Construction of RTD FasTracks commuter rail lines • Construction of the South Transit Center near Mason Street and Harmony Road has received funding. The South Transit Center is part of the Mason (MAX) BRT Project. The Environmental MI Assessment for this project has been completed, with a Finding of No Significant Impact a I issued in September, 2008. In addition, the Mason Corridor project was recommended for • -!' 2009 funding in the FTA New Starts report. This Final EIS assumes this project will be constructed as planned. Alternatives 2-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Each of the build alternatives were developed with assumptions about current available 2 technologies. In the future, as projects are implemented, FHWA and CDOT anticipated that newer technologies will be incorporated as appropriate. Examples of assumed technologies 4 that could be upgraded include, by are not limited to, toll collection equipment, transit fare collection systems and tension cable barrier systems. t, While interim improvements are not identified or evaluated in this 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 this Final EIS ROD. Other interim r I projects would require a re-evaluation to revise or issue another ROD under this Final EIS or could be completed through a separate action which would require separate NEPA !2 documentation. CDOT and FHWA will determine which course of action should be undertaken on a case by case basis. 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative is a conservative estimate of safety improvements and maintenance t, requirements that would be necessary if a build alternative were not constructed. It is presented - for comparison with the build alternatives in accordance with NEPA requirements. This i • 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 211 improvements are described below and graphically summarized in Figure 2-2. Typical cross sections for the No-Action Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-5. • _' 2.2.1.1 MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES 2 From US 36 to SH 1, 64 structures would require minor rehabilitation and 4 would require major _, rehabilitation by 2035. Minor and major rehabilitation is included in the cost of the No-Action _= Alternative. 'ri 2.2.1.2 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. !I 2.2.1.3 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, ,a 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. • Alternatives 2.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-2 No-Action Alternative III $H1 $H1 A 1 r Eder Creek LEGEND 1 w•I CR 58R"gtan 25 • Minor Structure Rehab by 2035 CR52 • Major Structure Rehab by 2035 6 . vista `MoUintritta.c"RR'�o D'alnaGt Replace / Rehab Pavement by 2035 l nnr :-. 14 NB 14 �n '�' Lela C Timnatr Dilcn Box EtEr reei • Minor Safety Modifications by 2035 in ti r Fall? �C r' lin � �SRR C ss3 FasTracks Rail Line SH 1 to US 34 4 H,,,,pr, cacti la>PCpugfai RTD Boundary I L Print `n En{� lei r 39 Lucerne 8—> J ( Windsor Cro 'cads ressroads CM MiliDs ' — la" P 7�3t l� ail �� lig,• Pa i 1r • 402 `• it, teal(Hi Ister`,rl T_1 � / I 25 ` . JAt MULyxn rur..r Ql in.'s Comer .� LARIMER R I M E R .m J H 1r ICS olds " �} IS p"l! �. SH 60 GN 5.11L60 -+. $H56 . CR46 '�Io:P" Q I SH Sb • ° Fr. US 34 toSHf6 CR380 °` R3t WELD 4* CR31 " L:H 32 Flattest Iil . . : C H 28 •np It St Vrain River Ira BOULDER oa6 11shtWadr DI c.: jive) i ra ® r. ,IL Ara•ahoe .t•. �Iv , _ ial 1 belio i. ,�i A .A.* - as 144, Ain I / • . - , ,o/pn • is 4/�/f 1 F :,\i Roons • � it a7a� , 1 Rd '.,np r axr T^r'. not !�'►"� co re o Ped �. Northrwat \ , kar Q Rail CoMdo c �1 1 1 �� or �, • N�Mdtro av It DID,ivititiewiiitieFN I, ?e r- - Deny r r 0 2 4 6 8 10 4 . Unio Station inmir at WeN North DENVER ' 0 Alternatives 2-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • i Figure 2-3 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section - SH 1SH gu ypt to 66 Varies 114' - 156' 10' 24' 8' Median Varies 8' 24' 10' << > < > > < >-C > < > < > Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr, 30' - 72' Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes Lanes Figure 2-4 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. y Figure 2-5 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' II "in rnn . i± raj Alternatives 2-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 2.2.2 Package A 2 Figure 2-6 illustrates Package A. It includes new general purpose lanes, interchange reconstruction/upgrades, a commuter rail line, commuter bus service, feeder bus service, and 4 congestion management measures. These are described in detail in the following sections. The Package Concept Plans (FHU and Jacobs, 2011b) illustrate the layout of Package A in more detail. - 2.2.2.1 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, u widening 1-25 would include reconstructing the entire interstate cross section and rebuilding it i I to today's standards. This includes improving horizontal and vertical alignment, widening both 2 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 2-1 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 22 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. 2-4 Typical 1-25 cross sections are depicted in Figures 2-7 through 2-13. 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 2.12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS e A ure 2-6 Packa• Fi information. cooperation transportation. g g .l 5 LEGEND SH ' 1 New General Purpose Lane We • on (GPL) in Each Direction IM Correct • Mountain Vnta deficienciestric geometric • IN 1 New General Purpose Lane 4 and replace aging 87 (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each infrastructure Direction Fort Collins DowntoY Transit Center - BNSF and Maple St. I ■ .-, Alit 4 Commuter Rail (CR) CSU - Mason St. between �`—� University Ave. and W.Pitkin St. I Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort « ' Inns * Prospect 85 US 85 South Fort Collins Transit Center - • Hamm • Mason St. and W. Fairway Lane Imnath • severance Eaten 6 s 57 /Feeder Bus Service i a Lucerne Interchange Upgrades 67S IWI. IGreeley - uses 34 Love 1 nd al'd and o SL 0 Number of Lanes North Loveland -BNSF and 29th St. South Greeley- • Commuter Bus Station / Stop Downtown Loveland - BNSFand 34 Greele 24th St. Ave. and approximately 6th St to 6 + Garden cityri 0 Commuter Rail Station R50 /t) Eva Evans US 85 CRIB and 42nd St. Ca on 6°0 , Johnstown paw FasTracks Rail Line La5•Ile so , ._ Berthoud - BNSF and SH , • Ml9hen 0 FasTracks / RTD Transit Station i • 56 d re • ❑ Potential Commuter Rail 6 Operational & Maintenance - Facility 36 , CR 34 \f r North_Longmont - I Mead • rlatte.m er;• Potential Commuter Bus /`" ) BNSF and SH66 s6' 070e-Operational & Maintenance Longmont �Laoliggnment sottllloi�Rogell nrsrthof Facility to • -119 1. 36 to I 6 85 S ` fli_ DEIR . V 119 I Firestone P87) I 1 derlat f ' ;52') �-.{ M and Wen 8 - NW i 51' IlDFert net al i,;25 a O C:" wca s i o a upten Erie, oulder 8 114, # I d — 76 ilk L treee!�7 '�i ) �' • '� 36 sodsI N Northst ' • i S Right-of-Way Rail Cowerrido r Preservation superte �0 eli r ' 'iron p r ' ee r 6 • x Implement ' p « • 4 North Metro 'E47& • Dons, h■t.niimlewal No-Action Corridor I Airport Alternative I s k 2 Projects 12;) • JEFFER - ON r� � �/� i L — J L -1 L ->_D7D Unon — ao .` nion Cation ' e Ill 0 2 4 6 8 10 n s Den er Alternatives 2-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Figure 2-7 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 14 152' c > 12' < 24' 12 56' Median 12' 24' 12' Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr.< Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Lanes Lanes Figure 2-8 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 14 to Crossroads Boulevard < 176' 12 36' 12' 56' Median 12' 36' 12' Shldr. C 3 Travel Lanes Shldr, Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. r-- v Figure 2-9 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - Crossroads Boulevard to SH 60 200' 12' 12' 36' 17 56' Median 12' 36' 17 12' Shldr, Aux. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr. Lane Lane iss1.", Nimes , -4 Figure 2-10 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 60 to SH 66 176' 12' 36' 12' 56' Median 12' 36' 12' > 4 > 4 > 4 > t ) . > < > Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Alternatives 2-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS , .h information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 2-11 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross - g g yp Section (same as No-Action) SH 66 to SH 52 184' ,. 12' 3T 15' � > c 56' Median 15' r4c 37' > 4,17> Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes S.hldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. fits*______Igaiklimin a Figure 2-12 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 52 to SH 7 184' E +j 12' 48' 12' 40' Median 12' 48' 12' Shldr <- 4 Travel Lanes >S I h dr c Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes Shldr. .1 SSE 21 nor re% le . . . . r. Ilt _ ....., al Figure 2-13 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section -SH 7 to E-470 170' 26' Median s > 12' 12' 48' 12' 12' 48' 12' 12' C Y C > t 3 -C_> E-3.• C >H E-> Shldr. Aux. 4 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes Aux. ,Shldr. Lane 2' 'Lane to �iie 2.2.2.2 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 2-14 through 2-19. Table 2-1 summarizes the interchange improvements associated with Package A. A more • detailed description of the interchange configurations screening process is included in Section 5.2.1 of the Alternatives Development and Screening Report ( FHU and Alternatives 2-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Jacobs, 2011a), accompanying this EIS as a separate volume. Additional information about 2 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 2-1 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 2-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. SH 14 Figure 2-14 SH 14 Interchange 1 An enhanced new diamond interchange i with northbound to westbound triple left- turns would accommodate the projected4 k.r:.,. ' 4 2030 traffic volumes. However, to minimize di . :rt.- ' 1 , ' 5 impacts to the properties in the southwest .....• . -; :' p p p 6 quadrant, special consideration for , f! 4_i r : I7 placement of the frontage roads alon 1-25 1 8 and along SH 14 was required. As shown in "'J` 9 Figure 2-14, the southwest frontage road kyr are ic I jam"' 10 would be pulled in close to 1-25 and nkiiInirii 11 restricted to one-way southbound ;� :. ' 12 movement. The SH 14 frontage road/1-25 LEGEND in 13 west frontage road intersection just west of .r A 1 -1 the southbound ramps would be grade- ;i [ Roadway Nortl 15 separated at SH 14. Though Stockton ‘t ,, ; _ I Impact Line •16 Avenue at SH 14 would be signalized , it `, -V Structures 17 would be restricted to right-in/right-out ,..` -., ,..,..L.O, I Traffic Signal 1X movement. - .,-r • Stop Sign r a. { I' • US 34 Figure 2-15 US 34 Interchange 19 As the primary interchange 20 access/egress point for Loveland - ,`—_ - - I 21 and Greeley, projected volumes at 4..;......„ ..�i ,_ t 22 this interchange exceed the _. . 7- S- - i �i� I • - Fil ‘p . 23 volumes that can be handled by a :- t['e. — typical diamond interchange. In I ci! ` . . II & ta_; order to achieve an acceptable - CI .7f, level-of-service (LOS) and maintain LEGEND ' D ' �1/�j \ '1 access to the existing and rapidly , .41 _ growing commercial development - Roadway Ho,th 1 i I _ _ 29 centers at this interchange, a new Impact Line il . 30 dual directional/diamond Structures . . 31 interchange with single-point urban Traffic S. ;Zj Stop Sign 32 interchanges at adjacent 33 intersections is proposed. Direct-connect ramps are planned for southbound-to-eastbound 34 movement, northbound-to-westbound movement, and westbound-to-southbound movement. As shown in Figure 2-15 these would provide access to trips destined to Loveland and 3i 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 38 include dual left-turn lanes and exclusive right-turn lanes and would provide local access to the 39 developments adjacent to the interchange. 40 Alternatives 2-17 Final EIS NORTH I-ZS August 2011ad EIS information. cooperation transportation. III SH 402 Figure 2-16 SH 402 Interchange i A new diamond interchange ir: 2 with additional lanes on the 3 ramps at SH 402 would 4 accommodate anticipated • il Ke_.\ 5 demand . This is shown in ` 6 Figure 2-16. The interchange 7 upgrade would also include 8 reversing the grade separation '' 9 between SH 402 and 1-25. -- 10 Today, 1-25 is on a structure 11 and passes over the top of LEGEND 1 12 SH 402 . The proposed /),.. .„ _ 13 configuration reverses this so Roadway North 14 that SH 402 would pass over Impact Line 15 1-25. This reconfiguration would - Structures 16 improve the vertical alignment 17 and safety of 1-25 at this 0 Traffic Signal ' '` 18 location . It Stop Sign 1111 LCR 16 Figure 2-17 LCR 16 Interchange 19 Similar to SH 402, the 20 profile of LCR 16 would 21 be modified to go over 22 1-25, thereby improving 23 the vertical alignment of 24 1-25. In addition, 25 on-ramps that are not 26 included in today's ! -f � _ Y John- Corner 27 configuration would be 28 added to improve 29 accessibility and 30 operation at this LEGEND 25 31 interchange. This is North us/ 32 Roadway shown in Figure 2-1 7. Impact Line Structures Traffic Signal ` slon t Stop Sign Ill Alternatives 2-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. SH 56 Figure 2-18 SH 56 Interchange I A new diamond interchange with 2 additional lanes on the ramps at 3 SH 56 would accommodate 4 anticipated demand . While the 5 design itself is fairly 6 straightforward, this interchange 7 upgrade also would include 8 reversing the grade separation z <} between SH 56 and 1-25. Today, ' 56 10 1-25 passes under SH 56. The 1 I proposed configuration would LEGEND [7N \ 12 reverse this so that 1-25 would - Roadway North 13 pass over SH 56, as shown in Impact Line 14 Figure 2-18. This reconfiguration _ IS would improve the horizontal and Structures Jig- 16 vertical alignment and safety of 1 Traffic Signal • r, 17 1-25 at this location . is Stop Sign 0 SH 7 Figure 2-19 SH 7 Interchange 18 The new SH 7 diamond interchange is , 19 depicted in Figure 2-19 . The City and 20 County of Broomfield and the City of - -4'1' ti '\,, :: :III, 21 Thornton have expressed a desire for - ,, 22 a partial cloverleaf configuration (loop . ` • , :K "P. . �- j 23 ramps for the westbound-to- :- . _, % southbound and eastbound-to- 25 northbound movements) provided at ' r- �� • ,. ; 26 this location . To accommodate this LEGEND p71 27 request, without substantially /\ 28 increasing the impacts or expenditure Roadway North 29 for this project, ramp terminal spacing Impact Line 30 has been increased to 1 , 150 feet. This Structures ' ft :4I e: ::::: :n., Vt 31 spacing would allow local governments li Traffic Signal 32 to modify this interchange to a partial z Stop Sign ja 33 cloverleaf design in the future without 34 major reconstruction of the 35 interchange. Evaluation conducted as part of the Final EIS indicated that a partial cloverleaf design 36 would be needed to accommodate 2035 traffic. The partial cloverleaf configuration is included in the Preferred Alternative. 0 1 N Alternatives 2-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. •I 2.2.2.3 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL Package A track design would be built to WHAT IS specifications for locomotive hauled coaches to COMMUTER RAIL? 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- r, 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. it I implementation of North I-25 commuter rail. In Commuter rail trains could be diesel- ' ! this way, interoperability with FasTracks system powered (most common) or I` will be maintained. electrically-powered. This package includes a robust double track I i 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 r, 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). I,) A regional transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter rail service. lit 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 4 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 2t, 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 I 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 (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 a 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 4(1 both sets of tracks would be used by commuter rail and freight rail. On the alignment's I 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. • Alternatives 2-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. An additional double-track segment would be constructed in Longmont between the Sugar 2 Mill station and the proposed Northwest Rail Corridor end-of-line at 1st and Terry to allow 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 i 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 i < 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 P 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 2 it: 21 ► 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 the Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011a) 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 41i 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 12 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- Alternatives 2-21 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • cutting measures such as single tracking. RTD has developed these types of options for 2 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 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 Li 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 2 in Appendix I of the Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011 a). Two major low-cost options were developed. Both included use of single tracking f 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 1 downtown Denver. The second assumed that passengers could get on a train from Fort 21 Collins and continue into Denver via Boulder without needing to transfer to a second train 2 in Longmont. • 2 , 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. LI 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 4n 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 42 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 • 4 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 Alternatives 2-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. quality impacts would not be much different except at station areas, because there would 2 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 H 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 1 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 2 system for the communities along the corridor. ► The limited number of trains per day did not satisfy the multimodal travel needs of the 4 region. ► Single tracking limited flexibility associated with track maintenance that could result in r 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. i ► Reduced service to downtown Fort Collins, necessitated because of single tracking, did not satisfy the travel demand generated by the area. • 2 ► 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. 2-1 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 2" 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 1-25 corridor. ► Single tracking also precludes the ability to expand service with more frequent train ;.4 service. ► Reduced rail service to downtown Fort Collins, necessitated because of single tracking, r, 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 1-25 and US 287 corridors. The level of service that could be provided u, would result in unmet transit demand along these two corridors. u I In conclusion, a rail service scenario with only single tracking and no transit service along 1-25 i 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 4 287 corridors is not met. Alternatives 2-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Grade Crossings The track design includes grade crossing treatments, as described below. Table 2-2 summarizes the grade crossing improvements included in Package A. The table 4 uses the following terms: ► Passive: A crossing with signs and pavement markings as traffic control devices that r, 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. 2 ► 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 22 single track with grade crossing improvements as part of the project. • Alternatives 2.24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-2 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 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 ID BNSF- LCR 15a-NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF—LCR 15a—NE Boulder Co. Gates Gates BNSF—LCR 2E— NE Boulder Co. Gates Gates 1 Alternatives 2.25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • I Table 2-2 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 III 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. NIA 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 2-26 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. I Table 2-2 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 2 2.2.2.4 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Once the commuter rail alignment was determined, a station site selection process was set in 4 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 IVA 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 2 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 14 potential station locations were screened down to nine new stations. After determining the general vicinity of station locations, a more detailed evaluation was r, 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 2.3.2 of this document and a full description of the station screening process is found in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report 2 (FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). As a result, a preferred site(s) was identified at each station to 22 include the platform, park-and-ride and bus activity. Table 2-3 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 2.27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 1111 Table 2-3 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. • 2 The typical station layout proposed two side-loaded platforms within the double-tracked 3 alignment, with vertical circulation for pedestrian access across the tracks connecting the 4 platform to the park-and-ride and surrounding community as shown in Figure 2-20 and 5 Figure 2-21 . For additional information on the commuter rail station process, refer to ( Alternatives Development and Screening Report ( FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). 7 Figure 2-20 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Design • ; - t 1e ti - - =Star . . Alternatives 2.28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 2-21 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Cross Section 19' 8" 5. 4" _ 25' 5' 4" 19' 8" PLATFORM PLATFORM )1 t g - I - I 8. TRACKS TRACKS 50 1 50' I/ PARK-AND-RIDE 2.2.2.5 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 10 The site identified in Fort Collins is 76. 1 acres, while the site identified in Berthoud is 11 61 .6 acres. Either could accommodate the necessary uses. They are being evaluated as 12 part of Package A to determine the most favorable location based on impacts to 13 environmental resources, community impacts, and costs. 14 The commuter rail service defined in Package A will serve as an extension of planned RTD 15 services. The RTD commuter rail maintenance facility design process has not proceeded far 16 enough to evaluate the feasibility of using that facility to maintain the additional vehicles 17 required for Package A commuter rail service. In addition , it is probable that an overnight 18 layover facility within the North 1-25 regional study area will be required even if trains are 19 maintained within the RTD area. Hence, it has been assumed that a maintenance facility will 20 be required as part of the North 1-25 process to ensure the independent utility of Package A. 21 Alternatives 2-29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 2.2.2.6 PACKAGE A COMMUTER Bus 2 Package A includes a commuter bus service along US 85 WHAT IS connecting Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA. This COMMUTER BUS? 4 service would operate every 30 minutes in AM and PM peak hours and every hour during off-peak periods. Commuter bus service is r. 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 II to provide a short lane for the bus between the right-turn roads designated as arterials H lane and the through lanes. Signal equipment also would or higher and has park-and- I, be upgraded to sense the presence of a bus and provide ride facilities located at its I z a short signal phase where the bus is able to travel stops. H 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, 2011 a). The following queue jump or transit signal enhancement locations are included in Package A along the US 85 corridor: 31st Street—Evans CR 34—Platteville 136th Avenue— Brighton • 37th Street— Evans Grand Avenue (CR 32)— Platteville 124th Avenue—Brighton 42nd Street— Evans SH 66—Platteville 120th Avenue—Commerce City 1st Avenue—LaSalle 168th Avenue—Brighton 112th Avenue—Commerce City CR 42—Gilcrest/Weld County Bromley Lane—Brighton 104th Avenue—Commerce City Elm Street—Gilcrest 144th Avenue—Brighton _ : While specific fares have not been identified, a review of commuter bus systems nationwide 22 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 4 $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) could operate this service. CDOT also has authority to operate regional transit services. In ',II 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 2 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 4 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. • Alternatives 2.30 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. I 2.2.2.7 PACKAGE A COMMUTER Bus STATIONS AND STOPS 2 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 I 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- ]i and-ride and bus activity. A more detailed description of the station sites considered and the screening process is included in Section 2.3.2 of this document and a full description of the 2 station screening process is found in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). Table 2-4 lists the station sites and stops for the commuter bus 1 service. s Table 2-4 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 I-25 express lanes and go into downtown using 19th Street, turning southwest on I ' 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 2-22. 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 _a 20th Street to Arapahoe, and follow the remainder of the route described above. • Alternatives 2-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 2-22 Commuter Bus (and Express Bus) Downtown Denver Circulation �y 11 L 6T '� ei' \ `Q OO \\.;.< v1 ♦ I 54 coo 1 I • aP Coors '. • Field esji / a TD II; k :" \ ,f , f' s .. • :.:, Union :: Station 5 • •. ,. •71 ) ) t \4t (Arntrak) e.'� `� d"' cr ♦ 0\9 ka er.r. Ss. % Flitch eyo)\ )• of Gardens7 GAS . Qe� 0 Pepsi r4 Esc # Center U .fi AURARIA e ° CAMPUS fit) ` VN / ode North During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right out of Bitch 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 the 20th Street interchange. Planned improvements at Denver Union Station may allow these buses to access andIII 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 Alternatives 2-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. i 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. 2.2.2.8 PACKAGE A FEEDER Bus Four feeder bus routes are proposed to enable riders to WHAT IS !, access the commuter rail and commuter bus services in FEEDER BUS? - Package A. These services would travel: Feeder bus service c• ► Along SH 257, connecting Windsor and Timnath to the throughonnectsut tthe communities o throughout the region to a commuter rail and the commuter bus. major transit investment ► Along US 34, connecting Greeley and Loveland to such as passenger rail or both 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- s 4 ► Along WCR 13 /WCR 8, connecting the tri-towns dependent passengers. (Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono) and Erie to the i„ 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 l operate the feeder bus service. Funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be 21 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 NFRMP0 or CD0T's Division -, by son of Rail and Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three-year demonstration project. 2(i 2.2.2.9 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 '1) 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. 2.2.2.10 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 Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU ") and Jacobs, 2011a). Table 2-5 summarizes congestion management measures that were 10 identified for Package A. Mr Alternatives 2-33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 2-5 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 CarpoolNanpool 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 W Prospect Rd. ► SH 119 r 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 2-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 2.2.2.11 OTHER PACKAGE A FEATURES 2 Package A also includes retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage features. Retaining Walls 4 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 r, 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 I identified in Package A. These would be located along highways and at transit stations, 1: 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 i; runoff, such as ponds, vaults, and infiltration basins would be considered during final H 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, I-25, or US 85. Final design would include a detailed • hydraulic analysis for each crossing. This would include addressing allowable backwater 21i and methods for mitigating impacts to the environment. Additional items that would be 2 considered include costs for construction, maintenance, and operations. Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain regulations and CDOT drainage criteria would be followed. 2.2.2.12 PACKAGE A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES The capital cost for Package A is estimated to be approximately $1.963 billion (2009 dollars). Additionally, the roadway would continue to require ongoing maintenance - and the new rail and bus service would have annual operating and maintenance cost associated with it. The total operating and maintenance cost is estimated to be $45 million annually. • Alternatives 235 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ! 2.2.3 Package B 2 Figure 2-23 illustrates Package B. As shown, Package B includes tolled express lanes (TEL), interchange upgrades, bus rapid transit (BRT), feeder bus service, and congestion I 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 r, detail. 2.2.3.1 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 !u corridor except between Harmony Road and SH 60 TOLLED EXPRESS LANES? H where two barrier-separated lanes would be added in 12 each direction. Lane configuration is depicted in Lanes separated from general I Figure 2-25 through Figure 2-29. Design criteria were purpose lanes by a striped !4 established by CDOT for the highway improvements. buffer or a raised median Design guidelines recommend avoiding use of median barrier. Lanes whose demand barrier where practical. Consistent with the existing wide is managed to maintain - median and rural setting, the design criteria for the reliable, fast operation even proposed highway improvements includes a grass during peak periods. The lanes median for 1-25 north of SH 66. The buffer-separated are managed by allowing use ,(1 section would consist of a painted 4-foot strip separating only by single-occupant the tolled express lanes from the general purpose lanes. vehicle drivers willing to pay a • 22 The barrier-separated section would consist of a raised toll or by high-occupant 2 concrete barrier separating the tolled express lanes vehicles. These would be 2 ! from the general purpose lanes, which would be similar to the existing High 2 approximately 4 feet high and 2 feet wide. Where Occupancy Tolled (HOT) lanes _r, possible, the grass median would be maintained north between 84th Avenue and of SH 66 with the exception of the BRT median stations. 20th Street in Denver. 2\ The median would be used to accommodate median BRT stations from SH 7 north. South of SH 66, where the more densely urbanized areas abut .1, 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 2.36 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS 11 • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 2-23 Package B .1. 5 , sill LEGEND (es VI in 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled re- . MO, „nv;ea Correct geometric Express Lane (TEL) in Each deficiencies Direction 87 4 and replace aging infrastructure ■ • • 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Ault •Express Lanes (TEL) in Each Harmony Rd. and �4 Direction Timberline - Fort Collins ,tto 4/2 `°`° • US 34 and SH 257 So Fort Collins Transit Center - COC O - I S Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route US 267 and Harmony Rd., Fort Collins O • H Eaton sk (Uses TELs on I-25) Ili ,57 :•`•"'•• West Greeley Viand I-25 and Harmony Rd. - Fort Bard Ave., i • I c92 Luesrns� Feeder Bus Service Windsor - I-25 andSH • Windup Greeley Downtown Transfer .2°7\ , Center - 8th Ave. and 4 Interchange Upgrades CrowoadsBlva 8th SL, Greeley to, � , Lovel - nd 4/4 • __-N, ._ 0 Number of Lanes: General �+ Greeley Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes . ,� • LL Gordon City iaiiii Evens Bus Rapid Transit Station CR It 50 Cam en \o rt' eMalt La Salle - `, FasTracks Rail Line ' 0 ` -56 IMIIIIme O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station M• d , GNctsst LARIMER A /� In Potential Commuter Bus `F • Operational & Maintenance 36 CR34W o Facility " e Pintail!O ongmont illItle • • C 3s I es5 Fksstsn .119 s 287 I tick Int CD Frederick/Daco no - 1-25 ae and SH 52 Eris 6/2 %„sd , - oulder 76 ,e • L • 7 36 ��Lwls Mt i , ` Br w Right of-Way I • Preservation • alisreawlleld : t_ ROfMlf l : • Northwest ` • c f 0 Rail Corridor " + rib North digiMetro E47, l�w��N�r w 6/2 �,2 Corridor I repot , : k.„4 I + ) 1 l JEFFER. ,� ,/,�L -r L_ lip,. Denv= WI Umnon ►cation 40 r e • •VE Den er m • n a n e fl no s si a Mites North Alternatives 2-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. I Figure 2-24 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 14 152' 12' J 24' 12' 56' Median 1< 12' > ,1, 12', 24' < N < > < Shldr 2 Travel �'Shldr, iShldr. 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes Lanes Arm r. anaglim Figure 2-25 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 14 to Harmony Rd. 184' 12' 24' 12' 12' 56' Median 12' 12' 24' 12' F-3< c > <S > > t >-< > C <-> Shldr 2 Travel TEL hldr. Shldr. TEL 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes with with Lanes 4, BRT BRT 4, Bu er Buffer f s m Figure 2-26 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - Harmony Rd. to SH 60 252' 12' 24' 12' 12' 4 24' 12' 56' Median 12' 24' 12' 12' 24' 12' Shldr, 2 Travel Shldr Shldr, 2 TEL hldr. sPk Shldr. 2 TEL Shldr, Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes 2' wAh'BRT with BRT 2' Lanes Niims tai' ..rte MLA± , ! 1rN Alternatives 2-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • , Figure 2-27 Package B T i 1-25 -guTypical Cross Section SH 60 to SH 66 184' 12' 24' 12' 12' 56' Median 12' 12' 24' 12' < >s �- <�< < > < > c c ) ,c ) Shldr,-C Travel TEL Shldr. - Shldry TEL 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes with With Lanes 4, BRT BRT 4, Buffer bee —3. Buffer Ins= ' _- Figure 2-28 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 66 to SH 7 184' 4 ) 12' 36' 12' 12' 32' Median 12' 12' 36' 12' < >< a, < >4 >< >< >4 > < > 4 ) Shldr 3 Travel TEL Shldr. Shldr. TEL 3 Travel Shldr Lanes with with Lanes III 4 BRT BRT 4' Buffer - _ Buffer w Figure 2-29 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 7 to US 36 178' < > 12 12 36' 12' 12' 12' 12' 36' 12 12' [ > 4 ) 4 > 1 > 4 > 4 >H 4 >t > < > 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 n ES_ _ .. I1 • Alternatives 2-39 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • I The tolled express lanes would require a transponder for all vehicles. The transponder would 2 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 .i 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 2-6. 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 2-6 Tolled Express Lane Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle Toll Rates (2009 dollars) Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour on 1-25 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. 12 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. I 4 Access to the tolled express lanes would be provided via slip ramps connecting the general • purpose lanes to the tolled express lanes. Figure 2-30 illustrates the slip-ramp access and r, egress locations included in Package B. Figure 2-31 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 I 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 2-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation.Ill Figure 2-30 Tolled Express Lanes Access and Egress Locations MATCHLINE MATCHLINE V E40 ›- pa< i 1 „El 4 LEGEND Egress 0 t Access CP .tom TEL Lanes General Purpose Lanes JohnsonsCorner '—" 4 F"---‹Access/Egress 2 Egress 0 R Access Mountain Vista, < > 470 CR S0< `\' ami›— > 60 Access y A Egress Access y j Egress Egress 0 ti Access 144th Ave. I > < > 64 ) c___6) 1‹ \,/ > Access y 0 Egress 136th Ave. < '///) Prospect Rd `\' all I > CR34 > Eg Access ress 0 Access s Egress 120th Ave. Egress s R Access '///) Harmony Rd C I Access y 0 Egress 66 isa< I ) Egress • Access /. > l04thAve. Access AEgress C > 092} 119• H > Thornton Pkwy. Access y of Egress Crossroads C Egress r R Access Access y Egress Egress R Access > s4thAve.--‹ 34 \\\ > \I I {52 ---�i > Access ti Access y A Egress MATCHLINE Access y 0Egress ;36 I MATCHLINE it North NOT TO SCALE Ill Alternatives 2-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 2-31 Slip-Ramp Design Concept TOLLED EXPRESS LANE ACCESS CONCEPT TOLLED EXPRESS LANE ' ' -! ACCEL INTO TEL -0 1 GENERAL PURPOSE LANES -► -DP -0 nal TOLLED EXPRESS LANE EGRESS CONCEPT TOLLED EXPRESS LANE --► "wilb` DECEL FROM TEL INTO GP -li GENERAL PURPOSE LANES -� -P- Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 12-06 • Alternatives 2-42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 2.2.3.2 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 I-25, the interchange configurations north of E-470 would be similar between the two packages. Table 2-7 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 the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). Additional information about the traffic operations evaluation of each interchange is included in the Transportation Analysis Technical Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2008; 2011c). - Table 2-7 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 2-43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 2.2.3.3 PACKAGE B Bus RAPID TRANSIT 2 BRT services would operate from Fort Collins and WHAT IS Greeley to downtown Denver, utilizing the express BUS RAPID TRANSIT? 4 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 H access 1-25. During the peak period, there would be as the tolled express lanes. three buses per hour, with two going to downtown I 2 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; H 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 2t 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 2-22 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 2.44 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. i During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right 2 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, 4 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 I-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 2 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 I 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. 2.2.3.4 PACKAGE B Bus RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS BRT is proposed to travel on arterial roads and on 1-25. When BRT travels on arterial I roads, it would function similar to commuter bus. The BRT would load and unload 2 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 ;4 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 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 II 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 4 accommodate both projects. - 4 Conceptual station layouts are shown in Figure 2-32 and Figure 2-33. Alternatives 2.45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 2-32 BRT Station Layout at Windsor (Northbound Lanes with Barrier Separation) 48 Southbound Northbound cof, p izr ``� d BRT Loading/ BRT Loading/ Managed Lanes Northbound O QS0 0 ire9 f Unloading —' Unloading '�` —VJifhBR r — -1-25 - 'f— 1 at Station at Station I oiling' .. . � _ , - • r , 144-AH N. N• I\ Figure 2-33 Package B Typical BRT Station Cross SectionsIII ., T»6 17 17 17 17 17 y� P 1a 2fi It V 17 17 17 17 17 SHOULDER TRAVEL TRAVEL TOLLED SHOULDER 6YPASS BUS PLATFORM BUS BYPASS SNDILDER TOLLED • • TRAVEL TRAVEL SHOULDER LANE LANE EXPRESS LANE LOADING LOADING LANE EXPRESS LANE LANE LANE LANE t Men sum 7r— NOM 4. , .. 6a is similiiiiiiimmmmouIUI I; ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Ei■■■In � "'1 1"1= VA` i UIa — I di m M ::1 MI ::1 ` r� �� 1:.1 MI ..1 , i 1..1 / SOUTHBOUND 1-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NORTHBOUND 1-25 PARK-AND-RIDE WITH BUFFER-SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES 26S • 1? 17 17 • 1? , 17 1? 17 17 4 L tr 2D lr - P ! 17 1 1? 17 w 1? • 17 1? 1? 1 I? SHOULDERA TRAVEL TRAVEL SHOULDER SHOULDER TOLLED TOLLED SHOUDER BWASS BUS PLATFORM BUS BYPASS SHO1ADER TOLLED TOLLED SHOULDER SHOULDER TRAVEL TRAV LDE EL SHOUR LANE LANE E•ASS EXPRESS LANE LOWING LOADMG LANE EXPRESS EXPRESS IAtE LANE —.,7 s Ton suuu" s"'m` - u of.. F. :1-■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MINI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■CC m In :a :a I�h_l ILL: sil kk __ as east III — — — — :a... — t� — - r, am' Oa ::1 / PARK.AND-RIDE SOUTHBOUND 1-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NORTHBOUND I-25 WITH BARRIER-SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES • Alternatives 2-46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. I Station site selection criteria were similar to those applied to Package A commuter rail and 2 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 r, 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 i 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 2 in Section 2.3.6.2 of this document and a full description of the station screening process is found in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). As a 14 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 I„ or additional parking spaces are proposed as part of this EIS. Additional parking information is provided in Section 2.2.3.8. Table 2-8 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. Alternatives 2.47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • i 2.2.3.5 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: J ► 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. I 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, 4 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 I r, Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three- - year demonstration project. 2.2.3.6 PACKAGE B BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY • I', The two potential bus maintenance facility site locations being considered in Package A 2k, also are being considered in Package B. _ The BRT maintenance facility would accommodate an estimated 90 employees, including 22 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 24 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. 2.2.3.7 PACKAGE B CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 2,) 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 2-9 summarizes congestion management measures that were identified for -J Package B in addition to tolling. Additional parking information is provided in Section 2.2.3.8. • Alternatives 2.48 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 2-9 Package B Congestion Management Measures Congestion Description of Application Management 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 ► US34 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 2-49 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • I 2.2.3.8 PACKAGE B PARKING 2 Parking in Package B would be provided for BRT patrons and for carpoolers. Table 2-10 summarized the number of parking spaces for each travel mode and the total number of 4 spaces at each location that would be included as part of this build package. Table 2-10 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 2.2.3.9 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 i minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and existing commercial buildings/ II developments. • Alternatives 2-50 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. I Water Quality 2 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 -t 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 r, 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. 2.2.3.10 PA CKAGE B PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES The capital cost for Package B is estimated to be approximately$1.715 billion i r, (2009 dollars). Additionally, the 1-25 roadway would continue to require ongoing - maintenance and the new bus services would have annual O&M costs associated with them. The total operating and maintenance cost is estimated to be $22.5 million annually. • „ 2.2.4 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 22 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 2-34. 2.2.4.1 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. • Alternatives 2-51 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • SH1toSH14 2 North of SH 14, up to SH 1 , 128' 3 the Preferred Alternative 4 would reconstruct 1-25 to 12' 24' 12' 32' Median 12' 24' 12' 5improve it to today's design 2 Travel Shldr Shldr J Shldr, 2 Travel a e Shldr 6 standards. This reconstruction Lanes Lanes 7 would correct the horizontal 8 and vertical alignment, and 9 widen both the inside and I 4 . 10 outside shoulders. The I 1 ultimate cross section would 12 utilize some of the existing 13 grass median but retain 32 feet (similar to the existing section of 1-25 between SH 66 and 14 SH 7). As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with a 15 grass median . 16 SH14toSH66 184' 1 The Preferred 18 Alternative would add 12, 36' 17� � �12' 32' Median 12' 12' 4 36' 12'1. � 19 one additional Shldr, 3 Travel TEL Shldr, Shldr TEL 3 Travel Shldr, 20 general purpose lane Lanes B with Lanes 21 and one buffer- Buffer E - - � • Buffer 22 separated tolled -�- 23 express lane in each "'mit rip _ _ rim 24 direction of 1-25 from 1 25 SH 14 to SH 66. The 26 buffer-separated lanes would be separated from the general purpose lanes with a painted four- 27 foot strip. This widening would require reconstruction of the entire cross section to correct the 28 horizontal and vertical alignment, and widen both the inside and outside shoulders. The 29 ultimate cross section would retain 32 feet of the existing grass median (similar to the existing 30 section of 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 7). As a safety measure, a tension cable barrier would 31 be included in all locations with a grass median . 1-25 vertical alignment modifications would be 32 made at SH 402 and LCR 16 interchanges to improve safety. These modifications would result 33 in SH 402 and LCR 16 traveling over the top of 1-25 rather than 1-25 being bridged over the 34 cross street. At SH 56, this modification would result in 1-25 traveling over SH 56. SH66toSH7 36 The Preferred Alternative would add one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction 37 of 1-25 from SH 66 to SH 7. The buffer-separated lanes would be separated from the existing 3$ general purpose lanes with a painted 4-foot strip. Because this section of 1-25 has recently 39 been upgraded , the widening does not require reconstruction of the entire cross section . The 40 widening would result in the same cross section shown between SH 14 and SH 66. The 41 existing 32-foot grass median would be maintained . As a safety measure, a tension cable 42 barrier would be included in all locations with a grass median . Alternatives 2-52 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III 1 SH 7 to US 36 178' The Preferred Alternatives. 3 would add one buffer- 12' 12' 36' 12' 12' 12' 12' 36' 12' 12' -1 separated tolled express lane Shldr, Aux. 4 3 Travel Lanes TEL Shldr Shldr TEL 4 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr, 5 in each direction of 1-25 from Lane with with Lane EB EB c; SH 7 to US 36. The buffer- 4, 2' 4' - separated lanes would be Buffer Buffer separated from the existing f '' Ill& 9 general purpose lanes with a - 1 i painted four-foot strip. The 11 new tolled express lanes 12 would tie in to the existing 13 reversible HOT lanes north of US 36. The widening does not require reconstruction of the 14 entire cross section . However, all the widening would occur to the outside in this section 15 because the existing cross section does not include a median . Similar to the existing cross 16 section , northbound and southbound lanes would be separated with a concrete barrier. 1 - Frontage Roads 18 Frontage roads along 1-25 would be rebuilt approximately where they exist today. At the 19 interchanges, frontage roads would be relocated east or west away from the ramp terminals to 20 address storage and safety concerns at the intersections. Along the 1-25 mainline, the frontage 21 roads would be offset 40 feet, based on current design standards. This is similar to what was included in Packages A and B. 0 .., .: • Alternatives 2-53 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 MI August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 2-34 Preferred Alternative 25 LEGEND • - Reconstruct mainline aai Tolled Express Lanes �: Express Bus Transit Station w•rrr" to correct geometric 1 General Purpose Lanes :1 Commuter Bus Transit Station deficiencies and replace aging nmuouno Express Bus Commuter Rail Transit Station infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 CR1 * Iti Commuter Rail [2 Commuter Rail Operational •-- 14 Ault & Maintenance Facility . CR2 6/2 •—•-----• Passing Track Fort IMI Commuter Bus Operational es Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance Facility Coll s E: I CR3gi• ,,,•„ P1; .or Q Interchange Reconstruction = FasTracks Rail Line s O $•nrance Eaton CI Number of Lanes: O FasTracks / RTO Transit Station Ia B' 3.Y, Lucerne CID General Purpose/ Tolled Express = wreeser . i Lov =, : nd y oga.ara. EB7 EBS B1 -- CR4 • E; •6/2 ES' _, s „•j 4 • Greele . CB TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS I Garden E City Evan Commuter Rail Express Bus LARIMER so J ' • - ,t0o.r. La Salle CB3 w • CR1 Fort Collins Downtown E81 South Fort Collins TransitCia Transit Center - BNSF,. Center - US 287 and E89 Milliken St. Harmony Rd. ii 54, © * CR2 GSU - BNSF between EB2 Timberline - Harmony Rd , ore 6 University Ave. and W and Timberline St. El • East Fort Collins - 1-25 and CR3 South Fort Collins Transit Harmony Rd. r+c .. :612 Harmony me US Rd. and EL Windsor - 1-25 and SH 392 38 ' �= R 34 WELD CR4 North Loveland • BNSF and E Gossroads Loveland 29th St. I between Crossroads Blvd. C 7 r 66 • C64 III and US 34 CR5 Downtown Loveland Longmont BNSF and approzrma ER6 West Greeley - US 34 and 6th St. SH 257 ' CR8 "a,4 «E810 EB7 Greeley US 34 and 83rd 36( ' }}� CR6 Berthoud - BNSF a _ W SH 56 Ave, BOULDER Photon Greeley Downtown Transfer CR7 North Longmont - BNSF 87I - rksa and SH 66 Center - 8th Ave. and 8th St. 52 I • EB11 CB5 CR8 Longmont - Sugar Mill, Egg Berthoud I-25 and SH 56 * 52 � • south of Rogers Rd. , E612 Peo• n CR9 Ene I-25 and CR 8 EB1 0 Firestone - I.25 and -_ • ooao SH 119 6/2 FasTracks Rail Stations to E81 1 Frederick/Dacono - 1-25 - = oulder l d e r Downtown Denver and SH 52 119 •' — L- EB12 Erie - 1-25 and CRB4rr� - - - - -- -• _ . Commuter Bus Eg13 Broomfield 1-25 and SH 7 e, • E ' La • _ CB1 Biteley - US :� : 36 Lo.rwu - [- o DA +44nrve . 1 ` CB2 South Greeley 8th Rail Corridor s.Northwest , ,� •roomf•N ' - Right-of-Way 24th St. ' • R O O 1M I I : `t ntom Preservation t CB3 Evans - US 85 and 42nd ` - • I Are. CO ' CB4 Platteville - US 85 and : . 1 '04. AAve. No.CB5 FortLupton US85and 72 tL " North Metro Denver E47 11 r nar CR 14.5 6/2iir I Corridor 1 AN port o Brighton US 85 and SH 7 • L. , —' • , tl inn • o .Commerce City - 72nd and I • — r J .44 j 6A i I es_ H H .....i. tan._ JEFFERV ', 'F . 70mt_ 1-. .; Exit Whit �..� ■ / 70 4 6 „. 6 ' en er • . �. ...mil, North / • Fv: 25- :4'2'.5 Ill Alternatives 2-54 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation transportation. I Tolled Express Lane Operation 2 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 1 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 1, 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 i congested than the general purpose lanes. Table 2-11 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 i l 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 IL' 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. 4 Table 2-11 Tolled Express Lanes Toll Rates, Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle (2009 dollars) Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour on 1-25 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. \ 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 2-12 lists the interchanges and i 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 ;4 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. Alternatives 2.55 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 2-12 Preferred Alternative I-25 Interchange Configuration Existing 1.25 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 1-25 mainline improvements 13 interchanges to be fully reconstructed 11 interchanges to receive ramp and/or cross-street modifications due to 1-25 mainline improvements and/or express bus stations 1 interchange requires no improvements(WCR 8) • Alternatives 2.56 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 lug August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2-13 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 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations SH 1 Interchange Mountain Vista Interchange Is _.1, LI tiri.r. sat 1 -?„ . 1. ._. .,.!. . , ,, , . , ... . „I; ,..., . . rit. I , eLa ns.,.. -17 . Iiitt --.7, I I . ! 1 � Q r ` . 1.- °U1;r-•4:... --ndatinitSH - RI �' a.tipa4 h Y' I ' tkii • /2/ ' i 6. . , ti-IP4 .‘•-iiiis., - 1 I . z' rl r K, _ :i . 3 . .._ , 1 t Legend SH 1 _. - it 1i.0, s. . I ^= C New Construt irul a New Structures r 1ifT.; • , •'•f cir aria �' ikk — Pedestrian Bridge I' ►: Legend „ 1, yEeYar or Water Quality Ponds • Carpool Lot t New Construction V New Structures l9 Carpool Lot/Express 11-4 ils: / Bus Station .. • i Express Bus Platform / / — Pedestrian Bridge Water Quality Ponds SH 14 Interchange Prospect Interchange 4 . I r ; I h! II • ja } 4..4rr I i._ - ` . _-- u. ;., r < Remove Existing ''E. Frontage Road Carpool Lot ' I ✓ I • .- Carpool Lot I ar�`'` t R r r; b.a, , .4 10Legend n Leggin New Construction 014 / New Consinubon • , _,4 ♦..,; 'IL New Structures t / .� New$Vuctures Carpool Lot/Express • Carpool Lot/Exams ‘• ttv it iallTh r Bus Station i Bus Staton 4.1" Express Bus Platform 9 , , I Express Bus Platform r- ,. c .. t"— t / r.` r Pedestrian Bridge a Water Quality PCnds , VatPr Quality Ponds 0 r Alternatives 2-57 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) Harmony Road Interchange SH 392 Interchange (No-Action Improvement) Legend `,' �; �, • ` _ '� t� New Constructan • ' i 1 *AI r . .... .. l� New Structures . I "tip 1- Express ,�EastFortCollins f A._ ._ `Express BUS Platform , /x- ^ Bus Station , ` • rT tic y and Cativo'Lot v, Pedestrian Bridge - , t j 1 f -, Water Duality Ponds ~� a r l . r Harmony Road ! ; e• • Ir . . a, 6.....,. .; maw, : , .. :Iihorr• ii! I' . I . 25 -� Il r � '1,' �. Fro • , : . ,..: . • II,. • . Ir .r • :I:, ' . i 1, " � r,� t r-�.,� f �r� rr 14'+ r r • 1 anniaimeisio 0.. ,_ . 5 •a Or rit. 1 A . ... v ' , . 'i •, f r ' y. te 0 .- •t Legend • •, New Construction f♦ New Structures Windsor , Carpoollot/Express Express Bus Station Bus Station and Carpool Lot I Express Bus Platform " .+ I — Pedestrian Bridge --re ti a Water Quality Ponds `Ili ` ,' , _ a _ 0 Alternatives 2-58 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 i information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) Crossroads Interchange US 34 Interchange at I. • E riii. V sidli • 1 iii: 1--C7.41PH ;4 1 • ae. s_g t -tea f \ f J E41� 9 r • ttt •� J ' Crossroads Blvd. —. ,-- _ r i. ) r 7, : r's--...., I Legend pife 'Itt e 1\ ``' 1 , p I---#IPC .. _ i r 1fart 0 MI New Carsinx-t n 1 •.,�i` + f, 0� Pin.Structures ?Air__ J j�R � J t____]lit L y • MS Sus s�tanont mess 4 I - • a }. � S� FiVress Bus Ptatlam ' l , ► 1 — Vldestnan Briar ! /r :f S ISer Quality PS iqr �� t. tit I „ / • CAA ;y I .+S I I , ' i Pr , to - ,p . III I i , a.w. , ____ __.... . 144 1 Legend SH 402 Interchange Crossroads/ Loveland New Construction Legend- r Express Bus Station New Structures i. tl• New Construction and Carpool Lot tl• New structures 441 t� Carpool Lot/Express i Bus Station .re- 14: ti, e t E"°`ess Staion t ' Express Bus Platform t rtxess sus Platform�' Pedestrian Bridge rr ` I ,� Pedestrian Bridge i - it i Water Quality Ponds i \ water oualrty Paws 1 - f1 ' _ \ 1 • . . I✓. a ^ ,-- . Carpool lot , • ---z-.-"--r- - - * - - 'al: ea' ' 11 ttS ,t' r Ill Alternatives 2-59 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation0 Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) LCR 16 Interchange SH 60 Interchange It\ ,______. rias _a...1 „. ! r , - . It' 1 I 1111 "' te 4.4 tti 1 . 7 ..,,,. t . ............„ ... .. . ,. f.-. f-- Carpool Lot 4 Legend r • .. _I Construction •New Legend Stn, e - New Construction Lome New Structures • \ . Bus Station _ Carpool LoVExpress Bus Station sin Express Bus Plattorn ' - - . • b Express Bus Platform / 1 Pedestrian Brdpe - -- Pedestrian Bndge • _ alp Water Quality Ponds • ,. S?t� Water Quality Ponds • SH 56 Interchange WCR 34 Interchange 1 , T" 1 at . , , i r• • Nt. I Ibri.. . •i , . Berthoud - \-,. -. Express Bus station ti _ ~ and Carpool Lot �"! SH 56 WCH34-s---. -- Legen;; Legend Nev. (ansituJ,on ` ' New Construction New Structures New Structures Carpool LoVExpress Bus Station Carpool Lot Express Bus Station Ex ess Bus Planar)) Express Bus Plattonr • Pedestrian Bridge I — Pedestrian Bridge !":""s Water Quality Ponds Witrr Quality Pond, ill Alternatives 2-60 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS Illhsigl 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) SH 66 Interchange SH 119 Interchange lin t e r-0. A, Y 1 Legend t',l New Construction•1. Y. 1{a~' - New orWidened 1 •+ Structures - e •t _ _. 04A s CarpoolLoVExpress ••— - . Bus Station �t b_ Express Bus Platt( e • r to�L� t • y -- Pedestrian Bridge r tool .......d - , • 0. *{ R9t Water 0ualiry Pont. �/ _li _ Firestone r - Ira . -,,t • Express Bus Station •Existing Carpool Lot Legend _ 'e ` r , and Carpool Lot I New Construction j_ �yf��;' A.. I'ri s ' - e New Structures "`: . -I Ifr 1414 NMICarpool Lot/Express p : BUS Station ' Express Bus Platform • . ` r 1 — Pedestrian Bridge at Water Quality Ponds y . till • SH 52 Interchange WCR 8 Interchange Legend Eris Express Bus Station, �;/� New Construction Commuter Rail Station, u ' iih6. .'+ New a Widened and Carpool lot M _, .I., e' 1-,C, Structures • _ y___ ....70. .. . O r Y . .N- ;.„%.,,,,,,,,, mm Carpool pSooltLot/Express t. . III1 ".3/4.4 ^y FredericklDacono • I, Express Bus Station - �iExpress Bus Platform 0.�.� • i and Carpool Lot r -- Pedestrian Bridge {r IFIO • . flail _ta.) Water Quality Rinds1tali, "I `'!` 1 1111111 �'' f fir ■ ' , . S ._ 1#1 ‘44‘ .. . i iv- . l altt'i.IIL' / { f ra %� I . higgpik 4 , Legend New Construction '' ' New ot Widenee ' Structures Carpool Lottxpress , . 0 Bus Station 0 Express Bus%attam 4, r Pedestrian Bridge s .1 Water Quality Ponds s . , - xt; Alternatives 2-61 Final EIS NORTH I 25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) SH 7 Interchange 9 144th Avenue Interchange a. ,t -- t - ., r 1 �f �. yr Legend E � ti,VI ' ''. New Construction New Constructa� r �.' New Structures a New Structures Legellillird-+' ` CarpoolLot/Express it ( Carpod LoVExprc: t Bus Station 4 r Bus Station F t f# r t� . , .` 25 Mil Express Bus Platform i r j r E r � xpress Bus Platform E • j , - Pedestrian Bridge "' t !r Pedestrian Bndge a s.� r „� a Water Quality Ponds Wa'ef Quality Polo • I. I • ` 144th Avg `� r __I: SH7 !' u 4 M'.. . , I a.' 7i u _,. __ • t... • Broomfield S. r - �.ffyp - .— Y - V/ — Express Bus Station - + t t - and Carpool Lot 0 136th Avenue Interchange 120th Avenue Interchange,.. lc.WA". cr..,..,ita, • , .. .,„,/,‘. gip zet �, _ t _ _ . It F C�, t �ar.4i r'ifpp. ' .a r tiH/ ;� as p .., • a L:, , — _ _' .S �' ` • .0 Ir . 5 :�: ' tom �j _ , .,� i b in. i ' „ I i so 136th Avenue �_. ��jjl� .. ' 1- L. " - - - --#1.--- • — -- 120thAYenue� jJ -tali vnr�a r v I 04114 i I I [ M�<t�1�-� fr l _ • '. jj' LYLti 13.Y+tfF' F it: - Legend 3 *� �. : trs j'^F att., Pot,' Legend . r _ - New Construction _ y.= . S� S u New Construction !♦ New structures kM�''��•*a.. a' • -.w cr:s^ New Structures Carpnpl LoL Express :wsa. .arwr- :' ; - Bus Station _._ _ ;+ l Carpool lotrExpress ~"` ' Bus Station Express BUS f�tatlorrr •. — Pedestrwn Badge ', , ' `x -1-4I • -.y - � ` Express Bus f�attor r. 1' IPedestnan Bridge w'{'i Water Quality Ponds 4 • y e , ., 1 -S-11water Quality Ponds Y . . T IIII Alternatives 2-62 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 I information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2-13 Preferred Alternative Interchange Configurations (cont'd) 104th Avenue Interchange Thornton Parkway mi. Legend T j I r<iv° _ a New Construction • _ 1 r ; 4y` t ;� New Structures It - `"s. I c . .. ti Carpool Lat/Express r { 1�: .-_,. 4_. ._ Bus Station i A., -ISr IYU' 17FtJ 25 .. . ! t. `�V 1 : ' .. . ' L i -1114.41414 � >7\ "III • ^14,4 III-111...-..`• ii r • i.. .r'1 • i , i 704th Avenue . . : Y-- — - i J Lt ♦ a R .• , .... r.- , } 7- : L - ' • 251 ri I • j a J. --j� ton _. 2 way '" "g :. orn a ?r III • •tt'kX .:// 84th Avenue Interchange / 1 Nti. i• - -- -- i Legend . - . • New Construction 1, t �``' • ` • - _ New Structures • • l 1 . Carpool Lot/Express ( . ,— • Bus Station 1 czte.,,. ' :;....-_-, T !-,,,,,:-,,f 1 Express Bus Platform �, 1 `, , 1 3!" ; s 7 • �, "* 1,; Pedestrian Bridge i, l 1 1� 84thAVenue` _ 's Water Quality Ponds f if NW 1 \ .N.4.4 6 „L. M J ' t*.... . s., L [Ir t, ; C Legend �, ! .+ • I a : [ �; II• New Construction 3 li -,•-•t. ,0•..' e • L7_. - New Structures aI. ' . -6 g - j\^ ' .sue i Carpool Lot/Express ^ lill) Ous Station C *-a. ♦ Yi: I4 �w 1,; I1- �' G ' Express Bus Platform '] L .� < t 'wit — Pedestrian Budge i• 1 �'�,• `. r u i ,113-i• t a,p . de Water Ouality Ponds • 0 Alternatives 2-63 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • I 2.2.4.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CARPOOL LOTS 2 Carpool lots would be located near many interchanges along the 1-25 corridor to serve HOV 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 2-14. Table 2-14 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. 2.2.4.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EXPRESS Bus - Express Bus services would connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and to WHAT IS DIA, utilizing the express lanes along I-25. EXPRESS BUS? r Service from Fort Collins would begin at the Express bus service is regional transit South Transit Center and operate along Harmony service with limited stops in order to 2 Road in mixed traffic until accessing 1-25 at its operate faster than other bus services. This type of service typically • interchange with Harmony Road. On 1-25 the bus operates on freeways or 14 would utilize the tolled express lanes when expressways. It has park and ride R 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 to improve travel time over a I stop, Harmony Road park and ride, SH 392, traditional regional bus service. When Crossroads, SH 56, SH 119, SH 52, WCR 8, and available, the service will utilize the 2n SH 7 along the way to downtown Denver. During TELs. When adjacent to a freeway, 2] peak periods, an express route would be initiated at pedestrian structures provide access 22 the Harmony Road park and ride and operate on to park and rides from either direction _ 30-minute headways, stopping only at SH 392, of bus travel to reduce out of direction 24 Crossroads, and SH 7 along the way to downtown travel and improve travel time. • Denver. No express service would be operated in 2r the off-peak period. Alternatives 2.64 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street and 8th Avenue Transit Center in 2 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 2-15. Table 2-15 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 2-65 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 2-15 Preferred Alternative Express Bus Stations (cont'd) West Greeley j US 34 and SH 257 a" _ -_-- _= -. — =— - . US 34 � __ Ieyer,ci • . ..NV. '`,:, _ 'ealasseanilla ) 1fir,;; ; ,, . _ ' , r New Construction .•.rcr r ' ., ;~ r I ,It New Structures /:` �, • r e1i Carpool Lot/Express f• ' k ` ` Bus Station ' � ' 4 ,• �r s � : 4* r Express Bus Platform Qi'. ' `, k, — Pedestrian Bridge - ' �)• p• ` M Water Quality Ponds • ;f 1, ' • - 0r IVY `` ,. r A. -4 0 U . 4 _ NE/,,,,A4:- , t revs e�.7 • 1° 4. -1- :a t' 7 a . ' :.;*. - '., West Greeley ! ;' �_ Express Bus Staton i r ti and Carpool Lot ii-1 ••• r }1 , r ; 4 . 1 ,1 :c " i .....- „...,..........>-. ., ,,.._.. : -_- -...,,,,,.. - ,: , ., - ,I. -• EDC � ' * See Table 2-18 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 III 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 express bus 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, 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 2-16 summarizes the Preferred Alternative queue jump locations and the planned improvement at each location . • Alternatives 2-66 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-16 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 2-22. 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, ! R 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 • 2 of traveling the extra distance to Elitch Gardens. These possible connections could be further evaluated in the future. Alternatives 2.67 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 1 2.2.4.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMMUTER Bus 2 The Preferred Alternative includes commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to 3 downtown Denver. This service would operate every 60 minutes during both the peak and off 4 peak periods. Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations {, Virtually all Commuter Bus station locations identified in Package A would remain the same in 7 the Preferred Alternative . However, in Fort Lupton , the preferred Commuter Bus station site 8 identified for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative is different than Package A. The Preferred 9 Alternative site was considered too small for Package A and therefore infeasible. The addition 10 of express bus on 1-25 reduced parking demand for the Commuter Bus in the Preferred 11 Alternative making this site (Site D) a viable option for the Preferred Alternative. This site was 12 identified as the preferred location because it is compatible with existing zoning and has good 13 accessibility from County Road 14.5. The stations are illustrated in Table 2-17. 14 Table 2-17 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations and Stops - T Greeley -- 15� .are,.'"lL�.�'L"'i.��.� ' t US 85 and D Street- West ch'3t sy..:,:rr.,xv :`,x, :•* of US 85 and north of 4' r .4 'r K; ,Ltt t' 3 D Street Rrir..i2» :x e-- - < ; t 20 Spaces •' 4 - .; 1 { F4' ii‘s ' _ I • . I • 1 1 ‘ S f W 0 ♦ . \ ------.i •' 4 L S II .411.12r- aril*•:.11-n. �~ t 4 i' 11i L. '. 'AID : ' . 1 1 iii`. t % . 4fr i South Greeley +' .t. Mir "2 T , ,�F. f ' . e.u,: 8,- 1 neal'srtE! � ' • 8th Avenue and 24th • •aaMt�lll: ; +1l� van- • en. . r., ..�.+r - - ' - -- • :' Street- West of 8th Avenue I " ; • .. .,:r., •,:i . ' . — - 1. ;� I . A -.and south of 26th Street .A it c. ; - aag- i 4. I - 1 30 Spaces • :,, i ,II - N �, 1 .r .i Q--{1 j1J:, r• . • Y tta. .4! - . " i , v. - _ I ' ' i • , it: 4 , . 1 !1T .„ ..„ \ , :...„., . . I t % t - _ c . . . il . ,--Thit lir 1 . . Th.., . •,- • t..4 15 0 Alternatives 2-68 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • - information. cooperation transportation. Table 2 17 Preferred Alternative Commuter Bus Stations and Stops (cont'd) Evans 1 .x. 1 wii.:Ali i ' -, 1 1 - US 85 and 42nd Street- _ - . -•--- — rr Iz,a STREET 11 (`'�� • i� ; East of US 85 and south of E ,,� • .. tom' 4_ a> , If a ;.. .� . ).4 42nd Street I _ i.- - rf � -; l • . Hi . ; 30 Spaces , �. t..._ -. ,�"t - Sq�C, 1 . 43-LIIII*0 fi'1 et " a!' M �r k`ii a i if -'etsSi kit. "6>) - .44rel 0 fe aar 44! ' , _ a , - sd'Fil Plattevilletrairl ' 4114 Ni fl'ti • T• • , -...1 US 85 and Grand Avenue- e j tt*, r it North of Grand Avenue �;. . rr-!- . ' 4 . , c t- . •, and west of US 85 `-" 1 SQL ny AVE r, � _I- 7 20 Spaces '�•� '�'(� �,� i �- ,- i r r 0 1 L Fort Lupton • US 85 and 14th St. - ' I - (CR 14.5) - East of US 85 , __ _ its , and South of 14th St. i --e:. . (CR 14.5) . i� 20 Spaces . • _ - - c. J ) ( .; ' I l : Y n r 1el 1 �• 1 I uki L - -.--I "t�f I 4 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 Colorado Blvd and park-n-Ride. 72nd Ave. Denver Downtown Denver bus circulation described in Express Bus section. 2 While specific fares have not been identified , a review of commuter bus systems nationwide 0 3 indicates that a typical fare would be about $0 . 12 per mile (in 2009 dollars). Based on this rate, 4 it would cost a rider traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver approximately 5 $6 .60 one-way. Alternatives 2-69 Final EN NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • I A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter bus service. However, 2 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 4 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, r, 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. tt This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT's Division of Rail and I c, Transit. These entities could also apply for CMAQ funding to initiate service through a three- year demonstration project. .2 2.2.4.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMMUTER RAIL I; 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 I\ as a vehicle technology. In recognition that rail vehicle technology is evolving rapidly, vehicle t,) technologies will be reassessed prior to implementation of North 1-25 commuter rail. In this way, interoperability with FasTracks system will be maintained. 2 : 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 2 would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This 24 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 _r• 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 2\ 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 ;4 tracked and still meet the Purpose and Need. The primary reasons for this are: ► The addition of bus service on 1-25 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 4,, less long-term expansion need. • Alternatives 2.70 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 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 4 improving mobility and accessibility throughout the region. In conclusion, the use of Express Bus to complement Commuter Rail service in the Preferred r, Alternative provides reliable, expandable transit service of sufficient capacity in the 1-25 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. {I 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 I • 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- 2I I line and ending at approximately CR 8 at 1-25. Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Service Plan 22 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 2i 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 2-18 specifies the location, number of parking spaces, and the accommodation of pedestrian movements for I each commuter rail station. • Alternatives 2.71 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Table 2-18 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations Downtown Transit Center* .1 1 ` -'" L I - • ! # BNSF and Maple Street - (- .�.� .,__-ir t I ' fl--M j• �. Fort Collins 4 �'a: PA i i• --1 rrj _ -- r �l \ - i • I I rre• , tos/\ 60 Spaces • fi 1 ' - No Pedestrian ass 4- S. !: ' 74 ' �* ,.‘ � ' Overpass _ 1 ;. ''� . ;if , - l i - '.f � - 4: - I +�.lit 1 4 LaPorte Ave. r" "' ";''tiii - < Colorado State University* _ 4 't •;j ' ? ' ' '"!� ill J On Mason Street south of - - ir University Avenue and West r r : , �; r. .1-F • ' Pitkin Street . . j� 0 Spaces 0; ti No Pedestrian Overpass _. ` • I , 1 , ; . I f. � ; , . foa110. 4,1 l 444 _. � e tr.. L '� = _ ` , 0 * ** --,, _ r. , - � a•• • . • a• sat at S - ' uT- •;'M South Transit Center*, waves,, 1 . . ._ •_� Mason Street and West 0 r �— _ .a 'bill f Fairway Lane - Fort Collins - 4. "° f e r� IL."' � a �r; 130 Spaces . , , . I /1 � ..�I r7j 1 is 4 i 1 , ;. No Pedestrian Overpass 4i ,2t Iv . 1,4%. iii, f i : I1 it 4 ir, 0 _a..i . i l �' j‘44 c 1 be \131 � , . ' . :: ridor f r �J I 'Nor sr i - 1 • , --- -r-- - -1)1•1 se it i th Loveland 29th St. , !+ - - BNSF and 29th Street I tI M . st. .ThPedestrian Overpass Iir__ ' * 14 j L". ' woe ` ' - • ' 120 Spaces 1,, f . ' R ti 1 , 1 a' 'it t . ' k \ ,-. -r-... t '1 1 III {� rte'! �. l'; �' •�,� L ' . yam , , _ . !Cr& AS 0 Alternatives 2-72 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-18 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations (cont'd) - i Downtown Loveland = • a BNSF and approximately - I -. { _ - P 6th Street prik 90S STOP 1 ` '� - ____ ‘ . 1 ' • 1 a - 6th St. 40 Spaces Fri * r ' * - " LI _ No Pedestrian Overpass r a VA 1 t , i Ptie : i ° 1 �r _ r ETA mt lig i 1'L.,�i _ter ) I , PflN all ri , ki II - - -SizBerthoud .x.. _ ._ ',. ' & •r" ra �i ,r I i IIII' 1 I —1il '* '� East of the BNSF and north =.Illnc - r ` r, r I ..�4 50 Spaces - t - Pi _ _20 i1I r 'v _�, if r- At- ; i. Pedestrian Overpass - \� Ni oP I , . ft, il 1 I-1 ---- frantic lir; L ______ _ 1:Apt e 3i: H h-r•-t• 1 I P / fel t-c-4 r•dit • ti . . __ .. ,isr , aL.. . .J .2121 re ---rar-- - -7 .4""alr. - 4,1..)... , : .,,. - : , , _ ; . .: _. . .., .. . ._ •4 0 _41. -fro- ' is I. et SH 56 -4. North Longmont - 4 East of BNSF and north of h`' S H 66 �M 1' in. . 1 ` �1 30 Spaces • r- ; y„F ;__ __ __1 I ri 1 No Pedestrian Overpass 1 '" Air lA' 1 �r1 fi 0:"Set i;st- sellialline 1 Longmont at Sugar Mill T ( -. - — - 1�' ' s North of Rogof erslRoad nt, south Rogers Rd. - —� - Tr 90 Spaces F I WQP �0 a I 1I No Pedestrian Overpass —1140 fi LI k-n-r � - -- -i i IPC • - r-- �e '- sterIMIL-C-maidi-4: -• - - - a as_ 0 Alternatives 2-73 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 2-18 Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Stations (cont'd) WCR 8** _ yet A NW corner of 1-25 and ;, " ' • CR8 y ` 185 Spaces f' a— v 'j 9 F4 • :� % i 9 -� - ' No Pedestrian Overpass ; ': , , v `'= 15—� 1 tart _ CO R 't F t ,r - r w1rwuw tti :la i _ y w.. ' O �� _� x . ,94(• _ 4 r 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. 2 Preferred Alternative Grade Separated Crossings Four w •3 ou e grade separated crossings would be provided for the commuter rail service. Other 4 intersection treatments would include gates or four-quadrant gates with a median . The 5 following locations would be provided grade-separated railroad crossings of roadways: 6 ► 1-25 south of CR 8 (replaces a previous crossing ) ► SH 52 and Wyndham Hill , west of 1-25 8 ► SH 119 near 3rd Avenue in Longmont 9 ► US 287 north of Berthoud 10 ► US 34 in Loveland (existing crossing) 11 A comprehensive list of grade crossings and the treatments recommended as part of the 12 Preferred Alternative is included under the description of Package A. i : Preferred Alternative Maintenance Road 14 The BNSF railroad is requiring that commuter rail facilities utilizing BNSF track upgrade BNSF 15 facilities to include a maintenance road where maintenance access is not available. The 16 Preferred Alternative design includes a maintenance road parallel to the BNSF line between 17 Longmont and Fort Collins. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF right of way does 18 not include a maintenance road . 19 • Alternatives 2-74 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 2.2.4.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES 2 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 4 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. i 2.2.4.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FEEDER BUS I ' 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 r, 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. 2.2.4.8 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 2-19 summarizes congestion management measures that were identified for the Preferred Alternative in addition to tolling. • Alternatives 2.75 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation transportation. • Table 2-19 Preferred Alternative Congestion Management Measures Congestion Description of Application Management 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 2-76 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 2.2.4.9 OTHER PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FEATURES 2 The Preferred Alternative would also include retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage structures. I Retaining Walls Retaining walls were used in the conceptual design along 1-25 to minimize impacts to t 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 ii; potential treatment locations have been identified within the Preferred Alternative. These would be located along highways and at transit stations, maintenance facilities, and parking 2 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. 2.2.5 Preliminary Opinions of Probable Cost Comparison - ' Preliminary opinions of probable costs for the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B 2: and the Preferred Alternative are compared in Table 2-20. Capital costs include _ construction of the alternative; purchase of transit vehicles; and, where appropriate, 2-4 purchase of toll collection and enforcement equipment. Annualized capital estimates are over a 30-year period. O&M costs include annual costs of operating transit, toll collection ,,, and enforcement, and maintenance of general purpose lanes. All costs are presented in 2009 dollars. Costs presented do not take into account anticipated toll or transit revenues. Toll and transit revenues are presented in Chapter 6 Financial Analysis Section 6.3 2,, Revenue Projections. As shown in Table 2-20, the capital cost of the Preferred Alternative ;( is approximately 11 percent higher than Package A and 27 percent higher than Package B. Additionally, the cost to operate the commuter rail service annually is over $30 million compared to the BRT system included in Package B, which would have annual O&M costs of approximately than $12 million. • Alternatives 2.77 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation transportation. • I Table 2-20 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs Cost in millions (2009 dollars) Cost Element No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Bus Rapid Transit 0 0 $126 $0 with Feeder Bus Express Bus 0 0 0 $114 Commuter Rail 0 $848 0 $649 with Feeder Bus* Commuter Bus 0 $18 0 $12 General Purpose $57 $1,097 $1,192 $1,052 Lanes Tolled Express Lanes 0 0 $397 $351 Total: $57 $1,963 $1,715 $2,178 Annualized Capital No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Bus Rapid Transit 0 0 $1.02 0 with Feeder Bus Express Bus 0 0 0 $9.2 Commuter Rail 0 $68 0 $52.4 with Feeder Bus* Commuter Bus 0 $1.5 0 $1 General Purpose $4.6 $88.5 $96.2 $84.9 Lanes Tolled Express Lanes 0 0 $32 $28.3 • Total: $4.6 $158.4 $138.4 $175.8 Annual O&M No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Bus Rapid Transit 0 0 $12 0 with Feeder Bus Express Bus 0 0 0 $5.1 Commuter Rail 0 $33.6 0 $33.7 with Feeder Bust Commuter Bus $4.7 0 $2.1 General Purpose $5.8 $6.7 $8.5 $9 Lanes Tolled Express Lanes 0 0 $1.8 $1.8 Total: $5.8 $45 $22.5 $51.7 * US 85 Commuter Bus service to DIA included in Package A only. **Package B BRT estimates include feeder bus. Feeder bus is included in commuter rail costs in Package A and the Preferred Alternative. 2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This section describes the development of the primary transportation improvements in 4 Packages A and B through the evaluation and screening process as well as the development of the Preferred Alternative. The development and screening are described in detail in r• Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). However, to - simplify presentation of the process and its outcomes, results of the development and screening process are summarized below in a series of four primary questions and responses: • Alternatives 2-78 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ► Where should alternatives begin and end? ► What alignments should be used? ► What highway facility type and transit mode should be selected? ► How do the transit and highway alternatives fit together? • 2.3.1 Question 1: Where should alternatives begin and end? Various northern and southern endpoints were analyzed for both the transit and highway - components to determine the project's "logical termini." The main considerations were the alternatives' accessibility to and from major population centers in the regional study area (shown in Figure 2-35), and the alternatives' potential connections to other facilities and 411 services, as discussed in Section 2.1.3. Major population centers on the northern end included Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley, as shown. By contrast, there are several southern population centers, and the trip patterns destined to them from areas north of SH 66 are very diverse. Therefore, selecting the southern terminus depended less on population i concentrations and more on connecting transportation facilities and services. • 2.3.1.1 HIGHWAY TERMINI r. The following logical termini were established based on the project's purpose and need and a I - review of travel patterns, roadway volumes, travel time, land use, population growth, • employment growth, and travel modes: ► While traffic volumes drop off noticeably north of SH 14, a northern highway terminus of Wellington (SH 1) was selected to address existing safety concerns between SH 14 and SH 1. Improvements north of SH 14 would address the existing safety concerns but would not add capacity to this stretch of 1-25. A 2002 household survey by the North Front Range MP0 indicated that only a small portion of trips have destinations north of Wellington. Two different southern termini were established based on the different lane types being considered. For highway improvements focused on high-occupancy vehicles, such as HOT or H0V lanes, a southern terminus of US 36 was found to provide the best continuity of travel by 2\ providing a direct connection to the existing HOT reversible facility in the Denver metro area that currently has a northern terminus near US 36/84th Avenue. Terminating the lanes north of the exiting HOT facility would require users to exit the manage lanes and travel on the general • purpose lanes on the section of 1-25 with the slowest travel speeds. This would result in reducing the overall demand and possible revenue to proposed H0V and HOT lanes. For • traditional toll and general purpose lane improvements, a southern terminus of E-470 (and the u Northwest Parkway) was identified. This terminus would address the northern Colorado auto travel patterns that distribute throughout the Denver metro area with a limited volume actually continuing on to downtown Denver. In addition, it provides independent utility, and it would not preclude consideration of other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements along the corridor. • Alternatives 2.79 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS ti information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 2-35 Origins and Destinations from North Front Range to South of SH 66 Year 2001 k ' • N, . . ;'• . • In 2001 , trip origins were •• FOR l�s .t concentrated around the cities of #•C �' • 'Y1. Fort Collins, Loveland , and Greeley. . . . The destinations were widely .. • _' •. •'r •v dispersed, but with some �._�"�r LOS . •;�.;� n. • •• t LET concentration in Longmont, along �` • ' • • •�• ;ow . SH 119 to Boulder and along the 1-25 • • corridor to downtown Denver. • t' .Y' ?. • • . . '. : • . '� • ON c' t�••t •' • I • • , • rsasses ,, .♦ 4 • . Legend • • • . -, • • '•• t Origin Traffic Analysis Zone • • ' •' :1 • 1 dot=15 Trip Origins ♦ • �• • N •'.': , , r, . • ' Destination Traffic Analysis Zone •• • • • ' t. • • • 1 dot=15 Trip Ends r , Year 20351 • Bf 1111,0• I Wcndglco . • •a.. •, • ;�. co. Y 1 } (/ • • • , .. •• A N, Ill •• °" ' N FORT �.� . - •• ' • �L�v • •• • • •• • . • 4.�• . • • a• 1 •` •• • - .•' _ -'i. • • ' • EY ' • • A•• • • • • • • „•• . •• •• C•r • • • • 11 • •• • • • • • I • • • I' �• e•. . .• •,• •., • .. .. S. • ,,•,♦; • • • . . •. • \ J',r. . .• '•.t. .•• • • • • • • 1 , . .:• • . •• r• .• . • .,; •s ;. . . •e•'• . .. •• •. . : In 2035, trip origins will still be • • ' •concentrated around the cities of ' :'' ' `�k. �' a • Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland . B $ ' • • • 'kr •• o°: . ••• u,•;• • ' Destinations will be even more • , ' • :; • tj :•• ,• •• 4•: widely dispersed , but with similar '�`' ' R, concentration in Longmont, along . ~'•" • .. • • . SH 119 to Boulder, and along the 61/4 • M •-•�'�>t. •4 `�`y • ,$ • ; ' 1-25 corridor to downtown Denver. tr*: .•r; . • • • it • •s•:''leg • p, ; ': ' ,• . + • a•.•V. Il.�9' 4.* .� • • • K • . •+•.•Source North 1-25 EIS Travel model .' •' • • `'' •r . • , .t' • • • • S ' • ,, Alternatives 2-80 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. i 2.3.1.2 TRANSIT TERMINI 2 Various forms of both bus and rail technologies were considered for the North 1-25 EIS, which influenced how the end-of-line locations were selected. ► Northern Terminus. The logical northern terminus would need to demonstrate accessibility by the projects' main population centers: Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland. Communities decrease substantially in size north of these communities. In addition, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland have local transit services and facilities that new transit services could connect to, where multi-modal ends of line would provide greater accessibility for passengers. A northern transit terminus of SH 14 was found to adequately address multi-modal transportation opportunities in northern Colorado. ► Southern Terminus. Denver's RTD has committed funding for two commuter rail lines that extend into the regional study area through the FasTracks program, a referendum • that funded the extensive passenger rail expansion program that will include service to 1 Longmont and Thornton, among other corridors. Consequently, the North 1-25 project focused on providing service to points with maximum transit connectivity without duplicating or competing for service, and all rail alternatives were designed to either end or begin coordinating with RTD service at the FasTracks corridors' ends-of-line, which terminate at Denver Union Station. Because the FasTracks rail corridors end in downtown Denver, bus alternatives also were designed to end in downtown Denver, in order to provide comparable end-of-line services and amenities to the rail alternatives. Terminating bus service north of downtown Denver would result in longer travel time for bus riders and a transfer which would result in a substantial reduction in bus ridership. OUTCOME OF QUESTION 1:WHERE SHOULD ALTERNATIVES BEGIN AND END? The need to address mobility needs, replace aging infrastructure and address safety concerns necessitated that capacity improvements extend north to Fort Collins and safety improvements on 1-25 extend north to SH 1. 2- The need to provide accessibility screened out transit options that did not connect northern 2, Colorado communities to the Denver metro area, such as the North Front Range Rail Loop. The effect of the termini on the project had the following outcomes: ► General purpose lanes and toll lane alternatives need to connect to E-470 as a southern terminus to distribute northern Colorado auto travelers throughout the Denver metro area ► HOV and HOT alternatives need to connect to the HOT facility at US 36 as a southern terminus to be a competitive travel mode and provide a facility for BRT/express bus ! improvements ► Highway widening needs to extend north to SH 14 as a northern terminus :r. ► Highway safety improvements need to extend to SH 1 to address current safety concerns ► Transit alternatives need to connect to existing and planned transit services ► Transit alternatives need to serve a major transit destination(s) such as downtown Denver and DIA •-r Transit alternatives need to connect to the northern population centers of Fort Collins and Greeley to attract ridership Alternatives 2-81 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 2.3.2 Question 2: What alignment(s) should be used? 2 Various north/south alignments along existing transportation corridors were considered. This question was analyzed separately for highway and transit improvements. - 2.3.2.1 HIGHWAY ALIGNMENT Alignments included widening 1-25 with additional lanes; upgrading existing parallel facilities such as US 85, US 287 or arterials parallel to 1-25; and building a new highway along existing - county roads. The alignments considered are depicted in Figure 2-36. • Evaluation of the initial range of alignments found that improvements that paralleled 1-25, such as upgrading US 85 or US 287 or a new highway or parallel arterial, did not divert sufficient ii! traffic from 1-25 to relieve anticipated congestion. This includes the proposed Prairie Falcon ! Parkway, a multi-modal toll facility approximately 25 miles east of 1-25, connecting Larimer and !2 Pueblo counties. While some interstate travel may divert to this new facility, the majority of residents in the regional study area would experience lengthy out-of-direction travel to connect to the Denver metro area if they used this facility. Without other improvements, the proposed parkway alone would not have the ability to address the mobility needs of northern Colorado r, residents traveling to the Denver metro area. Potential environmental impacts were also taken - into consideration. New roadway alignments and upgrading roads through communities had !• more potential to impact environmental resources. The alignment evaluation found that improvements located on 1-25 (general purpose lanes or • _rP managed lanes) best addressed the anticipated congestion on 1-25. In addition, these improvements had the most potential to also address safety concerns along 1-25 and replace 22 the aging infrastructure on 1-25. These improvements also had a lower potential to impact the 2 natural and human environment when compared to new highway and roadway alternatives. .4 2.3.2.2 RAIL ALIGNMENTS The potential rail transit alignments considered are pictured in Figure 2-37. Both active and 'r abandoned railroad right-of-way were considered as well as new alignments along other existing transportation corridors. Alignments were evaluated based on the following: ► Concentration of employment and population centers served ► Ability to connect to other existing transit systems ► Travel time ► Anticipated trip patterns served ► Cost effectiveness ► Potential to adversely impact natural and built environmental resources ?-i Detailed documentation of the evaluation of rail alignments considered is provided in Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011 a). The western side alignment was more favorable than the central or eastern alignment alternatives for the following reasons: • Alternatives on the western side of the corridor would provide greater access to population and <Li employment concentrations. Alternatives 2-82 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Y g information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 2-36 Highway Alignments Considered <1.\\ i , Wallington g g US 287 Alignment 287b �' U Would not attract sufficient traffic from 1-25. Has high y _ - _ 14 A potential for environmental impact to communities. Fort Collins 85 Tlsnath S.v.ranc. Eat.A 1251) 4t 1 4 —131-� Maly ' 287 Windsor j - '1 I-25 Alignment Would provide adequate _ 0 capacity to address mobility, ° oveland _ 0. replace aging structures, and ''- _- A 34 , G re e 1 e' address safety on 1-25. i Garden City �"_'� - Evans Q CR 50 LARIMER hnst.wn la Salle F') , � _, 56 1 :- a cross/ New Parallel Arterials and New Highways - . • Would not divert sufficient R34Jo US 85 Alignment traffic from 1-25 to address Would not divert sufficient mobility needs. I ~ traffic from 1-25 to address ae mobility needs. } LongrnoY.. 7 _ .--, 3 Prairie Falcon Pkwy. BOULDER Firestone Would not address mobility 87 tick needs on 1-25. q __--{52 '� n. Boulder 25 76 11s i x: 93 36 Loltlsvlll. - r Sri or -I. ltlitil; dir t.b 72 sit , motor E470 Donor Int.raMI 2 A3/4\ l" 121f_ •/... 4 JEFFERSON 76 r— F * • =rn4r 70 Union Station /1elli ao 0 2 4 6 8 IC / 6 Denver �„,,,,, North Nr. ,� 0 __, Alternatives 2-83 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The initial alignment analysis found that an estimated 14,975 future work trips occur 2 between western communities and the Denver area. Similarly, an estimated 9,075 future work trips occur between eastern communities and the Denver area. However, this 4 analysis was inconclusive with respect to the travel patterns along the central area of the regional study area. A more detailed analysis of the central and western alignments was subsequently undertaken. The quantity of existing population and employment within four miles of the preliminary station sites along each alignment was calculated. The preliminary station sites included the following: Central rail alignment Western rail alignment ► 1-25 at Harmony Road — Fort Collins ► BNSF north of downtown — Fort Collins ► 1-25 at SH 392 —Windsor ► BNSF at SH 14 — Fort Collins ► 1-25 at Crossroads— Loveland ► BNSF at Harmony Road — Fort Collins ► 1-25 at US 34 — Loveland ► BNSF at US 34— Loveland ► 1-25 at SH 56 — Berthoud ► BNSF at SH 402 — Loveland ► 1-25 at SH 119 — Longmont ► BNSF at SH 56 — Berthoud ► 1-25 at SH 52— Frederick ► BNSF south of SH 66— Longmont ► 1st and Terry— Longmont ► The evaluation showed that the western alignment currently has more than double the population and employment surrounding stations than the central alignment. This • difference in the concentration of population and employment is projected to continue into the future, but at less pronounced levels. In 2030 (which was the year used for - comparison purposes), there will be about 30 percent more population and employment along the west corridor compared to the central corridor. ► Western and central rail lines would attract a similar amount of ridership. However, the - western rail lines would cost approximately 35 percent less than a comparable length of central rail line because the western line would utilize the existing BNSF rail line while !„ the central line would require construction of new track. ► Commuter rail service down the UPRR line on the eastern side of the corridor was considered less feasible than service on either the western or central alignments due to the higher number of grade crossings which are a safety concern, the number of active trains running daily along that line which would restrict the availability of the line for commuter traffic, and the restricted capacity available at the Sand Creek Junction used to connect that line to Denver Union Station. All of these factors would degrade safety 'r• and reliability. Despite more potential to impact the communities along US 287, the BNSF alignment is compatible with the land use plans for cities such as Fort Collins, Berthoud, Loveland, and Longmont. Their land use plans include rail to strengthen their downtown areas through ;(i redevelopment opportunities and improved travel choices. • There are numerous existing freight rail corridors in the regional study area. Any of these could be used in the future for inter-regional transit purposes. Rail spurs to cross corridor communities were also considered if they could provide more • ,a direct service from the North Front Range to the Denver area. A spur between Longmont and Thornton and a spur to DIA were considered. Alternatives 2.84 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E15 • information. cooperation transportation. A spur from Longmont to Thornton was developed to retain connections to two FasTracks • corridors (the FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor, terminating in Longmont, and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor, terminating in Thornton) and providing faster service to 4 downtown Denver. Its exact placement considered specific environmental analysis that • determined the tradeoffs in locating the new alignment to the west or east of CR 7. The western alignment was considered more favorable because of impacts to 4 prairie dog - towns, 0.36 acres of wetlands, and impacts to 66 properties, of which 22 are identified as • low income associated with the alignment east of CR 7. The rail spur connection to DIA was eliminated because it would be redundant service to RTD's East Corridor rail from downtown Denver to DIA. I 2.3.2.3 Bus ALIGNMENTS The potential bus alignments considered are also pictured in Figure 2-37. Based on travel- ] time analysis, and the location of population centers, 1-25 and US 85 alignments were H considered to be the most promising. Bus alternatives traveling along 1-25 would begin in Fort Collins and Greeley in order to provide similar service to both sides of the corridor. I (Fort Collins, rather than Loveland, was chosen as the northern terminus for bus service due - to the connection to more transit services and facilities, such as the South Transit Center at • the southern end of the Mason Street corridor). Bus alignments traveling along US 85 would i„ begin in Greeley to connect with their local bus service. The Dent line was not advanced 2H because it did not serve population and employment centers as well as other potential 2 alignments. The US 287 alignment was not advanced because travel times along this facility were not competitive for regional service and therefore ridership was low. A bus connection to DIA also was included, prompted by stakeholder interest, and after 4 analysis showed that service to DIA could increase the line's ridership. • Alternatives 2.85 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III 1 Figure 2-37 Transit Alignments Considered LEGEND Mode Alignment Considered ■� BNSF to RTD Rail Northwest Rail BNSF to RTD Rail i 1 wellington North Metro , l UPRR and 1-25 to Rail 287'; `5 RTD Northwest Rail , - UPRR and 1-25 to Rail 1 '1-4 AAA a RTD North Metro 1 i I I-25 to RTD • C i - es , Rail North Metro Ii ' 4: `:.c.ranc. EnLint lc I-25 Bus or Rail ---' . ' AIL 1 litm, Lucerne G Dent Line to RTD Bus or Rail 87' •15--x' ' sites 2G �` I North Metro t Love nd - GWR and UPRR 7 ` '' to Denver Rail as 5" - f' _ _ I ; '134 .1 ` Greet US 85 to Denver o r _1 and DIA Bus Only jE. ♦ 80 , R NUS orthwest 287 to FasTracks Bus Only ` ' - ti � 60 . v / `• rthwest Rail 1►�Jf Corridor Iil 58 i i S. ra a - 4e.,QQ-i_ ri CR34 1) / _li IMtnNI as Lon ! . ont e 7 11k he ' -- F18 - ' 'r -d BOULDER 85 ', I © " ' e AA ® L I I "\ -(52: 4 iii n !r -Bould r `"' 4. _ 25 76 i1 r i .✓� , efts 7 ) �� '� � - - -- �` 93 36 Loulsvat W esr ' ', / toped Broomfield 72 Northwest Ni Rail Corridor I het" op North �E470 °�K �YY� � Metro Mrt Nwtl rkinssi L 2 . Corridor 2,r JEFFERSON _ - 76 yi i Apr C-----.~ - _ 70 r Stetson 4.h. _ In 40 s t De ver 70 `� 4 8 1,win North 6th Atro. 0 Alternatives 2-86 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. i Outcome of Question 2: What alignment(s) should be used? • The need to replace aging infrastructure on 1-25 and address safety and mobility concerns in the project area screened out highway alignments off 1-25, such as Prairie Falcon Parkway, as well as the upgrading of US 85 or US 287. It was found that these alignments diverted • less than 20 percent of the necessary 55,000 vehicles per day from 1-25 to address the n mobility concerns along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, 1-25 would continue to operate at - LOS E or lower even with improvements to those alignments. • The need to provide accessibility to population and employment centers and be practicable t) screened out eastern and central transit alignments along the UPRR and Dent lines. A P western rail line along the BNSF corridor would serve about twice as many residents and i • jobs as a central rail line. In addition, the 2030 model results indicated that about 65 percent i 2 more Denver destined work trips occur between the western communities compared to the i eastern communities in the regional study area. Eastern and central rail alignments as well I as those that connect east/west movement would still be available for inter-regional transit purposes. Therefore, it was determined that: - ► Highway improvements would be on the 1-25 alignment ► Rail improvements would be on the BNSF corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont ,) ► Bus improvements on 1-25 or US 85 compete for ridership • 2.3.3 Question 3: What facility type and transit mode should be evaluated? 22 A wide variety of highway modes and configurations including buffer and barrier-separated toll lanes, freeway lanes, HOV lanes, and arterial upgrades were evaluated to determine which had the potential to address project needs and were practical. Similarly, all type of transit modes were evaluated to determine if they would improve accessibility and if they were cost- effective. Figure 2-38 describes all of the highway facility types and transit modes that were considered in the screening process. These descriptions are helpful when comparing the travel modes considered in the following section. For example, understanding the differences between the various tolled express lanes/managed lane concepts is important: Toll lanes toll all vehicles using the facility, HOT lanes toll single-occupant vehicles and allow HOVs to the use the lanes for free, HOV lanes allow only high occupant vehicles to travel in the lane. Each of these three concepts falls under the tolled express lanes/managed lane category but result in different traffic operations along the corridor. Early stages of screening eliminated many of these initial options. The more promising highway facility types and transit modes were evaluated with more detail as described below. • Alternatives 2.87 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII Figure 2-38 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process Bus Rapid Transit is a flexible rubber-tired transit service that typically operates in exclusive or semi-exclusive managed lanes for all or part of the route . There is no specific guidance on • l how much of a route must be in a managed lane but to qualify for FTA New Starts or Small Starts funding 50% of the route R- must be in a fixed-guideway. However, FTA's Very Small Starts - program does not have this particular restriction . For the purpose - - — of this evaluation BRT is defined as traveling in a semi exclusive or exclusive travel lane for 50% or more of the route. Bus options with less than 50% of the route in a managed lane would be considered commuter bus. �'y Express/regional/commuter bus service is regional transit I. service with limited stops in order to operate faster than other ' a. . regional bus services. This type of transit service usually operates i -tc .......illigemm- on roads designated as arterials or higher and has park-and-ride nkipe facilities located at its stops.(I) , Local bus is regularly scheduled fixed-route bus service with ,„:_ I _*`7.: , `_ ..N. �::- �• frequent stops in local communities. II Demand response service operates in response to calls from 7571 ardez.na r! kqualified passengers, who are then provided door-to-door service. .� • b Jitneys provide service based on market driven demand without fixed schedules or stops. . , r 4_., a Commuter rail typically operates within freight rail right-of-way ri i - and services long distance trips. It may use locomotives with passenger cars or self-propelled passenger cars, known as diesel CC . • W ri multiple units. Commuter rail trains could be diesel-powered (most common) or electrically-powered. .r --, N. Personal rapid transit is service using small cars that carry one i I ; E- i ;; to four people on a fixed guideway. .''I ```,S Heavy rail is commonly referred to as metros or subways. Heavy 14-4,�,, _.« - 4 rail usually provides high capacity, medium-speed service in fp e,' `, 4, densely populated urban areas on steel tracks in an exclusive 0 ) fr right-of-way. Power is provided by a third rail along the tracks or in by overhead electric cables. 11111. _ Alternatives 2-88 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E1S • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-38 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process (cont'd) r- Rail transport cars would transport drivers in their private autos on a rail car. This service would be similar to a ferry._.,.. ..., .._ _ .. „.f I or ml �_.�, Light rail typically provides medium capacity, medium speed '' '-'_--,0" service in urban areas. Light rail can operate in exclusive rights- Wri of-way or share city streets. Power is (1) generally provided by iklits------ overhead electric cables. "' i II Automated guideway transit describes a fully automated and I driverless transit system that operates in an exclusive right-of- < IIaH: HLT way guideway. These systems are generally found in major airports, activity centers, and downtown areas. Automated guideway transit systems can be self-propelled or powered by - ., , -, overhead electrical cables. This category includes monorail which can be fully automated or driver-operated . IMINFLPir-i High speed rail typically provides intercity service, operating on H . l'. an exclusive guideway system of steel tracks, which can be r located at-grade (usually existing rail lines), elevated, or below ttiground. Power is usually provided by overhead electrical cables. 4 - ,, - _ - Additional lanes are the most common method of adding travel ., capacity along a corridor. Lanes could be added to any existing - road in the corridor. • .- , , Tolled Express Lanes/Managed Lanes are lanes whose demand . ..7.4: is managed to maintain reliable, fast operation even during peak 0 is "._ periods. HOV lanes can be used by high occupancy vehicles -�•7 } only. HOT lanes can be used by high-occupant vehicles for free ar and single-occupant vehicles for a toll. Toll lanes can be used III I ' by drivers willing to pay a toll. The lanes are separated from 4� ��` �\ general purpose lanes by a striped buffer or a raised median barrier. Alternatives 2-89 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 2-38 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process (cont'd) :41, E ,- Congestion management includes travel demand management ~ i Li measures, intelligent transportation systems, and transportation systems management measures that are geared towards improving the efficiency of travel without major construction. These include carpool programs, telecommuting, dynamic message signing , ramp metering, and incident management strategies. _,,,--S-' ,, �► ' . _ Interchangere lacement/u �" n P pgrade would include improving or '�.. reconstructing existing interchanges that currently operate alt.4 . - :-: ''' 4 inefficiently or are expected to have operating deficiencies in the )1" .. future. Itt: „ , i'' ' A, ,n,ers�t,on Sight ostance,- . Horizontal and vertical alignment improvements address h a ' � specific stretches of a road that have been identified as having ._ter inadequate or unsafe geometric configurations. These include �1'`- -- ''' but are not limited to sight distance considerations and superelevation. III Tit ,„ Intersection u rodes address lane c p9configurations and safety lai - Nit .' issues at existing intersections. These include but are not limited :- : :—, . - to adding turn lanes or signalizing an intersection that is currently stop-sign controlled. 0 sue- t Y - �� -- � - - rr ir NilittitiM14;I Frontage road revisions address the need to improve 04 p ve the capacity kiand layout of the frontage roads along 1-25.11111”- New highway, parallel arterial or local road includes construction ;_ - z of a new road facility on an alignment somewhere within the w< - regional study area. .. .-ias. . III. itz.,3, .. .'. . Alternatives 2-90 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS , III information. cooperation transportation. Figure 2-38 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process (cont'd) - ... New interchanges are grade-separated access and egress points . Ibetween a highway and a local street or between two highways. w %'1r " rrr -- '. Limited access lanes are grade-separated lanes that carry .. _ 1 - -o _ - . ,NA motorists through an intersection or interchange without providing -r, f ; �s ,, • - the ability to get on or off at that location. )m .7/. if < _ . ,, _ • Climbing lanes are added for the upgrade direction of a road d., • where high traffic volumes and heavy truck traffic combine to ,,.� cause delays and platooning along the facility. III I s ir - - _ Truck lanes are exclusive lanes that carry trucks only. They may be separated from , or adjacent to, general purpose lanes and % . may provide only limited access to local intersections or 0 ' _ interchanges .17 . Double deck 1-25 would increase capacity by building elevated s I lanes over existing 1-25 lanes. 2-12' LANES ants ®err . _ Lane width reconfiguration would restripe 1-25 to provide 1 additional lanes within the existing cross section. This Ill 3-10' LANES I improvement would create narrower lanes and shoulders. _;...:e.-La r - r i"'ieL 1 Alternatives 2-91 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 2.3.3.1 HIGHWAY FACILITY TYPES 2 Preliminary estimates indicate that north/south travel demand would exceed capacity by 3 approximately 55,000 vehicles per day in 2030, which was the year used for comparison 4 purposes. Therefore the identified improvements would need to accommodate this anticipated 5 capacity deficiency. Figure 2-39 illustrates the typical daily capacity achieved with key 6 roadway expansion projects. As shown , upgrading the classification of an existing arterial 7 facility to an expressway would result in the smallest capacity increase while adding lanes to a 8 freeway would result in the largest capacity increase. As shown , four additional HOT lanes, toll 9 lanes, or four new freeway lanes could accommodate this demand . 10 Limited access lanes would provide a similar capacity to four new freeway lanes. However, 11 these lanes would cost slightly more and have more potential for environmental impacts, due 12 to their wider cross section . The wider cross section and need for limited access infrastructure 1 3 also limited the flexibility of the cross section capacity (i .e. , the ability to re-stripe or 14 re-designate the lanes in the future). 15 Figure 2-39 Typical Capacity of Facility Types Considered 80 CO- 70 2 60 55,000 Vehicle Capacity Needed C6O 50 u 40 cal 30 Z 7.3 20 - 10 0 Upgrade Upgrade 2 New New 4 New 4 2 New 2 New 4 New 4 New Arterial to Expressway Expressway Lane Lane Freeway H0V HOT Lanes/ Freeway Expressway to Lanes Aleria' Highway Lanes Lanes Toll Lanes Freeway Facility Types Considered 1 6 Figure 2-40 compares the costs per mile of the different variations of these lane types on 17 1-25. As shown , adding four new HOT/toll lanes would cost the most per mile. Two new 1 8 freeway lanes would cost the least but would also not quite provide enough capacity to fully 1 9 accommodate the anticipated 55, 000 vehicle demand . _u • Alternatives 2-92 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure information. cooperation transportation.2-40 Capital Cost of 1-25 Lane Options Considered p 0 40 - i 30 0 ti o 20 00 U0 0) 10 cu W I HOV Toll HOT Limited 2 New 4 New Access Lanes Freeway Lanes* Freeway Lanes" 1-25 Improvements Considered 3 * Cost of two new freeway lanes is based on widening north of SH 66 only, resulting in a six-lane cross section on 1-25. 4 ** Cost of four new freeway lanes is based on adding four lanes north of SH 66 and two lanes south of SH 66, 5 resulting in an eight-lane cross section north of SH 7. t• Evaluation of the three management methods for express lanes (HOV, HOT, and toll ) 7 included consideration of both buffer- and barrier-separated cross sections. Buffer- 8 separated sections consisted of a single managed lane in each direction separated from 9 the general purpose lanes with a 4-foot painted strip (the buffer). Barrier-separated 1t' sections consisted of two lanes in each direction that would be separated from the general 1 1 purpose lanes with a raised concrete barrier. Single-lane barrier separated sections were 12 not considered for incident management and emergency response reasons. Like limited 13 access lanes, four barrier-separated lanes would cost more and have more potential for 14 environmental impacts due to their wider cross section . Because of this, barrier-separated i ; cross sections with four additional lanes were only considered practical when traffic lo demand would warrant four additional lanes. Figure 2-41 depicts Figure 2-41 Miles of Congestion in I-25 General congestion for the three Purpose Lanes management methods for 14u) — express lanes and illustrates how congestion would differ if o 12 HOV lanes were chosen . As 7 43, 10 shown , HOV lanes would a, o 8 — result in substantial o 0 congestion in the general 6 _ purpose lanes because fewer ° 4 — drivers would be diverted act 2 - - from the general purpose 2 0 lanes to HOV lanes than HOT 0 or Toll lanes. HOVs would NOV HOT Toll therefore not address the Managed Lane Type project's need to improve 2030 PM Southbound (SH 14 to E-470) mobility along 1-25. This is the primary reason HOVs were eliminated . Alternatives 2-93 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • i HOT lanes, which would toll single-occupant vehicles and allow HOV's to use the lane free of charge, were found to provide the most congestion reduction in the general purpose lanes, and would have the highest utilization along the corridor. This is because they would attract -t both HOV drivers and drivers willing to pay a toll into the new lanes. Toll lanes resulted in somewhat more congestion than HOT lanes but far less than HOV lanes. r To understand more clearly the fiscal implications of the two remaining alternatives (HOT and - Toll lanes), the EIS alternatives include tolled express lanes that could be managed in a variety of ways, including: toll all vehicles (Toll); toll single-occupant vehicles and allow HOVs to use the lanes for free (HOT); or toll single occupant vehicles and allow HOVs to use the lanes at a discount (Toll and HOT hybrid) to maximize the operations and available capacity of the additional lanes. These various management alternatives within the tolled express lanes I2 category could result in small differences in travel time and congestion, but would all have the same physical impact. 2.3.3.2 TRANSIT MODES Along the BNSF corridor, commuter rail was found to be the most appropriate technology, as high-speed and super high-speed rail would not be able to operate along the curves present in - the alignment. Light rail, monorail, and heavy rail are ill-equipped for long-distance travel and would take more time with fewer car amenities to suit potential regional passengers. In addition, high speed rail, super high speed rail and light rail (in addition to other technologies 2(I such as heavy rail, magnetic levitation, and automated guideway transit) are more costly per 2 . mile, as shown in Figure 2-42. • The evaluation and screening process identified the possibility of providing HOT or Toll lanes along 1-25. The presence of these lanes would provide reliable and fast travel time conducive -a to implementation of BRT service. Commuter bus service could operate along 1-25 or US 85 in general purpose lanes. • Alternatives 2-94 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 2-42 Comparing Ri dership p g Transit Alternatives by Cost and Ridership Capital Cost per Mile 25 - L c-° 0 20 - -6 00 15 - ° 10 - unn 00 5 ` N o Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter Light High Speed Bus Transit Rail Rail Rail Transit Modes NOTE: Express Bus cost would fall between Commuter Bus and BRT Ridership Cost/User 3500 70- 3000 Includes: 60- c Capital Costs cn 2500 50— a Operating Costs t2000 P 40- ;; Maintenance Costs 1500 o 30 - a, 1000 2 20- 500 0 1 0- 0 0 Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter . on 1-25 Bus Transit Rail on 1-25 Bus Transit Rail Transit Modes Transit Modes * 2005 Dollars 2.3.4 Outcome of Question 3: What facility type and transit 3 mode should be evaluated? 4 The need to address safety and mobility concerns as well as provide a practical, cost- 5 effective alternative screened out modes such as double decking 1-25 and lane-width 6 reconfiguration . In addition , non-traditional highway modes, such as congestion 7 management measures and bike and pedestrian alternatives, alone would not adequately 8 address mobility needs but were retained to be used in conjunction with other improvements that would . 10 The need to address the desire for multi-modal transportation options that are practical and 11 cost-effective screened out some transit modes such as light rail, super high speed rail , and 12 automated guideway transit systems. These systems were found to be excessively 13 expensive or impractical for a corridor of this length. 14 After considering questions one through three, the reasonable highway and transit alternatives remaining included: ► General purpose lanes on 1-25 ► Bus service on 1-25 in tolled express lanes ► Tolled express lanes on 1-25 ► Commuter bus on US 85 ► Commuter rail on the BNSF alignment Alternatives 2-95 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • i 2.3.5 Question 4: How do the highway and transit alternatives fit together? Packaging alternatives together began by ensuring that highway capacity needs would be met. 4 Any combination of transit services was found to not reduce 1-25 volumes enough to meet 5 2035 demand without additional highway improvements. Similarly, highway improvements (, alone would not address the multi-modal purpose and need. As depicted in Figure 2-43, to - determine the most effective packages of highway and transit alternatives, various combinations were tested according to: ► The use and optimization of available operating environments for transit u ► Potential competition between transit services Based on the mode and alignment findings discussed in previous sections, commuter rail i2 service along the BNSF rail line performed well and was paired with general purpose highway improvements. For equity throughout the regional study area, commuter bus [4 service along US 85 with end points of both downtown Denver and DIA was added to this i s package of improvements. When additional transit elements were tested in combination i r, with these elements, such as additional transit on 1-25, a decrease in riders was observed - on each component, though it would increase ridership overall. It was determined that to maintain maximum ridership on any one transit line, service might be offered on 1-25 only or on the BNSF and US 85. Therefore, because more proximate services would decrease the cost-effectiveness of each line, commuter rail on the BNSF was paired with commuter bus • i service on US 85, with general purpose lanes (and no transit service) along 1-25. This combination of improvements is Package A. BRT and the tolled express lanes on 1-25 were combined, due to the potential to use the a semi-exclusive (less congested and more reliable) environment of the tolled express lanes for more rapid and reliable BRT service along 1-25. In order to directly serve the communities which are offset from the interstate, BRT service on mixed-use lanes to Fort - Collins and Greeley was provided. BRT destinations include both DIA and downtown Denver. This combination of improvements is Package B. • Alternatives 2.96 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS all information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 243 Modes Considered for Combining into Packages Modes Considered •' s a. ~a - c . t Al - Tbob a `) r....._ --a. „lin- • \ 11,1 1 1 Commuter Bus Rapid Express Commuter 6-8 General Tolled Express Rail (CR) Transit (BRT) Bus (EB) Bus (CB) Purpose Lanes Lanes (TEL) (GPL) Consider Consider Consider Start: Adding BRT: Adding CR: Adding: CB las) ' tD0 at aS C� 6-8 GPL GPL do not provide Provides transit Provides transit service semi-exclusive lanes service to to eastern communities for BRT western communities C) Result: ..:. . -1:3 + Aar 4 + big r r s 6-8 GPL CR CB Consider Consider Consider Start: Adding BRT: Adding CR: Adding CB: 0 a.) .,.\ A - ago , • . ___Amp. t:Acati (t TEL TEL provide CR competes for CB competes for ridership semi-exclusive lanes for BRT ridership V Result: CCS rao TEL BRT Consider Consider Adding: Consider Start: Adding BRT & CR: EB & Single Track CR: Adding CB: (I) . t - -- 40 as mai r- ` , 6 GPL Jeer Benefits from presence of TEL service to transit st communities 4) , ,w.r; - ,,A 4 X1 ` _ �� t" • Compete for _-_.7_ — TEL ridership Complement ft service along 1-25 and to western 4) communities ;-4 Result: ;—i _Hp . - . - ' i - , . ---- LI 4 .: :se Ste - 3 + A - + ) + •�Sa + .. • - ' ^ � 6 GPL Buffer- EB CR CB F+i Separated 0 ... Alternatives 2-97 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • i A third combination is evaluated in this Final EIS. It combines commuter rail service along 2 the BNSF with tolled express lanes along 1-25. Express Bus would travel on 1-25 in the tolled express lanes and commuter bus would operate on US 85. This package of improvements is the Preferred Alternative. These three packages along with the No-Action Alternative package represent the n reasonable alternatives to be fully evaluated in this EIS. 2.3.5.1 OUTCOME OF QUESTION 4: How DO THE HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES FIT TOGETHER? ,, The need to provide a practical, multi-modal transportation solution led to the development of three packages for detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS: I ► Package A: General purpose lanes on 1-25 with the western alignment commuter rail and commuter bus service along US 85 ► Package B: Tolled express lanes on 1-25 with BRT ► Preferred Alternative: General purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on 1-25, western • alignment of commuter rail, express bus on 1-25 and commuter bus on US 85 lo 2.3.6 Question 5: What is the Basis for Identifying the Preferred - Alternative? The Preferred Alternative was identified based on the Purpose and Need. In addition to • ,, meeting the elements of the Purpose and Need, a number of other factors support 2! identification of the Preferred Alternative. These other supporting factors included land use, 2 I system benefits, livability, and cost. Each new or revised element of the Preferred Alternative 22 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 4 following discussion characterizes the ability of all the alternatives to meet the Purpose and 2c Need and other factors supporting the identification of the Preferred Alternative. 2.3.6.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ELEMENTS The Preferred Alternative meets the project purpose and need to a greater extent than the other two build alternatives. 2') 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 1> making 1-25 a more attractive route than the adjacent arterial network. The crash rate on • ;0) arterials is higher than the crash rate on access controlled facilities such as 1-25. This results -Hi in improved safety under the Preferred Alternative for the entire regional transportation system because of the transfer of VMT from arterials to 1-25. Alternatives 2-98 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. I The Preferred Alternative would result in only 11 average annual transit injuries compared to 2 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 i 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 r, service. - Need to Address the Increasing Traffic Congestion on 1-25, Leading to Mobility and Accessibility Problems ! The Preferred Alternative provides the most efficient operations for 1-25 compared to It 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: 2 ► 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). 2 ► It has the fastest travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the tolled express lanes in 2035 (64 24 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 'r remaining trip is in general purpose lanes). ► It provides the most travel choices on 1-25 allowing a motorist to pay a toll or carpool to \ avoid congestion, or choose to travel toll free in the general purpose lanes, or choose express bus. ► It has the fastest bus transit service from the South Transit Center to 20th Street at 63 minutes for an express bus, compared to 70 minutes for BRT with Package B. ► Similar to Package B the tolled express lanes provide an opportunity to maintain reliable travel time for buses, HOVs and toll paying users in perpetuity. ► Because the Preferred Alternative would have the best level of service in the general purpose lanes, it would have the best overall mobility for freight traffic. ! ► It would serve the highest number of users on 1-25 at over 990,000 users (number of vehicles entering this length of 1-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy. See Section 4.2.5 Highway Users 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. Alternatives 2.99 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • I ► 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. 4 ► 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. Need to Replace Aging and Functionally Obsolete Infrastructure I 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 I of the pavement that has exceeded its useful life. ! - Need to Provide Modal Alternatives The Preferred Alternative provides the most opportunity for improved mode choice throughout !,i the regional study area. In addition, it allows the ability to implement transit service with • 11 minimal initial infrastructure investment. Overall the Preferred Alternative addresses this 2 element of purpose and need in the following ways: :2 ► 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. N ► The express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could be fairly easily implemented and implemented in phases, providing near term multimodal options to commuters traveling the North 1-25 and US 85 corridors. BRT service provided as a part of Package B would be harder to implement in phases because stations are located in the median, requiring reconstruction of 1-25. • ► Given the uncertainty of the schedules for the FasTracks North Metro and Northwest Rail corridors, express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could provide an additional mode choice that would first supplement and then complement the FasTracks commuter rail corridors. ► It would attract the highest level of special event ridership (transit trips to sporting events, the theater and other activities in downtown Denver), due to the range of transit options that can accessed for these discretionary trips. • Alternatives 2-100 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. i 2.3.6.2 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. 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 2 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 2-4 could have a detrimental effect on downtown areas, tending to pull growth away from them and focusing it along 1-25. System Benefits There are a variety of system benefits: regional connectivity, regional safety, and travel reliability. An assessment of the three build alternatives demonstrates the difference among system benefits. Regional Connectivity Regional connectivity to the greater Denver metropolitan transportation system is most improved with the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative: ► Connects to two planned RTD rail lines serving 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. Alternatives 2.101 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • I ► 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. -I Package A connects to the two RTD rail lines; but does not extend the managed lane facility north from US 36. (i 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 I-25 and therefore has less system wide () benefits. I( 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 I- 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. r Package A and Package B also reduce travel on the arterial network but to a lesser degree. - Travel Reliability i • 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 2 i 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. 24 In contrast, Package B offers travel time reliability only on the managed lanes. 2c Livability Livability concepts refer to the synergy between transportation, land use and the environment. A livability evaluation of the three build alternatives accounts for the mobility issues surrounding transit dependent populations, the need for sustainable land use patterns, potential higher fuel prices, decreased availability of fossil fuels, and green house gas emissions. The three alternatives I address these concepts to varying degrees. The Preferred Alternative provides the greatest mix of transportation improvements in support of 2 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 $-I 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 4i accessibility to transit dependent users. Alternatives 2-102 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. I Package B provides advantages for using express bus service, carpooling, vanpooling via the 2 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 r I 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. -1 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 • 2 ► 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 • Alternatives 2.103 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • FRIVIHONMENTA [ CONSEQUENCES , ... ... ..... ../. . ...._,.,.t...._. ..2:_ _ , .• . ..,, ... ... . _ ar.„.. . • ., - 1 w }` w r WV r —�L- S1 •- -a S M - • I _, I I'41. -- 1. -�'' 0 . 1 ~ -• •• i .e -..isfr. N ORTH I-25 EIS 0 information . cooperation , transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2 This chapter describes the affected 3 environment and potential environmental What's in Chapter 3? 4 consequences to resources in the North Chapter 3-Environmental Consequences 5 1-25 regional study area from the four 3.1 Land Use&Zoning 6 alternatives (No-Action, Package A, 3.2 Social Conditions r Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) 3.3 Economic Conditions under consideration as part of this 3.4 Right-of-Way 3.5 N g Final EIS. Within each resource section, Quality 3.6 Noise&&Vibration 1(1 there is first a description of existing 3.7 Water Resources 11 conditions within the affected environment, 3.8 Wetlands 12 then a description of environmental 3.9 Floodplains 13 consequences associated with the 3.10 Vegetation 14 four alternative packages, as described in 3.11 Noxious Weeds 1 Chapter 2 Alternatives. 3.12 Wildlife 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive The alternatives were described in detail in 3.14 Visual Quality y Species 1 Chapter 2 as follows: 3.15 Historic Preservation 3.16 Paleontological Resources 18 ► Section 2.2.1 describes the No-Action 3.17 Hazardous Materials Alternative 3.18 Parks and Recreation Resources 3.19 Section 6(f) • 2C ► Section 2.2.2 describes Package A 3.20 Farmlands 3.21 Energy 21 ► Section 2.2.3 describes Package B 3.22 Public Safety and Security 3.23 Construction 3.24 22 ► Section 2.2.4 describes the PreferredLocal o Short-Term Uses of the z3 Alternative Environment and Long-Term Productivity 24 Environmental consequences are presented 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable 25 in this document as they are anticipated to Commitment of Resources <[; occur in the Year 2035. While each 3.26 Cumulative Impacts 27 resource is assessed for impacts related to 3.27 Permits Required 23 all improvements within an alternative (e.g. 3.28 Summary of Direct and 29 interchanges, structural improvements, Indirect Impacts 30 safety upgrades, carpool lots, feeder bus, 3.29 Mitigation Summary 31 maintenance facilities), only those areas 32 where impacts would occur are discussed. As a result, not every element of an alternative is 33 discussed for each resource. Mitigation measures are also described. 34 Environmental consequences are broken into the following categories: 35 ► Direct effects (or impacts) are defined as those impacts that are immediately experienced 36 by implementing a federal action. 37 ► Indirect effects (or impacts) are caused by the action but occur later in time or farther 38 removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include 39 growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of •40 population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water, and other natural 41 systems, including ecosystems. 42 Environmental Consequences 3-1 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 ► Cumulative effects (or impacts) result from the incremental impact of the action when 2 added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 3 agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 4 impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 5 over a period or time. Based on input from scoping meetings, agency meetings, and the 6 analysis of resources, cumulative effects were evaluated for the following resources: • Land use and induced growth • Wildlife habitat • Wetlands • Water quality • Air quality 7 Two different geographic areas were used to collect and describe existing conditions and 8 environmental consequences: CI Regional Study Area—Shown on Figure 1-1 (see Chapter 1), the regional study area covers 10 a wide area that includes 38 municipalities and 7 counties. The regional study area was used 11 to collect information about existing and future land use, social and economic demographics 12 and indicators, air quality, traffic and transportation, and cumulative impacts. 13 Project Area — This is the area that may be directly affected by project transportation 14 improvements. It generally includes an area approximately 0.25 mile from the edge of any 15 planned linear facility (i.e., roadway/railway) construction and approximately 0.50 mile, or an 16 acceptable walking distance, from a transit station. Information for the linear facility 7 components of the project area was collected on existing conditions and environmental • 18 consequences to right-of-way, noise and vibration, water resources, biological resources, visual quality, historic resources, hazardous materials, and parks and recreation resources. 20 Information collected for the transit station components of the project area includes 21 socioeconomic demographics, land use and zoning, development and redevelopment, and 22 pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. Draft EIS Component Descriptions— For the Draft EIS, the Package A and Package B 24 environmental resource analysis was described in terms of components of each package. 25 The intent was to indentify impacts for each of the components such that this information 26 would be available and could be used during the identification of the Preferred Alternative. 27 For reference, the components associated with Package A are as follows: 28 ► A-H1 Safety Improvements: 1-25, State Highway 1 (SH 1) to SH 14 ► A-H2 General Purpose Lane Highway Improvements: 1-25, SH 14 to SH 60 30 ► A-H3 General Purpose Lane Highway Improvements: I-25, SH 60 to E-470 ► A-H4 Structure Upgrades: 1-25, E-470 to US 36 32 ► A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 33 ► A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 34 ► A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 35 ► A-T4 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver Union Station (DUS) • 30, Environmental Consequences 3-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The components associated with Package B are as follows: 2 ► B-H1 Safety Improvements: 1-25, SH 1 to SH 14 3 ► B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, SH 14 to SH 60 4 ► B-H3 Toiled Express Lanes: I-25, SH 60 to E-470 5 ► B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, E-470 to 70th Avenue 6 ► B-T1 Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to DUS 7 ► B-T2 Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins to DIA 8 The analysis by component was used only to provide information on Packages A and B (and 9 the No-Action Alternative) during the development of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the 10 Preferred Alternative itself has not been divided into components. Rather, the impacts of the 11 Preferred Alternative have been identified by transportation mode and geographic area in a 12 similar manner to the components, to facilitate comparison between alternatives. 13 Supplemental resource information on the following topics is presented in Appendix C of this 14 document: ► Land Use 16 ► Environmental Justice • 17 ► Noise 8 ► Wildlife 19 ► Biological Assessment 2L ► Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 21 The following technical reports and addenda for selected resources provide detail to 22 supplement the information presented in this chapter. These reports are not included in this 23 Final EIS, but are available upon request at the CDOT Region 4 Offices in Greeley, Colorado. 4 ► Air Quality Technical Report and addendum 25 ► Traffic Noise and Vibration Technical Report and addendum 26 ► Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Technical Report 27 ► Historic Resources Survey Report 28 ► Paleontological Resources Technical Report 29 ► Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report and addendum 30 ► Wetlands Technical Report and addendum 31 ► Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and addendum •32 Environmental Consequences 3-3 t THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH I-25 EIS ER information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 1 Land Use • 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1 LAND USE This section provides an abbreviated description of land use conditions and What's in Section 3.1? impacts. For a detailed explanation, the Land Use Technical Memorandum 3.1 Land Use (Jacobs, 2011a) included in Appendix C 3.1.1 Affected Environment should be reviewed. 3.1.1.1 Land Use Planning 3.1.1.2 Existing Land Use 3.1.1.3 Zoning It is important to note that development and 3.1.1.4 Future Land Use conversion of agricultural lands to 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences employment, commercial, and residential 3.1.2.1 No-Action Altemative uses have already occurred and is 3.1.2.2 Package A occurring rapidly in the regional study area, 3.1.2.3 Package B particularly along the 1-25 corridor. 3.1.2.4 Preferred Altemative Therefore, descriptions of existing land use 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures contained in this section should be considered in a general context as specific land uses may have changed. 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3.1.1.1 LAND USE PLANNING • Land use planning in the regional study area is primarily undertaken by local municipal and county governments. In addition, three regional transportation planning agencies are responsible for transportation planning in the regional study area. Local Government Planning The regional study area covers an approximately 61-mile stretch of the 1-25 corridor north of Denver and includes the parallel corridors along US 85 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. There are 45 local jurisdictions (counties and incorporated cities and towns) in the regional study area responsible for local land use planning (see Figure 3.1-1). The regional study area includes rural unincorporated county lands as well as urban municipal lands. Land use planning for unincorporated lands in the regional study area is the responsibility of seven counties: Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. Both Broomfield and Denver are combined city/county governments. Existing and future development patterns in Jefferson County were not analyzed since only a portion of the county is located within the project area. • Land Use 3.1.1 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.1-1 North I-25 Regional Study Area Municipal and County Boundaries (as of May 2005) ` 1 / ' LEGEND / I I l.. Regional Study Area -. ,�,I'' I �. '. Q Cities & Towns �'��—vl I .. Al Study Corridors i` 85 Highways %/ f I �'•� Arterial Roads I � (e City Boundaries i I Fort Coffinst I , I County Boundanes T 1. i LkILai: 0 Se.Kaxe Fats; 1 I 1 . 1t loner* ��_. 1 t 1- Gieeley 1 I g� I Loveland I r 1. ,F ED I -L. / r • ' la Sale . / tampon Idrtitown • I / m�,d I o h4uaa, 85 111 I I At _ ri.i mil it �• r :1 V i 'J j l,. I • • • I 1. Wilma; • I J / • Ifi Front w t SFro*,idt •S I ,- 1 \ 0 Dame Fort WO l?fJ K/ . . • Gnbxrel 7 I r..,, i t a vaGnxsr t , • sty i i Kinston i \Boulder is / •` I ` ! _ I %,._ ,.... ' b.,r. I..4,t"1 0 ,I. .•. 11 , r � _ ~1 r / I � l_� i — — 36 .� - //• rJ % _ __ _I I \. r L_, t f/ I .� _ .. ' . - - - - I —II newel% _ ., _ i VN ' ' 1 J /� ! �' r" 0 2 4 6 8 10 , i=mJ Miles North \ ••-e / ` / ill Land Use 3.1-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. There are 38 municipalities within the regional study area where improvements are being considered. From north to south, municipalities along the US 85 corridor include Greeley, Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City. Municipalities along the 1-25 corridor from north to south include Wellington, Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, Johnstown, Mead, Firestone, Frederick, Dacono, Erie, Broomfield (city/county), Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Denver (city/county). The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor includes Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Longmont, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono. In some cases, annexation of interchange locations or other desirable development properties has resulted in municipal boundaries extending some distance from core urban areas and the resulting planning area crossing two of the North 1-25 transportation corridors. For example, Berthoud and Fort Collins have annexed land along 1-25, but their core urban areas are along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. Although the regional study area encompasses the towns of Pierce, Ault, and Eaton, for the purposes of this EIS, the northern terminus is Greeley. The influx of people and businesses moving into the regional study area has caused municipal boundaries to expand rapidly into unincorporated county lands. For example, municipalities such as Erie, Frederick, and Firestone in southwest Weld County along the 1-25 corridor have annexed a substantial amount of land into their towns in just the last five years, whereas in the previous 50 years, very little annexation occurred. Municipalities that have development constraints, such as floodplains, foothills, or closely neighboring municipalities, or require voter approval for annexations, typically annex at slower rates. Also, rural municipalities farther from primary transportation corridors or urban centers (e.g., Gilcrest and Platteville) generally annex • at slower rates. With the exception of a few smaller rural municipalities, most of these jurisdictions have full- time planning staff to address local land use and zoning issues. Additionally, most every jurisdiction has adopted a comprehensive plan or land use plan for its planning area (see Table 3.1-1). Review of the plans reveal that nearly every municipality has established or desires some type of growth management boundary. Most define growth boundaries where urban-level services are planned. Others also include an expanded growth management area where the community desires to have a role in land use planning to coordinate compatible adjacent land uses, open space, or rural land uses that act as community buffers. Regional Planning Regional land use planning in the regional study area primarily consists of incorporating land use projections into long-range regional and statewide transportation plans. The North 1-25 regional study area bisects parts of three transportation planning regions including North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the Upper Front Range planning area, and Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Every four years, each region prepares a regional transportation plan based on the region's needs and priorities. The transportation planning regions incorporate land use projections obtained from local governments into the plans, such as the location and timing of residential and commercial (employment) development. • Land Use 3.1.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 3.1-1 Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans* Jurisdiction I Plan I Year County Plans Adams County Comprehensive Plan 2004 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan 2010 (2nd Edition) Broomfield City and County Comprehensive Plan 2005 Denver City and County Comprehensive Plan 2000 Larimer County Master Plan 1997 Weld County Comprehensive Plan 2008 US 85 Corridor Municipal Plans Greeley Comprehensive Plan 2010 Evans Comprehensive Plan 2010 Gi'crest Comprehensive Plan 2003 Platteville Comprehensive Plan 2000 Fort Lupton Land Use Plan 2007 Brighton Comprehensive Plan 2003 Commerce City Comprehensive Plan 2010 I-25 Corridor Municipal Plans Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan 2008 • Timnath Comprehensive Plan 2007 Windsor Comprehensive Plan 2007 Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan 2006 Mead Comprehensive Plan 2009 Firestone Master Plan 2008 Frederick Comprehensive Plan 2004 Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2005 Erie Comprehensive Plan 2005 Thornton Comprehensive Plan 2007 Northgienn Comprehensive Plan 2010 Westminster Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2008 update BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Municipal Plans Fort Collins City Plan 2004 Update Loveland Comprehensive Plan 2005 Berthoud Comprehensive Plan 2007 Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan 2003, as amended includes municipalities and counties along primary transportation corridors. This list does not include all municipalities and counties in the regional study area. • Land Use 3.1-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1.1.2 EXISTING LAND USE This section describes existing generalized land use for the US 85, 1-25, and BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridors (as of May 2005). For simplification, land uses have been generally categorized into agricultural, residential, commercial (including retail, industrial, office, etc.), and open space/parks. Figure 3.1-2 depicts these generalized existing land uses. Overall, existing land use consists primarily of agricultural lands which make up approximately 65 percent of the entire regional study area. Residential land uses make up approximately 17 percent of the regional study area and are concentrated around the municipalities. The largest areas of residential development are found surrounding Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Longmont, and throughout the Denver metropolitan area. Approximately eight percent of the land is commercial use including office, industrial and other employment areas. Open space, parks and other protected lands make up another three percent of the land use. The remainder of the lands are vacant, unknown, or surface water. US 85 Corridor The US 85 corridor runs from the Town of Pierce in the north to downtown Denver in the south. There are two major linear features that parallel US 85 through this corridor that influenced how land has been developed: the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) that closely parallels US 85 to the east and the South Platte River along the west side. As a result of the UPRR, heavier industries and commercial uses tend to be concentrated on the east • side of US 85, adjacent to the UPRR tracks. Conversely, the downtown areas of rural municipalities such as Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, and Platteville are concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the South Platte River. Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City are the exceptions and have their downtowns to the east of US 85 and bisected by the UPRR corridor. Another major feature that influences land use along the US 85 corridor is the presence of large tracts of agricultural land. In the north end of the corridor, long stretches of agricultural lands act as community buffers between the towns of La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, and Fort Lupton, giving the area a distinctly rural character. South of Fort Lupton, there are fewer agricultural land uses separating the cities of Brighton, Commerce City, and Denver, leading to a more urban character associated with the growing Denver Metro Area. Within the towns and cities along US 85, land uses follow a typical pattern of a commercial core area associated with downtowns, surrounded by residential uses. Primary transportation corridors are also usually lined with commercial and industrial uses, as well as some residential uses. 1-25 Corridor The 1-25 corridor begins in the north at the town of Wellington and goes south to downtown Denver. The 1-25 corridor can be generally defined as encompassing the interstate, as well as the interchanges and frontage roads serving the interstate. Land uses are rapidly changing along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of Harmony Road where agricultural lands are rapidly being converted to commercial and residential uses. Land use changes typically are driven by interchange locations where commercial uses are centered, and • stretches between interchanges where agricultural and residential uses are more likely to be accessed by frontage roads. Land Use 3.1.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.1-2 North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use LEGEND L . V Cities & Towns — —" —.•, �•' r _ /\/ Highways •'.. vtuington i J Regional Study Area f-rPst-rit,„<iffik ` 85r Al Study Corridors !��; a! . j ,/ ./ Arterial Roads .‘� I+ - r;r,,• Existing Land Use 2005 ''rte a . R 4 I `Fort Collins . . — - Agriculture 1,4 . -r • ' t•• . AU r, •. 14 Employment Area• I ♦ , r . ..i ;a 1257 Open Space/Parks ' ` . - : - - ' - 1Jr l�e Lnn.rrh . ,: ` ' t -� ,�".y.Y a.'Kl` • Eaton Residential l yt . ■• . • • `1 Surface Water • " r i `%r __ I t392 • ':RHrk Vacant I >\ • ` • 1 r .- • fi""�e Greeley • ' ' .i . t .263 • 11.4 CsarAev,city• 34'Loveland . • � --•• -_ thri II . „.. •e, _ - / i { ' . . • . ,• 1 ■ A- . Evan•, • / I ta Sitile . r tampon • •_ Johnstown ' lid . !♦ s0 , 85 p_ Mdhken • • '4• r 1i 1 _ .. til . • ,. r ie i Mead. L III .a 1 < . • • frJa;r m i 7:1lt7 .. - art y.7 loin • , •• a • ' •/ , 1 i / '� btfrt3drr�l :II 41/ �$ • ; •O Ir ..� III 1 cat r. pValtrxem ` • • �'• ,I ••LraIJN�IfF� Y,. . I •� Will" 1 7 • •�� .. h 8L-,C 1n.h . D . -Sr ,, Henderson t ... •••• F ,, As 44 i 'tillyam•-r - .17 Iligg • , }•• iloj non, / Arc , i ; • � ., ' •.11)envei • �j _ 14 ! • ' 0 2 4 6 8 10 .---- T_ -ice Miles North ( (k / � l all Land Use 3.1-6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. At the north end of the regional study area near Wellington, land uses along 1-25 are primarily agricultural with a few residential enclaves and commercial properties. Commercial uses increase near the highway interchanges serving Fort Collins. In between the interchanges, there are mostly agricultural and low-density residential uses. Large-scale development of the US 34 interchange area has converted large tracts of agricultural lands into commercial and residential uses. Farther south of SH 119, agricultural and residential land uses incorporate oil and gas development, which include access roads, pipelines, wells, or other related facilities. From this area south to Denver, the towns of Firestone, Frederick, Dacono, and Erie are developing quickly with residential and commercial uses adjacent to 1-25. This area is becoming an extension of the Denver metropolitan urbanized area. BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor begins north of downtown Fort Collins, goes south to Longmont, east toward Firestone, and southeast toward Thornton. In the north, the BNSF corridor is closer to the Front Range foothills than either of the other transportation corridors considered in this study. Development constraints are more prevalent in this area with an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and established residential and urban centers. The northern part of the corridor from Fort Collins to Longmont is also more developed than either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Land use is characterized by the urban centers of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. These centers are surrounded by lower density residential and agricultural land uses separating towns and cities. Within the towns and cities along the corridor, land uses follow a typical pattern of a commercial core • area associated with downtowns, surrounded by residential uses. Primary transportation corridors are also usually lined with commercial and industrial uses, as well as some residential uses. East and south from Longmont, the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor follows SH 119, then south along CR 7 and across 1-25 to connect with the UPRR corridor. This area is developed with a patchwork of commercial, low density residential, and agricultural uses. 3.1.1.3 ZONING Because zoning varies by incorporated municipal or county jurisdiction and there are 45 jurisdictions, there are more than 100 distinct zoning classifications within the regional study area. Most of these categories are similar in nature and can be grouped into common categories. For example, Residential One (R1) in Evans and Residential Low (RL) in Fort Collins; both represent a low-density residential zoning classification. For the purposes of this analysis, both are grouped into the low-density residential classification. A summary of these generalized zoning classifications in the North 1-25 regional study area is provided in Table 3.1-2. Zoning classifications for the three transportation corridors vary. In general, all corridors have large stretches of land in between the municipalities that is zoned by the counties as agriculture, low density residential, or open space. The US 85 corridor has the largest stretches of land zoned agriculture, followed by the 1-25 corridor and then the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. The majority of county zoning is agriculture and low-density residential, although there are enclaves of land zoned medium-density • residential spread throughout the regional study area. Within the municipalities, there is a mix of parks and open space, industrial, commercial, and higher density residential zoning. Land Use 3.1.7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Commercial zoning is usually adjacent to transportation corridors or urban centers and surrounded by residential zoning. Table 3.1-2 Generalized Zoning Classifications Zoning Classification Description Rural Residential Generally includes residential areas developed at a density and character compatible with agricultural uses. Low-Density Residential Generally includes large lot residential uses. Often protects rural character and uses. Single-Family Residential Generally allows for small-lot, suburban, one-family residential developments. Medium-Density Generally provides for a mixture of medium-density/multi-family housing types Residential including, but not limited to triplexes, fourplexes, and attached wall townhomes. High-Density Residential Generally includes a mixture of high-density housing types including, but not limited to condominiums, stacked flats, garden apartments, and apartments. Generally intended to allow for developments where spaces are either sold or Mobile Home Residential rented for the placement of a manufactured home in a park-like setting, where the homes are used as seasonal or permanent residences. Mixed Use Generally designed to accommodate a variety of land uses including, but not • limited to residential, commercial, office, and open space. Business/Office Generally designed to accommodate professional or financial services, research and development, or corporate offices. Commercial Generally refers to areas for the development of commercial, business, retail, and/or service uses. Industrial Generally includes areas for the development of research, light or heavy industrial, warehouse, and/or distribution centers. Generally a versatile zoning mechanism allowing for land development of any Planned Unit Development nature (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.)either as a single use or in combination, through total integrated project planning. Agricultural Generally includes farming, ranching, and other agricultural related uses. Residential development where compatible is often allowed. Open Space/ Generally established as a conservation district to preserve the environment Conservation and natural character of the landscape within the district. Land within the district may be used for trails and passive, active, and developed recreation. Public Generally recognizes all publicly owned lands in a jurisdiction (federal, state, or local government). Specialized Generally covers other special districts such as economic or business, residential enclaves, or conservation. • Land Use 3.1-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1.1.4 FUTURE YEAR 2035) LAND USE This section summarizes the future land use for the US 85, 1-25, and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridors based on municipal and county comprehensive plans and other planning documents. For simplification, land uses have been generally categorized into agricultural, residential, commercial (including retail, industrial, office, etc.), and open space/parks. Figure 3.1-3 depicts the North 1-25 regional study area generalized future land use based on this information. Future land use will change drastically from the existing land use depicted previously. Residential land uses will make up the predominant land use at approximately 34 percent of the regional study area more than doubling the amount of land occupied. Agricultural lands will be reduced by half and make up approximately 32 percent of the regional study area. Approximately 15 percent of the land will be in commercial use. Open space, parks and other protected lands will also increase to 16 percent of the regional study area as communities and non-governmental organizations make efforts to protect open lands that were previously agricultural. The remainder of the lands are vacant, unknown, or surface water. US 85 Corridor Review of future land use designations indicates that land uses along the US 85 corridor are anticipated to generally remain similar to existing uses. Some conversion of agricultural lands to commercial and residential uses should be expected, but not as much as along the 1-25 or • BNSF corridors. The UPRR and South Platte River that parallel US 85 through this corridor would continue to have a major influence on how land would be developed. Heavier industries and commercial uses would continue to concentrate adjacent to the UPRR tracks, and the downtown areas of rural municipalities such as Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, and Platteville would continue to be concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the South Platte River. The South Platte River would generally constrain the westward spread of these towns. Downtown Greeley would continue to be a commercial center with the addition of mixed use commercial and residential infill projects. Small towns south of Greeley along US 85, including La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, and Fort Lupton, anticipate little to moderate growth. For these communities, maintaining their small town feel and preserving large tracts of agricultural lands between each community is a priority. The smaller towns hope to encourage more commercial uses in their respective downtowns, creating unique or historical destinations for locals and tourists. It could also be anticipated that the smaller towns would add residents by allowing smaller or medium-sized subdivisions to be built on agricultural lands surrounding the core downtowns or along the outer edges of older subdivisions. Although with current county development policies, particularly in Weld County, there remains the possibility of large-scale developments being constructed on unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. As the US 85 corridor approaches Brighton and the Denver Metro Area, density of residential and commercial uses would continue to increase with infill projects and eventually there would be little unincorporated lands separating the cities of Brighton, Commerce City, and Denver. Major commercial areas can be expected at the US 85/C-470/1-76 interchange area and south toward Denver where there is easy access to Denver International Airport (DIA) and downtown Denver. • Land Use 3.1.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.1-3 North I-25 Regional Study Area •g Generalized Future Land Use L LEGEND Study Corridors /\/ Highways -- �', Ili us /\/ Arterial Roads ,'• 85 �J Regional Study Area �4I i� V Cities & Towns i' A ` - ,. . . ie ,\; Future Land Use 2035 I T.4 Ili„s - '1 - ••• • • . : Agriculture — . __ • Employment Area j: lik l-•7 'ft A i Open Space/Parks i • I f,.,m.� WS •• Y. : ;rrt j Residential ! t• .� i j ./&wSurface Water L2 Vacant/Unknown ��, :k yi 1 34 ""`\ 1 - - .- _�. _ ��, I '263. elk• . . lowclarkl . • ' . I _ • . •. . el • a.i� 1 „. ,: / Ia . . ' a ' • . �Li c. ` 7 1 l 25 ., ; 7. M.a Ill f -. i .t. •ii:i r 1 I ltoncpn>nt II I i • .a . :Illi • -ty.r..•• r . x' Nth 4'k 0 $ • r �• 1 . , ra Wane It's: I li . - earliy err eT- Z4 ' W 4. i ~�`•� 40 in•' `• a .• ti , �,♦- , . . . � 'Ngess Ora V•L4.,Ir.:'v • • - • . . j '.�; . .a . � ! f Ai\ tilt'. • /. r ; ASS i p. * II trit - Ay 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ -__ I in North III Land Use 3.1-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 1-25 Corridor Based on future land use designations, land uses have been changing and would continue to change rapidly along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of US 34 where agricultural lands are being converted to commercial and residential uses on a regular basis. Land uses would continue to be driven by interchange locations where commercial uses are centered, and stretches between interchanges where residential and other commercial uses are more likely to be accessed by frontage roads. Most of the communities along the 1-25 corridor would encourage commercial development along 1-25 to take advantage of the highway system, visibility, and easy access. Residential uses would be generally set back farther from 1-25, although there would likely remain stretches of residential and agricultural lands adjacent to 1-25. At the north end of the regional study area in Wellington, moderate growth is anticipated and the area would generally continue to have moderate-density commercial and residential uses adjacent to 1-25. South of Wellington at the SH 14, Prospect Road, and Harmony Road interchanges in Fort Collins, existing agricultural uses would likely be converted into commercial uses to take advantage of access. At the US 34 interchange, agricultural lands are already being converted to commercial uses and this trend is anticipated to continue. South of US 34, there are long stretches of unincorporated agricultural lands without convenient access that would likely remain mostly agricultural until such time that a system of frontage roads or east-west cross roads provide access for development. Farther south, towns along 1-25, such as Mead, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono in the • central portion of the corridor, would continue to grow toward each other. Absent of developmental controls, these towns may eventually reach a point where there are no unincorporated areas separating them. As with towns along the US 85 corridor, these towns express a desire to maintain agricultural lands and open space between them in their land use plans. However, without specific efforts to protect these lands, there remains the possibility of large-scale developments being constructed on unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. From this area south into the Denver Metro Area, most all agricultural land uses adjacent to 1-25 would likely be converted to commercial and residential uses, with some land set aside for open space or recreation. BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor The BNSF corridor through Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont has more development constraints than the 1-25 and US 85 corridors because of an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and existing residential and urban centers. The corridor is also more built out than either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Therefore, existing land use patterns, characterized by urban centers surrounded by suburban residential and neighborhood centers, are likely to continue into the near future. Based on future land use designations, likely future trends would include densification of the existing land uses in the urban centers and some conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses between the urban centers. Fort Collins is approaching build-out and would not likely see large-scale conversion of lands to new uses. Much of the currently undeveloped land between Fort Collins and Loveland is dedicated public lands, such as natural areas and open space, and is not likely to be converted to other uses. Some conversion of agricultural • lands to commercial or residential uses along the north side of Loveland city limits can be expected, but most lands within city limits along the BNSF corridor are already developed. The largest areas of undeveloped lands that are not protected as open space are south of Land Use 3.1.11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Loveland, and to the north and south of Berthoud. This area is likely to see more conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses. At the south end of the corridor through Longmont, most of the lands are already developed and would not change much, with the exception of the Sugar Mill property along Ken Pratt Boulevard. In this former industrial property, Longmont is proposing a mix of commercial and residential uses that can take advantage of regional transit improvements. East from the Sugar Mill property along SH 119, future land uses would likely be similar to existing, with more commercial and residential development replacing agricultural uses. South along CR 7, more residential uses can be expected interspersed among the former and current gravel mining operations and major cross streets, such as SH 52 and CR 8, where commercial uses may tend to concentrate. As the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor joins with the UPRR corridor and traverses southeast toward Thornton, much of the existing agricultural land would likely be developed into residential uses. Only at major cross streets would there be a densification of commercial uses that require access and other infrastructure. 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences The following section provides a summary of potential direct and indirect land use impacts from the No-Action Alternative and the three build alternatives (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative). Direct land use impacts were evaluated by comparing the alternatives to existing land uses • and considering whether or not the alternatives were compatible with existing comprehensive plans and zoning. It is important to note that, in many cases, comprehensive plans and zoning have not been updated by communities to reflect any of the three build alternatives. Detailed information related to compatibility with a specific community's comprehensive plan is included in the North 1-25 Land Use Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2011a), which is included in Appendix C of this document. The methodology was used to determine compatibility with existing land use, existing zoning, and comprehensive plans. Indirect land use impacts, in particular the potential for induced growth, were evaluated through a process using a local expert panel. The panel consisted of municipal planners from Dacono, Firestone, Fort Collins, Frederick, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Mead, and Windsor. Also on the panel were representatives from two large developers who have projects in the area, and agency representatives from NFRMPO, DRCOG, FHWA, and CDOT. The panel convened in October 2006 during which current induced growth research was described, along with the current "drivers" of growth. The panel then provided input on potential induced growth patterns for each corridor based on the alternatives. The insights offered by the local expert panel remain valid for the Preferred Alternative because it is a combination of Package A and Package B. Conclusions regarding induced growth in this analysis were primarily based on the input provided by the expert panel. • Land Use 3.1-12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the regional study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans, pending the availability of infrastructure. However, this low-density, dispersed pattern of development could eventually become constrained by increased congestion, increased travel times, and existing access issues hampered by a lack of interchange improvements. As a result, development could decrease in quality (e.g., highway-oriented strip commercial or warehouses would likely occur at interchange locations due to access limitations rather than coordinated, master-planned developments) unless market conditions are strong enough to warrant investment from the private sector in strategic locations to facilitate specific developments. As major roadways such as 1-25 become more congested, development could be pushed towards outlying areas to avoid this congestion. This would hasten the conversion of agricultural land as market forces push towards the path of least resistance. This may also be the case for many of the east-west and alternate corridors (e.g., US 34, SH 7, SH 52, SH 402) in the regional study area. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the No-Action Alternative would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting sensitive lands such as wildlife • habitat. The extent of this impact would depend upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. Due in part to the limited availability of transit, development intensities are unlikely to increase substantially over those which exist today. However, more focused development could occur towards the southern end of the regional study area where transit enhancements are planned and highway improvements are likely (FasTracks/I-25 widening). Induced growth impacts for the No-Action alternative are illustrated in Figure 3.1-4. 3.1.2.2 PACKAGE A In general, proposed improvements along existing highway and railroad alignments, such as 1-25 and BNSF, would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Much of the right-of-way for these alignments has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of these alignments, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. This is particularly important when considering residential uses adjacent to existing transportation corridors, where there may be a perceived incompatibility with land uses. Entirely new transportation alignments or access points along existing alignments, such as interchanges and transit stations, are where direct land use conflicts would be more • likely. Land Use 3.1-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII Figure 3.1-4 Induced Growth Impacts - No-Action LEGEND --Growth already constrained by �J Regional Study Area , -.----' substandard interchanges. —Lack of interchange improvements 0 Cities & Towns <- ,•i we,"',;r,o,, would limit development opportunities /�/ Highways A. :% ■ and reduce quality of development. '1 • ,isA --Private sector may contribute to ~ Study Corridors - �' i 1 * • improvements that facilitate i ° - development !� Arterial Roads 1 e elopment opportunities. Future Land Use 2035 fort Goiims • a Agriculture .. .`� + . 14 - Employment Area I . • .� q ' 1 MN Open Space/Parks j .• , _. rahri — Residential i ir:WIT .% ' I. - Surface Water v� — an. i I 1,7467„, . •• �ne. -41fi°--aul . Vacant/Unknown i ` 4 — 34 1 ` I; �� •� • .' •fir. ., . f i4 263 j ! "1}�.�i �� — y'� GYde'n Gq ', " "r. I 11v'�P°yam' - 34 • i ' :hit !r : 1 lir s.rala Salle . Worsening congestion on 1.25 may trigger ho ! !'trp so Jums,a n ' / more development along east-west corridors 1 .,,,,; s if ,ti,,,ken . .i 85/where there is less resistance. --i v d r • r i . 3 i. • • • --Current development patterns would l • ' 2s •• ,/ 4 ■ ill likely continue (e.g., dispersed and t - la j -•Development would be more less centralized.) 1 dispersed due to reduced --Development would likely be more 66 ;; . 1 s+• , • r : service levels. market driven as opposed to ;v i Longmontgi. i —May make rural areas more municipal preferred. �!' • ' ' _ j attractive to growth sooner. --Unlikely to see substantial increase `i in density of existing centers. �. ` ,., '`�'"" ' , % • I ; • •■ Firestone 1 • t.• j- . 'N,ivot.. 5 ••x hn7cnc� I /� � . �w ' - pttyl 1• - 1 = .y la: .a. 4 e .w Imo'TV 1 ! i. `, #� r lei • _ -• 1 - • Ioius„up 1i� 1 L 1 7 N. • — . . � ,j -i �• at a :.` • tE,r.E tr • 4 ' IdII' .., ' •" 4 ,S Development focus may shift toward south - • t'where infrastructure and capacity along 1-25 ' ,' ~I K ,..+ has already been improved. L is .1‘..\ i• ! lil lit • Nerr:eri'_� . ' S • a / •• 0 2 4 6 8 10 ` Miles ,-,-,`"`-‘ r --- i / a 1 \\-4.-"N-N III Land Use 3.1-14 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Component A-HI: Safety Improvements Safety improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural. Similarly, upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 81 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. Component A-H2: General Purpose Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60, would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural and commercial. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, Crossroads Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, Weld County Road (WCR) 52, and SH 60 would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 406 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. • Component A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane on 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are mostly commercial and agricultural, with a few residential enclaves. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 56, WCR 34, SH 119, SH 52, and SH 7 would generally be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related, although there are still some areas zoned agricultural (i.e., near SH 7). The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 231 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades This component includes improvements under the No-Action Alternative as described in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Upgrading structures on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. There would be one acre of additional right-of-way converted to transportation use. Component A-T1: Commuter Rail A double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont would be mostly compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. However, there are a number of residential • developments that have encroached near the alignment that could create some incompatible uses (e.g., a residential use next to a railroad use). Land Use 3.1.15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.1-3 depicts the compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this component. The locations are in core urban areas and were identified during the station alternatives process based on local government and community input and therefore, would not likely create major land use incompatibilities. Zoning in many of these areas, however, has not been updated to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, and many of these locations are not currently zoned for transportation uses. The proposed Berthoud Station was not envisioned as a transit center in the local comprehensive plan. The Fort Collins commuter rail maintenance facility would be compatible with existing land use and the comprehensive plan, although current zoning does not include transit facilities. The Berthoud commuter rail maintenance facility would be compatible with existing land uses, but is not included in a comprehensive plan and current zoning does not include transit facilities. The three feeder bus routes from 1) Greeley to Windsor to Fort Collins, 2) Greeley to Loveland, and 3) Milliken to Johnstown to Berthoud would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Local mass transit opportunities are desirable to communities along these routes. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 165 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to transportation use. Table 3.1-3 Component A-Ti Compatibility Commuter Rail Station Existing Land Use? Zoning? Comprehensive Plan? • Fort Collins Downtown Transit Yes Yes Yes Center CSU Yes No Yes South Fort Collins Transit Center Yes Yes Yes North Loveland Yes No Yes Downtown Loveland Yes No Yes Berthoud Yes No No North Longmont Yes No Yes Component A-72: Commuter Rail A new double-tracked commuter rail line, extending from Longmont parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UPRR line, and connecting to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, would have some incompatibilities with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. From Longmont to the existing UPRR line, A-T2 is an entirely new mass transit alignment that local governments generally have not previously envisioned in their comprehensive planning or zoning. Existing land uses are mostly commercial with some residential along SH 119, and agricultural and residential uses along WCR 7. Incompatibilities would be the greatest adjacent to existing residential uses. • Land Use 3.1.16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.1-4 depicts the compatibility Table 3.1-4 Component A-T2 Compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this Existing Commuter Land Zoning? Comprehensive component. The Longmont location is Rail Station Use? Plan? in a core urban area and was Longmont at originally identified based on local Sugar Mill Yes No Yes government and community input and I-25 and therefore, would not likely create WCR 8 No No No major land use incompatibilities. The 1-25 and WCR 8 location is in a non-urban area that is mostly agricultural and therefore, would be incompatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The feeder bus route from Firestone to Frederick to Dacono to Erie would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Local mass transit opportunities are desirable to communities along this route. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 166 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to transportation use. Component A-73: Commuter Bus Commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Nearly all of the • communities along the corridor envision US 85 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. Table 3.1-5 depicts the compatibility Table 3.1-5 Component A-T3 Compatibility of the proposed new commuter bus Existing stations associated with this Commuter Land Zoning? Comprehensive component. The locations are in core Bus Station Use? Plan? urban areas and were originally identified based on local government Greeley Yes No Yes and community input and therefore, South Yes Yes Yes would not likely create major land use Greeley incompatibilities. However, many of Evans Yes No Yes these locations are not currently zoned for transportation facilities and Platteville Yes No No some are not specifically referenced in comprehensive plans. Fort Lupton Yes Yes No The 10 commuter bus queue jumps on US 85 associated with this component would generally be compatible with existing land use, zoning, or comprehensive plans since US 85 is an existing transportation corridor. The commuter bus maintenance facility in Greeley at 31st Street and 1st Avenue would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 18 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to transportation use. • Land Use 3.1.17 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Component A-T4: Commuter Bus Commuter bus service only along E-470 between US 85 and DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans because the service would use existing travel lanes. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. Package A Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are common to all packages. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver Metro Area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if completely new interchanges were proposed. Under Package A, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the project area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid-alignment. As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the project area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban • centers. This would be the case particularly along the 1-25 corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor would likely have a limited impact upon natural-resource related environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. Longmont would likely become a focus within the project area due to its central location, its direct connection to the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its close proximity to DIA. Overall, the combination of these factors likely would increase the density and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail could help municipalities realize plans that otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit-oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the regional study area, such as Frederick and Erie, could see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts could come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low-intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail stations could also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underused lands along these corridors could begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers and transit lines. • Land Use 3.1-18 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Induced growth impacts for Package A are illustrated in Figure 3.1-5. 3.1.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B consists of four highway components and three transit components. Direct impacts are described by component. Indirect impacts are more regional in nature and therefore, are described for the entire package at the end of this subsection. Overall, proposed improvements along the existing 1-25 highway alignment would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for this alignment has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of this alignment, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. • • Land Use 3.1-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 3.1-5 Induced Growth Impacts - Package A LEGEND Some increase in end-of-line development would occur.0 % Commuter Rail -)al/\,/ Highways ,;% h' P Existing residential uses along Harmony /\/ Arterial Roads !�' Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may . .1 Regional Study Area :�� be converted to higher intensity uses. 4 Cities & Towns i : r,r� ' 4.4 N. Larger Urban Areas Enhanced j �rff i,s �= : '. Feeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail i• number of people who live 2 7 l fr and work in different Future Land Use 2035 j" communities. May also Agriculture I .„,;,,, �: allow for increased development - Employment Area • as east/west roadways become t �_�ri ,,, or more congested. Open Space/Parks Residential tat Surface Water �} F 4 likh: _ rte _ S ;t. ; "� i; Vacant/Unknown �'7' t ' luvefand • — e� • , / i� - 1 a• / 44 • a•, i AIL . • Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification t r • ' N. - ` i : I ., • � ,. • of existing urban centers, supporting municipal I • ,,5 , plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft Collins, j :. Non urban stations would help Mason Street Corridor, 4th Street/downtown iA a ,•,; ,: ,�• realize plans for more urban Loveland, 29th Street). 1) —......... Si, development that otherwise • W si I' '. ' wouldn't occur (e.g., Longmont/°t ' r" 1 ""r Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick.) rail connections to north and south (FasTracks) and connections to DIA/southern communities would ; ► .. � ? reinforce Longmont's role as a major • . "■ A °.. ' . i hub for the region. An overall increase infti.:•r� I • ,1• : •` • , } development would occur as a result. - 1" I:4 1i •1►r,' . ,. _ i 2 ri( . r r • r„f Luau, • 52 .'t•-.rel _00VP Ill•41": lib mit 1104 it� 4Pd e 'Bouklcr; 7 4 kW Y;.m .,rx-n r r . , R — . awirwivir 7 IplitJ d i25 e .r uls 1 / .� ti � � �� a a j t a '• .. , g. _ . ,. E'kl �� AI'' ,4. ri. le - km . , • -•,: , ,,/,‘ /Itioa / • . e pi - .1. aik . nv r. ,A if • 7N HI idi °If ilibbia. -__r L 2 4 6 8 10 . Miles Norm AFL■� � I III Land Use 3.1-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Component B-HI: Safety Improvements Safety improvements under this component are the same as those in Package A, Component A-H1. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 81 acres of mostly agricultural use to transportation use. Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60 and another two tolled lanes from Harmony Road to SH 60 would have a similar effect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A-H2. Upgrades to nine existing interchanges would be the same as Package A, Component A-H2. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 465 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. Component B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 60 • and E-470 would have a similar effect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A-H3. Additionally, upgrades to five existing interchanges would be the same as Package A, Component A-H3. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 236 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 could create some land use incompatibilities. Most of the corridor is lined with commercial uses and improvements would be compatible with this use. However, there are also residential uses adjacent to 1-25 between 128th Avenue and US 36. In these locations, additional right-of-way needs would require converting residential uses to transportation uses. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at 144th, 136th, 120th, 104th, and Thornton Parkway would be compatible since land uses and zoning are already mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 51 acres of mostly commercial and residential land to transportation use. • Land Use 3.1.21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit Bus rapid transit (BRT) from Fort Collins along Harmony Road and from Greeley along US 34, south along 1-25 to downtown Denver would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. These corridors have been identified by local communities as important multi-modal transportation corridors. Table 3.1-6 depicts the compatibility of the proposed new BRT stations Table 3.1-6 Component B-Tl Compatibility associated with this component. Bus Rapid Existing Zoning? Comprehensive Stations along 1-25 would be located Transit Station Land Use? Plan? in the median. Only the stations at South Fort Fort Collins and downtown Greeley Collins Transit Yes Yes YesCenter are located in core urban areas. The Harmony Road Yes Yes No other stations are located on or and Timberline adjacent to agricultural lands where 1-25 and future development is proposed. Harmony Road Yes No Yes Also, a number of the locations are Windsor Yes Yes Yes not currently zoned for transportation uses, and in one case, not identified Greeley as a transit center in the local Downtown Yes Yes Yes Transfer Center comprehensive plan. The Firestone site is zoned both planned unit West Greeley No No Yes development (PUD) and residential. US 34 and Yes No Yes • Only PUD allows transit facilities. SH 257 Crossroads Yes Yes Yes The BRT queue jumps on US 34 associated with this component Berthoud Yes Yes Yes would be compatible with existing Firestone Yes Yes/No Yes land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans since the Frederick/ No No Yes roads are existing transportation Dacono corridors. 1-25 and SH 7 No No Yes The BRT maintenance facility in Fort Collins would generally be compatible with existing land use and the comprehensive plan. Current zoning for the site does not include transit facilities. The BRT maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 80 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. Component B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit Similar to B-T1, BRT service from Fort Collins/Greeley along 1-25 and E-470 to DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. • Land Use 3.1.22 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Package B Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are common to all packages. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver Metro Area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if completely new interchange locations were proposed. The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent form of transit improvement than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for transit oriented development (TOD). Review of a limited number of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: BRT-related TOD is more tenuous than TOD associated with rail. As a result, under Package B, growth would continue to be market-driven and to occur in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. Growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, which would function as a "Main Street" for the North Front Range. Communities west of 1-25 would continue to expand towards the east—spreading—rather than shifting in their concentration. Interchange improvements along the 1-25 corridor would also improve access and reinforce this pattern. As a result, downtown infill and redevelopment efforts in established urban centers (Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland) could be hampered. Some concentration of growth could occur near BRT stations along the 1-25 corridor. The more • dispersed development pattern that could occur in response to Package B would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. The location of the BRT stations (e.g., center median versus along side the highway) and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract substantial new types of development. However, some increase in density and the rate of growth could occur in the surrounding station areas. Feeder bus service along the Highway 52 feeder would connect tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to the FasTracks Station at Niwot or Gunbarrel and to the BRT at 1-25, reinforcing existing patterns of employment and housing (employment to the west and housing to the east) and limiting the ability of the these communities to shift away from being bedroom communities. As the FasTracks end-of-line, Longmont could experience some intensification in development within its urban center. Induced growth impacts for Package B are illustrated in Figure 3.1-6. • Land Use 3.1.23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. II Figure 3.1-6 Induced Growth Impacts - Package B • L. LEGEND Interchange improvements remain :1 Regional Study Area •�..�"� an important factor. _ �. • •o Cities & Towns `�� ;us , �•• N� /"/ Highways i •s • • , '� w Study Corridors /it 1 �►� . •'\ / Arterial Roads I %. r'�« ' � /\ ., l .,.. II / Future Land Use 2035 ! on lint + '., Agriculture I _ -rii Employment Area VA Pi V :fr 4 't • Open Space/Parks , ;'� , � .�,:,. E<„&a' I Residential �' I IL �� . Surface Water I ' `/r i • y Vacant/Unknown , r % Jr J 1 *'sue . .t lLuJel.- 1 ,� S\` 34 alis , 1 alli- • "1 Efforts to intensify existing downtown : I r 1 : yin . 'y Northern communities already growing centers would not be supported. - _ ' • towards east--would result in more . R 4 , P. . 7.• ; dispersed development as opposed • : - k to a more concentrated pattern. Development more focused . ■ : 0 i • ;of / / r on 1-25 corridor which serves t! 4" 1 i' as a regional "main street." ti ' me '~ • • ''' j >+ i --Feeder bus connection to 6' f a, • i i ' . ' FasTracks would reinforce I LR ` ` tri town area as a series of a . �nrlmunt 1 Longmont would experience !' ' - : bedroom communties. Dillsdre some increase in development �' jr - Employment concentration as FasTracks end-of-line as /se . t dm,. • ! would remain west of 1-25. well as an increase in through .• - a traffic triggered by station '� ' A. I r ' + ' . y - ! locations. F _fa- Mine �• ! /• • . I T• ampIifti '� • • rut ttjpt u ii4 d , • 1 - • iea �i ` i if E LUUb!IPI • ► �� r ' 1 . #-• Zen • -•- !.� t o. ='t.• rC tI _ . p,._,. • . . * 'a r . /bilthh.a , -4 ' ` at ' 7 h..', 0 �' a ..{aal.a. n / : ' i e. API / --BRT stations may support klel h''r :Hr slight increase in density. \ - �+,, --Not likely to attract substantial ‘A,,,, • ' new types of development. �, y --Access to stations a challenge ,F with more dispersed pattern :/ already established to the east. � di • O 'nd , .---- 0.I, igt,771 . a / lill . _ _ 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 ' ' ' Miles North 1 \2N 1 0 Land Use 3.1-24 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Packages A and B and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and TEL and substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs. Express bus service would operate in the TEL to connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA and utilize existing, expanded and new carpool lots along the highway. Commuter bus service along US 85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with stops at the communities along the route. The Preferred Alternative also includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to Northwest Rail at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. In general, proposed improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for these alignments has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of these alignments, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. This is particularly important when considering residential uses adjacent to existing transportation corridors, where there may be a perceived incompatibility with land uses. Entirely new transportation alignments or access points along existing alignments, such as interchanges • and transit stations, are where direct land use conflicts would be more likely. 1-25 Highway Improvements 1-25 highway improvements consist of interchange reconstruction at 13 interchanges and 11 interchanges which receive ramp or cross-street modifications, two new TEL between SH 14 and US 36, and two new general purpose lanes between SH 14 and SH 66. Direct impacts that may result from implementation of this component of the Preferred Alternative are described below from north to south. Indirect impacts are more regional and are therefore described for the entire Preferred Alternative at the end of this section. Overall, proposed improvements along the existing 1-25 highway alignment would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of way for this alignment has been existing for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of the alignment, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. Improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural. Similarly, upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial- related. Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane and one additional northbound and southbound TEL on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 66 would be compatible with • existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural and commercial. Land Use 3.1.25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, Crossroads Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, LCR 16, SH 60, SH 56, and WCR 34 would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. Adding one additional northbound and southbound TEL on 1-25 between SH 66 and E-470 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are mostly commercial and agricultural with a few residential enclaves. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 119, SH 52, WCR 8, and SH 7 would generally be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related, although there are still some areas zoned agricultural (i.e., near SH 7). Adding one additional northbound and southbound TEL on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 could create some land use incompatibilities. Most of the corridor is lined with commercial uses and improvements would be compatible with this use. However, there are also residential uses adjacent to 1-25 between 128th Avenue and US 36. In these locations, additional right-of- way needs would require converting residential uses to transportation uses. Upgrades to the existing 1-25 interchange at Thornton Parkway would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for the 1-25 improvements component would convert approximately 635 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to transportation use. • South of E-470 right-of-way requirements would no longer include agricultural lands but instead would consist of some residential in addition to the commercial lands. It should be noted that this total of right-of-way acquisition also accommodates improvements related to the express bus component which would run in the TEL lanes. Express bus stations along 1-25 would generally be located in right-of-way directly adjacent to that acquired for other highway improvements. Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) A commuter rail line along the existing BNSF alignment from Fort Collins to Longmont would be mostly compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. However, there are a number of residential developments that have encroached near the alignment that could create some incompatible uses (e.g., a residential use next to a railroad use). The alignment extending from Longmont along a new alignment parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UPRR line to North Metro Denver (Longmont/North Metro Connection) would have incompatibilities with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. • Land Use 3.1.26 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.1-7 depicts the Table 3.1-7 Commuter Rail Component compatibility of the proposed new Compatibility commuter rail stations associated Commuter Rail Existing Comprehensive with this component. Most locations Station Land Use? Zoning? Plan? are in core urban areas and were Fort Collins identified during the station Downtown Yes Yes Yes alternatives process based on local Transit Center government and community input CSu Yes No Yes and therefore, would not likely create major land use South Fort incompatibilities. The 1-25 and Collins Transit Yes Yes Yes Center WCR 8 location is in a non-urban area that is mostly agricultural and North Loveland Yes No Yes therefore, would be incompatible Downtown with existing land uses, zoning, and Loveland Yes No Yes comprehensive plans. Berthoud Yes No Yes Zoning in many of these areas, North Longmont Yes No Yes however, has not been updated to Longmont at be consistent with the Sugar Mill Yes No Yes comprehensive plans, and many of these locations are not currently I-25 and WCR 8 No No No zoned for transportation uses. • The commuter rail maintenance facility located at LCR 10 in Berthoud would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and the comprehensive plan. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 196 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to transportation use. Express Bus (Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver DIA) Express bus from Fort Collins along Harmony Road and from Greeley along US 34, south along 1-25 to 120th Avenue would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. These corridors have been identified by local communities as important multi-modal transportation corridors. • Land Use 3.1.27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.1-8 depicts the compatibility Table 3.1-8 Express Bus Component of the proposed new express bus Compatibility stations associated with this Express Bus Existing component. Stations along 1-25 are p Zoning? Comprehensive Station Land Use? Plan? generally within existing South Fort transportation right-of-way and often Collins Transit Yes Yes Yes are additions to existing park-n-Ride Center lots. Only the stations at Fort Collins Harmony Road Yes Yes No and downtown Greeley are located and Timberline in core urban areas. The other I-25 and Yes No Yes stations are located on or adjacent Harmony Road to agricultural lands where future Windsor Yes Yes Yes development is proposed. Also, a number of the locations are not West Greeley No No Yes currently zoned for transportation US 34 and Yes No Yes uses, and in one case, not identified SH 257 as a transit center in the local Crossroads Yes Yes Yes comprehensive plan. The Firestone site is zoned both PUD and Berthoud Yes Yes Yes residential. Only PUD allows transit Firestone Yes Yes/No Yes facilities. Frederick/ No No Yes The express bus stations proposed Dacono as part of the Preferred Alternative 1-25 and SH 7 No No Yes • are off to one side of the interstate as opposed to the BRT stations 1-25 and WCR 8 No No No proposed under Package B which Downtown are located within the median. Denver Yes Yes Yes Location of the stations next to one DIA Yes Yes Yes side makes the stations more likely to attract new development because the development will be located directly adjacent to the stations. Median located stations reduce the amount of developable land within the distance typically associated with prime TOD opportunities, which is typically understood to be between ''A and 1/2 mile from the station. It should be noted however that substantial TOD is not generally expected when associated with express bus stations unless additional developmental incentives exist such as active promotion of TOD from the local jurisdiction. The express bus queue jumps on US 34 associated with this component would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans since the roads are existing transportation corridors. The bus maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for this component would result in the conversion of approximately 34 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. • Land Use 3.1.28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Express bus service along 1-25 from 120th Avenue to Denver Union Station would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans because the service would use existing travel lanes. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. Express bus service along E-470 between 1-25 and DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. US 85 Commuter Bus Commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and Denver Union Station would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Nearly all of the communities along the corridor envision US 85 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. Table 3.1-9 depicts the compatibility Table 3.1-9 US 85 Commuter Bus of the proposed new commuter bus Component Compatibility stations associated with this P P tY component. The locations are in core Commuter Existing Zoning? Comprehensive urban areas and were originally Bus Station Land use?Plan? identified based on local government Greeley Yes No Yes and community input and therefore, would not likely create major land use South Greeley Yes Yes Yes • incompatibilities. However, many of Evans Yes No Yes these locations are not currently zoned for transportation facilities and Platteville Yes No No some are not specifically referenced in comprehensive plans. In addition to Fort Lupton Yes Yes No the five stations listed in this table, the US 85 commuter bus will also make stops in Brighton, Commerce City, and downtown Denver. These stops will not include additional parking or infrastructure and therefore would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The 17 commuter bus queue jumps on US 85 associated with this component would generally be compatible with existing land use, zoning, or comprehensive plans since US 85 is an existing transportation corridor. The commuter bus maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for the commuter bus component would convert approximately 14 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Preferred Alternative Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are • common to all packages. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver Metro Area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements Land Use 3.1.29 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if completely new interchanges were proposed. Under the Preferred Alternative, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the project area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). It should be noted, however, that since no commuter rail construction is planned for the first phase of construction, this growth shift is not likely to occur in the immediate future. This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid-alignment. As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the project area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban centers. This would be the case particularly along the 1-25 corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor would likely have a limited impact upon natural-resource related environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. Longmont would likely become a focus within the project area due to its central location, its direct connection to the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its close proximity to DIA. Overall, the combination of these factors likely would increase the density and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail could help municipalities realize plans that • otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit- oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the regional study area, such as Frederick and Erie, could see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts could come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low-intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Some recent information from RTD confirms these conclusions on the induced growth effect of commuter rail. In 2007, RTD conducted a survey of over 25 experts in the fields of economic development, transit, and land use planning from cities around the United States. A conclusion of the survey is that investment in transit redistributes growth and also can attract new growth to the region under certain conditions. However, the amount of new growth is a minor consideration in overall regional growth patterns (RTD, 2007a). RTD additionally in 2007 studied the effect of its current light rail transit (LRT) lines on development patterns. It was found the LRT service is providing an impetus for redevelopment/revitalization of land near stations and allowing for a greater mix of land use types and densities. The report states that development along the LRT system at that time (consisting primarily of the southwest and southeast lines) is extensive: 9,635 residential units, 2,214 hotel rooms, 2.5 million square feet of retail, 2.6 million square feet of office space, and 2.4 million square feet of institutional space (including medical, cultural, and convention uses) had been built or was under construction. These development projects are within an approximate half-mile radius of LRT stations (RTD, 2007b). • Land Use 3.1.30 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. RTD is currently planning, designing, and constructing the FasTracks system (a transit expansion plan to build 122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, and enhanced bus service across the eight-county district). In anticipation of rail service, many communities have demonstrated a proactive approach to update their local plans to promote higher density, mixed-use TOD near FasTracks stations. The introduction of express bus along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent form of transit improvement than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for TOD. Review of a limited number of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: TOD related to express bus type service is more tenuous than TOD associated with rail. Some limited concentration of growth could occur near some express bus stations along the 1-25 corridor. Such development would depend upon the type and proximity of adjacent land use activity. At stations located in areas with development, some limited higher density growth patterns due to the express bus station might be realized. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail and express bus stations could also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underused lands along these corridors could begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers and transit lines. Induced growth impacts for the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 3.1-7. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There will be no mitigation measures required by CDOT for the build alternatives. While this analysis identified a number of incompatibilities between proposed transportation improvements and land use, particularly with current zoning and in some cases comprehensive plans, actions to address these incompatibilities are the responsibility of local municipal and county governments. It is important to remember that most incompatibilities are simply the result of comprehensive plans and zoning not being updated to reflect the results of this study. Once the Preferred Alternative is formally identified in the Record of Decision, CDOT will encourage the local governments to address the incompatibilities through their existing land use processes. Typical processes local governments use to address land use incompatibilities include public involvement and visioning, amendments to comprehensive plans, and zoning changes. • Land Use 3.1.31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.1-7 Induced Growth Impacts - Preferred Alternative , ) LEGEND Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. ~ 1-25 Corridor. Commuter Rail /\/ Highways .'�• Si i::1 �' °in' °" Existing residential uses along Harmony /\/ Arterial Roads i�' Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may iJ Regional Study Area , �; be converted to higher intensity uses. a a Cities & Towns j ; tilr 'r ). . / Larger Urban Areas Enhanced ! fort(. . ,; '_ Feeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail !• ` .` Spp number of people who live t ' 257 fr and work in different Future Land Use 2035 LI , communities. May also Agriculture • �_ -' L� `1 • iel. allow for increased development t as east/west roadways become Employment Area �","" more congested. Open Space/Parks x'8,;, , as - t Residential 't r :• t • t ; Surface Water !4 _ r itor— _u 4 ••,, I 263 Vacant/Unknown �� Loveland• , IV • rn = ' ' ` ' "r„ T �+' °,, '1/' Interchange • �' • • . • '. i • r • la Sane . / improvements } Carrpart • .� • Jdmslcnvr, . • : L•sel • a• a fmis / along 1-25 • • ° may stimulate ' th:wi •� w. htibien +• - , / some growth , Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification . , ` • G4•0(e, of existing urban centers, supporting municipal 5 • ' plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins, II Mason Street Corridor. 4th Street/downtown . Non-urban stations would help r� realize plans for more urban Loveland. 29th Street). I , development that otherwise SI I Pony.. ,9 Is wouldn't occur (e.g., urban Longmont/ ont Commuter rail connections to north and - Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick). south (FasTracks) and connections to DIA/southern communities would Fir-07 avdw lm . i I reinforce Longmont's role as a major .■ A ; • rirest• I hub for the region. An overall increase in a,c�tu .. p • �• : , „` r A ; I Highway improvements development would occur as a result. • "'*" ��y, = •v/• I. planned for Phase 1 _a �!��'' I. F""`�' ' may prompt more j ••• ,� �a t �t ` dispersed development I � - I ,S -1 in the near term.its / Alp.. ,- Effect of commuter rail may be `" "'"'" a B^ ''� - . F. Express bus stations stretched out over time since • Giver of r it �41/ •.� i �; /' _ 25 •' at -, , may support slight commuter rail construction is not .- •�, - ; '� _ increase in density. • , r�'fla+,•� planned in the first phase. -=� • �A, s Redd" on Because they are '� ,k ' ' 1•a.'' PP ' side-running, express ,10 . , rr;.trr�,,,N A • - bus stations are more .. 4 ~t+o _-+ , likely to attract new ' development than the 2 �, ,� j BRT stations assumed it as part of Package B. pi: Denver qp.P-N II ; mo • e/ -- 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 w SI S S Miles North -I H ill Land Use 3.1-32 • NORTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.2 Social Conditions • • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.2 SOCIAL CONDITIONS 3.2.1 Affected Environment What's in Section 3.2? 3.2.1.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.2 Social Conditions STATISTICS 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.2.1.1 Population and Housing Statistics Data from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census 3.2.1.2 Persons with Disabilities and Bureau at the census tract level were used Advanced Age to analyze population and housing 3.2.1.3 Community Facilities and Services characteristics of the regional study area. 3.2.1.4 Neighborhoods Population and household projections for 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2.2.1 No-Action Alternative the regional study area were provided by 3.2.2.2 Package A the Denver Regional Council of 3.2.2.3 Package B Governments (DRCOG) and the Northern 3.2.2.4 Preferred Alternative Front Range Metropolitan Planning 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures Organization (NFRMPO). 3.2.4 Environmental Justice 3.2.4.1 Affected Environment 3.2.4.2 Specialized Outreach to Minority From 1990 to 2000, substantial growth and occurred in most regional study area Low-Income Populations census tracts. In 1990, the combined 3.2.4.3 Environmental Consequences population of all regional study area census 3.2.4.4 Mitigation Measures • tracts was 708,688. By 2000, this population had increased by 421,498 to a total of 1,130,186. This represents a 59-percent growth rate over a 10-year period. According to the 2000 census, there are 422,366 households in the regional study area with an average household size of 2.5 persons per household. In 2000, the regional study area had an estimated 438,900 housing units with owner-occupied units representing 65 percent of the total. Seven counties and 38 incorporated municipalities are located wholly or partially in the regional study area. In the majority of these communities, substantial growth is forecasted through 2035. The largest increases in population and households likely would occur in the Weld, Broomfield, and Denver county portions of the regional study area. As Table 3.2-1 shows, population and households would double in Broomfield and Weld counties. At the municipal level, substantial growth is anticipated in Loveland, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Brighton. The distribution of future population growth by municipal area is shown in Figure 3.2-1. Growth in regional study area counties and municipalities would inevitably increase the demand for housing, community services, and strain roadways between Northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. 3.2.1.2 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND ADVANCED AGE On February 24, 2004, Executive Order 13330—Human Service Transportation Coordination—was issued, which calls for improved coordination of federally supported transportation services for people who are transportation-disadvantaged. As defined by • Executive Order 13330, persons with disabilities and persons of advanced age would be considered transportation-disadvantaged. Social Conditions 3.2.1 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation • Table 3.2-1 Population and Household Forecasts in the Weld, Broomfield, and Larimer County Portions of the Regional Study Area Population Households County 2005 2035 Change 2005 2035 Change 2005-2035 2005-2035 Adams 335,064 526,840 191,775 80,020 (57%) 118,851 198,871 (67%) Boulder 192,657 271,064 78,407 37,326 (41%) 77,175 114,501 (48%) Broomfield 45,965 89,441 43,476 16,615 34,066 17,451 (95%) (105%) Denver 94,031 152,184 58,154 27,715 (62%) 38,205 65,921 (73%) Jefferson 18,325 24,675 6,350 6,866 9,864 2,998 (35%) (44%) Larimer 237,583 374,736 137,153 53,476 (58%) 93,303 146,779 (57%) Weld 189,371 440,104 250,733 98,661 (132%) 71,154 169,815 (139%) _ Source: NFRMPO 2005 and 2035 RTP and DRCOG 2005 and 2035 RTP Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Data. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such an individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an • impairment." For the purposes of this analysis, persons of advanced age are defined as persons over 64 years of age. Persons with disabilities and persons of advanced age in regional study area census tracts were compared to countywide averages to identify potential concentrations of this segment of the population. In general, these populations are higher in and around urban areas (Greeley, Fort Collins, Longmont, Brighton, Denver). Concentrations of persons with disabilities are located between Denver and Northglenn along 1-25, between Dacono and Fort Lupton east of 1-25 to US 85, along US 85 in Greeley and Evans, and along US 287 in Longmont, Niwot, Loveland, and central Fort Collins. Concentrations of persons of advanced age are located along US 36 in Boulder and Louisville; between Denver and Northglenn along 1-25; along US 85 in Brighton, Greeley, Eaton, and Ault; and along US 287 in Longmont, Loveland, and central Fort Collins. 3.2.1.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Community facilities and services located in the regional study area include schools, hospitals, recreation/community centers, libraries, museums, churches, police stations, and fire stations. Approximately 44 community facilities are immediately adjacent to major highway or rail corridors, including 15 schools, 14 churches, 8 public health and safety offices, 3 cemeteries, 3 community centers, and one library. Community facilities and services are shown by location in Figure 3.2-2. The regional study area is served by 12 different school districts. There are also three major universities and two community colleges with satellite campuses throughout the • regional study area. The largest of these include the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, and Colorado State University in Fort Collins. Social Conditions 3.2.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.2-1 Future Population Growth Summarized by Municipal Area LEGEND i, , _ _ _ i Regional Study Area -- - - O Cities & Towns -- Study Corridors rij\%- --(/ 7" am i 5.478 Highways Arterial Roads ;L gaff County Boundaries 1 a>156o7 Iz"�1 �.l11 Mini City Boundaries -- - ' ' ---� " 1 1 2005/2035 Population I , Fen Cabs sm t ,�� BN 11 °1 (Summed in Project Area) I aft! inumee I Tema 1,612 r 7540 , 776 2.79oJ 3,127 1 3975 i al XXX,XXX t I 2005 Population I u66"34*1 1 1, 2035 Population i ' N It \_ (6/.403 f 1114.6931- I lam l i 171643 i 136.174} i ��1162pl�ap{{and , I `�._- ,-3126411 eill i i I s, - L i II. Mat, 6 717 1 72767 9�nho d 2124 11971 III1 9,611 f 17214 Os - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ 0 _ _ _ ,1.061113{7 I 1 1 I 1 Mud r 2.sb11 I 3.061 11.141 3.. i 17.5M a 11 r said 74,329 / 90.761 ri1Oa1 ;10.49;: 41.705 i 1;iN.161 'de di s!. '9;60)�71�I I xy I L1 ffi_15� N _ as—. ,6.b�7 IZ I ,R3. +e3. ' 11.530 I 1 13.3011 u276] 1 WWafl 9wM� 24,669 135,134 1 - - ----- - - - - - - ' --- --- 77,512I01,034 , • Ibusen Sit hecaYli'• 107065 I 141,471 y' 1O46 1 22,536 46492 1 17111 I_ 6owa sl�lm •- - son, Ye; ,-'--' 40 37011 136274 73,011 I Mill 6111 f 13,112 ! -- _ _,. 'rw.,l lib , r womsâsH4i 10 741 1 12027 111911 flaw] e� • ,_ -- / ` , ir.� ._ _ _:67074 1149.649 • , 152 I NM) ,•, )-ZI-1 t , • 1 i - 77 1 I 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 �> ' 9 \_ - a I Mlles North 1 s11 017 79966) -do la — e \__,,,.. [. Social Conditions 3.2-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 4111 Figure 3.2-2 Community Facilities LEGEND Fort ins Area /N/ Study Corridors �_'— Approximate Noullmbe of Facilities �__ ♦ `^&""') '' Schools - 32 "./ Highways i I N Recreation/Community Facilities - 4 /\/ Arterial Roads .i ---.1 Fire Stations - 10 J -_, Hospitals - 2 j _ Regional Study Area J. Police Stations - 6 City Boundaries / f►r r rem. �.` o Cities & Towns Ir Fort Collins I ,� . Greeley Area It School , H , -` Approximate Number of Facilities 1 ''�- mi Schools - 25 O Church i E ; i t { Recreation/Community Facilities 1 Fire Stations - 5 v Recreation/Community Center I S . Ft rrmath O severance Police Stations - 2 iii Other Community Facility I rt- Fire 287 Windsor IV Hospital 1 ;t 392 C1 Police ,t LGreet II __ , � /( --' 04 H s h _ 263 i' 'Loveland Graden'Gly : li • .* i 34 • Loveland Area tv:, a ri I I Approximate Number of Facilities / Schools 20 I Campion Jtdvslown IaSare �' Other Community Facilities 1 I j 60 ' - / Fire Stations 3 t Berthoud . Milliken 85 / Hospitals - 1 i ., ' Police Stations 1 i • I \re-' / 0 i t� Mead / r _ _ Platteville i. li: . P 1 I. ongmont I Longmont Area ;7 ' P 1 ]t lone Approximate Number of Facilltieg r rm. 1 Schools - 28 ..-.•'"..--- --. it Recreation/Community Facilities - 2 2 Fuesmne I T r"" _ Fire Stations 3 N tic kntk Hospitals 1 L�_` •�. ..''_ Police Stations - 1 �! Damn rat t„r,t,,,, 52 ye !, . IKO = Gwttaanes f \% , ;, p P Valmont � / Ia i V9 _ "�-;l F 7 - Wallenberg Ider tr r ta'avcite' ; i i tares 6 �� Biighton H I 7 i it<_.‘ 1/4N Irript pi< ''� : oombeld Henderson i' Boulder Area 2 . Approximate Number of Facilities M ,� \ l t`. Denver Area �"�"nr' Approximate Number of Facilities Schools 7 I �r . ' • / Recreation/Community Facilities - 3 �_ �; r rommn /f Schools - 125 Fire Stations 5 ' \ �} Recreation/Community Facilities - 10 41/4....\\ Police Stations - 2 H ` Fire Stations 17 72 `ç\\ Hospitals - 5 /� Police Stations - 11 7.--- — -- / I. �� Denver 170 �• r�-� i r-/ t ' ` 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 - .' Community facility information was collected for an area approximately at `s �J Miles North 0.25 mile from the edge of proposed developments, and was gathered from multiple sources, including GoogleTM Maps and a field review. 0 1 �^^ 1-\ > — —n _ Social Conditions 3.2-4 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Emergency medical response services are provided to regional study area residents by local fire departments and hospitals. In addition, numerous independent agencies provide emergency response services in the regional study area and several jurisdictions have joined together to meet their emergency response needs. Neighborhoods Neighborhoods in the regional study area consist of very well-defined and organized subdivisions to more informal single-family residential areas. Neighborhoods located adjacent to major highways where physical improvements are proposed are discussed below. US 85 Corridor The US 85 corridor is largely rural in character with informal residential developments spread out between rural agricultural and commercial/industrial lands. Just south of Greeley along US 85, there are a few informal single-family residential developments, apartments, and motels. The Southgate Mobile Home Park marks the beginning of Gilcrest. West of US 85, there is a small neighborhood with both an elementary and high school. Residential development in Platteville is similar to Gilcrest, with small single-family residential neighborhoods, apartments, and motels. Further south along the highway towards Brighton, there are several mobile home parks and motels, including Rocky Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park, Sylmar Manor Mobile Home Park, and Motel 85. South of SH 7, there are a few larger subdivisions intermixed with retail and commercial developments. • North 1-25 Corridor The northernmost portion of the regional study area (north of SH 14) is primarily rural with industrial development. The area contains two residential developments: the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park and Waterglen, a planned unit development north of Vine Drive. There are several mobile home communities along the highway corridor. The Mountain Range Shadows subdivision (a manufactured home community with a few mobile homes) is located on the west side of 1-25, south of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. Access to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision is currently from the southwest 1-25 frontage road, just south of the 392 interchange. Other mobile home communities include the Loveland RV Village (west of the US 34/1-25 interchange along US 34 next to a residential subdivision called the Rocky Mountain Village), Loveland Station Campgrounds (mobile home lots and camping south of the US 34/1-25 interchange), Johnson's Corner Campground (mobile home lots and camping north of the SH 60/1-25 interchange), and River Valley Village (a mobile home community with more than 250 units south of the SH 119/1-25 interchange). Scattered suburban developments are located near Thornton and are interspersed with auto- oriented commercial centers. In general, neighborhoods east and west of the corridor vary from being well-defined and established to more informal clusters of residential development. The southern metropolitan portion of the corridor is dominated by non-residential-oriented land uses (commercial, light industry, industry)with very few scattered apartment complexes and informal neighborhoods. North of the US 36/1-25 interchange, there are numerous • subdivisions, including Sherrelwood Estates, Metro View Park, Valley High, and Northview Estates. Near Northglenn, subdivisions and apartment complexes immediately adjacent to the Social Conditions 3.2-5 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • highway corridor include Parkview, Huron Crossing, Huron Heights, Stone Mountain Apartment Homes, Meadows at Timber Lake, and Webster Lake Terrace. BNSF Rail Line/US 287 Corridor In Fort Collins, residential subdivisions and apartment complexes are intermixed with commercial development. Neighborhoods north of Harmony Road include Troutman Park, Meadowlark, Historic Fort Collins High School, Old Town West, and Martinez Park. Between Loveland and Fort Collins, a few isolated subdivisions are interspersed with open space and undeveloped lands. In Loveland, several single-family residential subdivisions are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. There are also several mobile home communities, including Homestead, Loveland Plaza, and Lago Vista Mobile Home Parks. In Berthoud, the Blue Spruce Mobile Home Park and several single-family residential neighborhoods are immediately adjacent to the BNSF rail line. North of Longmont, the regional study area is dominated by rural and agricultural land uses with a few isolated residential units. In Longmont at the SH 119/BNSF crossing, several neighborhoods abut the BNSF rail line, including Kensington, Clark Centennial, and Lanyon. These neighborhoods consist primarily of single-family homes. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences The evaluation of community impacts is based on information gathered in Section 3.2.1 Affected Environment. Additional site visits to the regional study area, review of aerial photography, and analysis of GIS data was also conducted. 3.2.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE • Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. However, certain adverse effects on social conditions in the regional study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the direct and indirect effects on communities that are typically caused by traffic congestion and impaired mobility, including an increase in air emissions and noise, longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. The noise analysis determined that there would be approximately 816 noise impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative. Of these impacts 661 would affect Category B land uses (residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas and parks) and 155 would affect Category C land uses (developed lands, properties, or activities like commercial uses). For the Category B impacts, 20 would be in the Wellington East neighborhood, 12 would be in the Waterglen neighborhood, 69 would be in the Mountain Range Shadows area, 82 would be in scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld Counties, and 478 of them would be in neighborhoods abutting 1-25 in the municipalities of Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, and Northglenn, and in Adams County. Detailed noise analysis results are presented in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration and the corresponding technical reports (FHU, 2008b and 2011a; HMMH, 2008 and 2011). In the absence of transit or capacity improvements, future population growth would most likely • continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the regional study area's urbanized areas. Social Conditions 3.2-6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.2.2.2 PACKAGE A Component A-H 1: Safety Improvements Population and Housing. The population in Wellington is expected to increase by 45 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 3,771 in 2005 to 5,479 in 2035). This growth would occur regardless of whether safety improvements are implemented. Four residential relocations would be required between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1). The affected properties are dispersed along 1-25 south of Wellington. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. The proposed improvements do not involve physical changes that would directly result in increases or decreases in population. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. The Waterglen neighborhood is located within a census tract that contains a higher percentage of persons of advanced age than the county. This census tract contains more than 4,000 persons, most of whom live near Lemay Avenue (approximately three miles west of 1-25). The proposed improvements do not involve service or capacity changes that would increase or decrease mobility for these populations. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired between SH 1 and SH 14. The proposed improvements would provide safer access to community facilities and services within Wellington by upgrading the SH 1/1-25 interchange and signalizing SH 1. Access to the Mountain Vista Greens Golf Course (2808 NE Frontage Road) would be maintained in its existing location. Interchange improvements and bridge reconstruction at • Mountain Vista Drive and LCR 52 would result in temporary construction-related noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of-direction travel. Emergency service providers would benefit from increased sight distance at the SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive interchanges, wider shoulders on bridges, and replacement of existing pavement and bridge structures. Neighborhoods. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods or separate neighborhoods from community facilities. The noise analysis identified impacts to 20 receivers in the northwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange (referred to as Wellington East in the noise analysis). These receivers are immediately adjacent to the highway and would be impacted under all alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative). The mitigation proposed for these residences is a noise barrier which would reduce noise to below impact levels. Neighborhoods in Wellington would benefit from interchange improvements and signalization at SH 1. Detailed noise analysis results are presented in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration and the corresponding technical reports (FHU, 2008b and 2011a; HMMH, 2008 and 2011). In the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange, a carpool lot with 80 spaces would be constructed. This facility would be located across from a single-family neighborhood of approximately 39 homes. Although conveniently located, the traffic, noise, and activity associated with the lot could disturb adjacent residents. South of Wellington near Ronald Reagan Drive, undeveloped land has been subdivided and is planned for new housing and commercial development. This has generated concern about pedestrian traffic between new housing developments and commercial areas on the east and • west sides of 1-25. As a result, Wellington's Chamber of Commerce has identified the need for Social Conditions 3.2-7 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • a pedestrian overpass in this location and is currently examining funding opportunities for this structure. Safety concerns in this area are largely a result of development in Wellington and would not be created or exacerbated by any of the build packages. Interchange improvements at Mountain Vista Drive and improvements associated with service roads, frontage roads, and bridge replacements would affect residents of the Waterglen neighborhood. There would be 20 noise receptors impacted in the Waterglen neighborhood (as opposed to 12 impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative). Waterglen residents would benefit from the upgraded interchange and signalization of Mountain Vista Road. Construction activities would result in temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of- direction travel for local residents. Shared open space, pathways, and a community center give this neighborhood a sense of cohesion, and these facilities would not be affected by any of the build packages. Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the 1-25 corridor is expected to increase by 88 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 43,536 in 2005 to 81,764 in 2035). Growth would be most pronounced in the smaller municipalities of Berthoud, Dacono, Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Johnstown, and Windsor. This growth is a result of a large supply of developable land, easy access to 1-25, and locally planned development. The need for additional highway capacity is a response to this growth and would not in and of itself result in increases or decreases in population. Nineteen residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E-470 (14 between • SH 14 and SH 60 [A-H2], and 5 between SH 60 and E-470 [A-H3]). In general, these properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would occur. Improvements in mobility could influence the distribution of population. As incorporated communities adjacent to 1-25 become more accessible, they could attract residents, especially if opportunities for lower cost housing in the urban fringe continue. In these locations, the demand for new or expanded public services and facilities would increase. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities were identified in two census tracts adjacent to 1-25 between SH 14 and E-470. One of these census tracts is located in the southwest quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange and the other extends along the east side of 1-25 between SH 52 and SH 7. Because there are very few residences adjacent to 1-25 in these areas, these populations are most likely to live within residential subdivisions west of the SH 14/1-25 interchange and east of 1-25 in Dacono. Persons of advanced age are also likely to live within the Sunflower subdivision, in the southwest quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange. Sunflower is an adult community of owner-occupied, single-family homes for people over 55 years of age. Transportation improvements would improve highway safety and access to regional facilities and services for these populations. Community Facilities and Services. Six community facilities are less than 0.25 mile from 1-25 between SH 14 and E-470. These include: St. James Orthodox Christian Church • (2610 Frontage Road SE), KinderCare Learning Center(4755 Royal Vista Circle), Loveland Fire Station #4 (4900 Earhart Road), Fort Collins/Loveland Airport (4900 Earhart Road), Social Conditions 3.2-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Valley Dirt Rider Complex (south and west of SH 56), and the Weld County Sheriff(at the Southwest Weld County Services Complex, northeast of SH 119). None of these facilities would be directly impacted by the proposed improvements. Access to these facilities would be maintained in their current locations. Improvements on 1-25 near SH 392, however, may result in temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of-direction travel for the KinderCare Learning Center. This would also be true near the SH 56/1-25 interchange for patrons of the Valley Dirt Rider Complex. Interviews with Larimer and Weld county emergency service providers indicate that the proposed increase in capacity would improve emergency response and facilitate movement around other vehicles. Safety improvements (e.g., adding shoulders to bridges) would also facilitate emergency response. Emergency service providers would experience some out-of- direction travel and traffic delays during construction. Aside from improvements to the existing interchange at SH 7, Adams, Broomfield, Boulder, and Denver counties would not be affected by Components A-H2 and A-H3. Another safety consideration in the corridor is the shortage of truck parking. The Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities, developed by Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center for FHWA in March of 2002, reported that in Colorado there is a statewide demand of approximately 3,300 to 3,700 truck parking spaces and a supply of only 2,700. The availability of parking is related to safety because parking is required for drivers to observe Hours of Service rules set by the Interstate Commerce Commission to avoid driver fatigue. When they are not observed, for lack of adequate parking or for other reasons, driver fatigue • has been established as a major factor in truck-related crashes. Johnson's Corner is one of the current suppliers of private truck-stop parking spaces. The proposed improvements would improve access to Johnson's Corner with the addition of on ramps at Exit 254 under either build package. Existing access from the frontage road would be replaced so that trucks would travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. This configuration would not result in the removal of any truck parking spaces. Neighborhoods. The majority of 1-25 between SH 14 and E-470 (A-H2 and A-H3) is undeveloped, with a few scattered rural subdivisions and isolated single-family residences. Residential land uses that do exist developed around the existing highway. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. To the extent that the proposed improvements would reduce congestion and improve access, property values would increase. It is also possible that property values could decrease in locations where proximity to improved transportation facilities would result in increased noise and air emissions, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel. Interchange improvements at SH 14 would result in a new access configuration for the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park (in the northeast quadrant of the interchange). Existing access is provided from an unsignalized intersection along SH 14. New access would be from a re-aligned frontage road that would be signalized to provide safer and more direct access for the Cloverleaf community. A carpool lot with 150 spaces also would be constructed across the street from the Cloverleaf community. Some residents may consider the proximity of this lot a convenience. Others would find the added pavement and increase in local traffic • and activity disruptive. However, the area surrounding the interchange is highly urbanized and dominated by transportation facilities. The carpool lot would not considerably intensify this effect. Social Conditions 3.2-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Access to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision would be maintained in its current location from the 1-25 frontage road southwest of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. To accommodate highway improvements, the frontage road would shift approximately 15 feet closer to the community and the centerline of 1-25 would be relocated approximately 30 feet farther from the community. The noise analysis identified impacts to 69 receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision (with mitigation, impacts would occur at 39 receivers). These receivers would be impacted under all alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. In March 2006, the project team met with residents of the Mountain Range Shadows community to gather input on the SH 392 interchange design and frontage road configuration. To minimize impacts to the community, the project team suggested relocating the frontage road behind the community. Residents were concerned with this approach and indicated a strong preference for maintaining the existing access configuration. Construction activities would result in temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of- direction travel for regional travelers and the local residents of the communities located between SH 14 and E-470 (A-H2 and A-H3). Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to social conditions from E-470 to US 36 (A-H4)would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.2.2.1. Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail • Population and Housing. To capture the population that would benefit from the commuter rail component, population statistics were calculated for the US 287 corridor from Fort Collins to Boulder. The population within 0.5 mile of the US 287 corridor is expected to increase by 24 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 82,763 in 2005 to 102,934 in 2035). Commuter rail would facilitate infill and re-development in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont, accommodating population growth within the center of these communities, which is consistent with local planning efforts. The intensity and size of Longmont would likely increase due to its central location and direct connection to the FasTracks system. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins could attract a larger portion of growth than communities located mid-alignment. An increase in population around commuter rail stations would be expected, especially in communities with plans for transit-oriented development. These changes would not represent additional population growth, but rather a shift in its distribution. In these locations the demand for new or expanded public services and facilities would increase. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 35 residences (18 for Component A-T1 and 17 for Component A-T2). All of the displacements associated with Component A-T1 occur in Longmont, immediately adjacent to the BNSF corridor. Given the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Commuter rail and feeder bus connections would provide a vital service to persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities within the regional study area. The American Public Transportation Association reports that more that • 50 percent of all non-drivers age 65 and older stay at home on any given day partially because they lack transportation options. This translates into fewer trips for medical care and social, Social Conditions 3.2-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. family, and religious activities. Transportation-disadvantaged populations would benefit from the regional connections that commuter rail and feeder bus service would provide. The commuter rail would connect populations near its alignment to the larger communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Longmont, and Denver. Feeder bus service would provide a linkage to the commuter rail line and a much needed connection between the communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley. Mobility and accessibility benefits would be greatest for transportation-disadvantaged populations living within 0.25 mile of station sites. A quarter-mile distance, which equals about a five-minute walk, is considered a convenient and acceptable walking distance for most pedestrians. Community Facilities and Services. As described in Table 3.2-2 most community facilities would benefit from new transit access. The commuter rail would not result in the relocation of any community facilities. Community facilities that are within 0.25 mile of station sites would experience greater benefits than those in other locations along the alignment. Commuter rail and feeder bus service would improve regional connections between communities in the regional study area. Residents in the northern communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont would be able to use transit to attend cultural events and reach services in Denver. Feeder bus service would connect populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, and Milliken. • Community facilities would be impacted by new rail construction and noise and vibration from rail operations. Transit would ease traffic congestion and improve mobility for emergency service providers. Emergency service providers would experience some out-of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction and following construction, as a result of train frequency and at-grade crossings. Safety concerns relating to the commuter rail operations and station sites are addressed in Section 3.21 Safety and Security. Neighborhoods. The commuter rail alignment would not further split any neighborhoods or separate neighborhoods from community facilities. The BNSF rail line currently acts as a physical and perceived barrier between development on each side of the railway in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. This "barrier effect" would be exacerbated in areas south of CSU where an additional track would be placed east of the existing track. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, existing access to neighborhoods along the rail alignment would not change. In general, transit stations are located within urban areas and are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. When located within walking distance, neighborhood integrity and community cohesion are strengthened by the provision of transit. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would create out-of-direction travel and travel time delay for residents traveling across the BNSF. Through traffic would increase in neighborhoods adjacent to stations. The requirement of passenger trains to blow their horns at at-grade crossings would increase noise in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified a total of 2,192 residential noise impacts along the commuter rail corridor. Of these impacts 1,495 would be moderate impacts and 697 would be severe impacts. Approximately • half of the impacts would be in Longmont. However, it is estimated that with the implementation of Quiet Zones (and noise walls located outside of Longmont), potential impacts to all residences along the commuter rail corridor would be eliminated (see Social Conditions 3.2-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Section 3.6.4.5). The vibration analysis identified impacts at a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track. Of these residences, 26 are in Longmont and 14 are in Loveland. To mitigate for vibration impacts, special trackwork at certain locations and the installation of Tire Derived Aggregate (shredded tires) beneath the tracks would eliminate all potential vibration impacts. Table 3.2-2 Impacts to Community Facilities Within 0.25 Mile of the Commuter Rail Alignment Facility Impacts Northside Aztlan Less than 0.25 mile from the proposed station at the Fort Collins Downtown Community Center Transit Center. The community center would benefit from improved access to (112 E. Willow St.) transit. There would be a potential for increase in visitor numbers. Fort Collins Police Less than 0.25 mile from the proposed station at the Fort Collins Downtown Department Transit Center. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of- (300 La Porte Ave.) direction travel. Anglican Church of the Adjacent to the proposed CSU Transit Station. Improved access to transit Ascension (701 Oval Dr.) could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. Colorado State University Adjacent to the proposed CSU Transit Station. Improved access to transit would facilitate community participation in campus events and activities. Beattie Elementary Approximately 0.25 mile from the proposed alignment and 2 miles from both School the proposed stations at CSU and south Fort Collins. Although buffered by a (3000 Meadowlark Ave.) residential neighborhood, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of- direction travel for students east of the BNSF. Foothills Assembly of Adjacent to the proposed alignment and approximately 2 miles from both the • God proposed stations at CSU and south Fort Collins. An increase in noise and (305 W. Swallow Rd.) vibration would be expected. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for church members. Loveland Burial Park Adjacent to the proposed alignment and approximately 0.5 mile from the Cemetery North Loveland Transit Station. The greater distance to a station would result (500 E. 3rd St.) in modest improvements in access. Pedestrians willing to walk 0.5 mile would benefit. Although currently in an urbanized area, noise and vibration would increase. Bill Reed Elementary Within 0.25 of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. New access School to transit would benefit school-aged children. Although currently in an (370 W. 4th St.) urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Truscott Elementary Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. New School access to transit would benefit school-aged children. Although currently in an (410 E. 5th St. ) urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Loveland Fire Station #1 Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. (211 W. 6th St.) Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. Abiding Love Lutheran Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Church Improved access to transit could facilitate community participation in church (950 Cleveland Ave.) events and activities.Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. First Congregational Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Church Improved access to transit could facilitate community participation in church (800 Lincoln Ave.) events and activities. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Trinity United Methodist Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Church Improved access to transit could facilitate community participation in church • (801 Cleveland Ave.) events and activities. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Social Conditions 3.2-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-2 Impacts to Community Facilities Within 0.25 Mile of the Commuter Rail Alignment (cont'd) Facility Impacts First United Methodist Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. New Church Pre-School access to transit would benefit pre-school attendance. Although currently in (533 Grant Ave.) an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Message of Life Within 0.25 mile of the proposed alignment and approximately 2 miles south Ministries of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station.An increase in noise and (605 18th St. SW) vibration would be expected. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for church members. Seventh Day Adventist Adjacent to the commuter rail just south of SH 60. No access improvements Church as no stations are planned in this location.An increase in noise and vibration (300 SW 42nd St.) would be expected. Berthoud Elementary Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Berthoud Maintenance Station. School Operations would result in noise and vibration impacts. Frequency of trains (560 Bunyan Ave.) would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. There would be visual impacts for students playing outside in the school yard. Berthoud Fire Within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud Transit Station. Frequency of Department trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. (275 Mountain Ave.) Berthoud Police Within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud Transit Station. Frequency of Department trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. (328 Massachusetts Ave.) • Berthoud Public Library Within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud Transit Station. Frequency of (236 Welch Ave.) trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for patrons driving to the library; however, access to the library would be improved for non-driving patrons.An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Longmont Police Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. Frequency of trains Department would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. (225 Kimbark St.) Columbine Elementary Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. No access School improvements would occur as no stations are planned in this location.An (111 Longs Peak Ave.) increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Spangler Elementary Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. No access School improvements would occur as no stations are planned in this location. An (1440 Collyer St.) increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Outreach United Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. No access Resource (OUR)Center improvements would occur as no stations are planned in this location. An (303 Atwood St.) increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Research has shown that the value of residential properties near a station generally increases following the implementation of a transit system. The increase is highest for those properties located within 0.25 mile to 1 mile from a station. For residential properties between stations, there is the potential for a decrease in property valuation as a result of noise, vibration, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel (Transportation Research Board, 2004). Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include the Martinez Park, Historic Fort Collins High School, and Troutman Park. • Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Residents of the Meadowlark and Troutman Park neighborhoods would be farther from transit stations (approximately 2 miles and 0.5 mile respectively). The added track in Fort Collins Social Conditions 3.2-13 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • would exacerbate the existing barrier between the rail corridor and the retail services provided along US 287 and the Foothills Fashion Mall to the east. This would also occur in Loveland for residents adjacent to Lake Loveland. Lakeside homes would be in walking distance to the North Loveland Transit Station. The commuter rail, station, and associated parking would intensify transportation activity in the adjacent neighborhood. Residents between the lake and commuter rail line could potentially feel more isolated. For some residents, access to transit would strengthen their sense of community, while for others, the opposite would be true. The proposed maintenance facility at East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road would be adjacent to the northern portion of the Collins Aire Park (a mobile home park). This community would likely experience an increase in activity and visual impacts as a result of the new facility. However, such land uses are consistent with the area, as industrial, rail, and airport uses are in close proximity. The proposed maintenance facility at CR 46 and US 287 would result in an increase in activity and visual impacts to the single-family residential subdivision adjacent to the BNSF rail line in the northernmost portion of Berthoud. The maintenance facility would magnify the presence of the rail and introduce an industrial component to the neighborhood. Neighborhoods in downtown Berthoud would benefit from the new commuter rail and feeder bus connections. In Longmont, the commuter rail would primarily travel through single-family residential neighborhoods. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, no neighborhoods would be further divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. On Atwood Street between 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue street parking would be removed to • accommodate the additional track for the commuter rail line. Although some access revisions would occur, all homes would retain access to their properties from their driveways and/or alleys. Some residents in this area appear to use street parking instead of the alley (i.e., alley is fenced off) or driveway (i.e., driveway is used for storage). These residents would have to begin using their driveway or access their property from the alley when street parking is no longer available. Loss of street parking in this area would not affect Collyer Park because no street parking is currently allowed in front of the park. Columbine Elementary School would lose street parking, but currently has on-site parking and street parking or drop-off areas on all other streets surrounding the school. The widened right-of-way, operational impacts, and the acquisition of 35 residences could affect community cohesion. The community of Longmont is currently divided by the BNSF rail line. As a result local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across town; these delays would become more frequent. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for local neighborhoods. A station at the Sugar Mill location would support the Casa Vista neighborhood (between 119 and County Line Road on Quicksilver) by connecting it to the greater Longmont community. Comments received from Longmont community leaders in September of 2006 indicated that they feel that there would be no additional community division resulting from the commuter rail. Participants also felt that if the frequency of freight trains decreased, commuter rail would strengthen community cohesion. • Social Conditions 3.2.14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the US 85 corridor is expected to increase by 51 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 40,687 in 2005 to 61,517 in 2035). This growth is expected to occur with or without commuter bus service. Population and housing may increase around commuter bus stations; however, bus stations are less likely to attract significant transit-oriented development and growth than commuter rail stations. One residential relocation would be required for the construction of a bus station at US 85 and 42nd Street in Evans. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities have been identified in census tracts adjacent to US 85 in Greeley, Fort Lupton, and Brighton. Commuter bus would improve mobility for these populations. Transit would give non-drivers access to communities along US 85 and DIA. Mobility and accessibility benefits would be greatest for transportation-disadvantaged populations living within 0.25 mile of station sites or bus stops. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired for the commuter bus stations, maintenance facilities, queue jumps, or parking lots. Community facilities would benefit from new access to transit. Eighteen community facilities are located within 0.25 mile of the feeder bus line and three are within 0.25 mile of commuter bus stations. Twelve of these are schools; therefore, transit improvements would expand transportation options for school-aged children. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections • between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities (for employment, school, or services) on a regular basis. Interviews with Weld County emergency service providers indicate that transit would benefit emergency response by potentially easing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Aside from these benefits, emergency service providers in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder, and Denver counties would not be affected by commuter bus service. Emergency service providers in Weld County would experience some temporary out-of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction at queue jump locations. Neighborhoods. The majority of US 85 between Greeley and Denver is undeveloped, with a few scattered rural subdivisions, isolated single-family residences, and mobile home parks. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. Impacts to neighborhoods would primarily result from the increased transportation activity at bus stations. Residents adjacent to bus stations would experience noise, air, and visual impacts. According to the noise analysis conducted for this project, noise associated with commuter bus elements would not reach impact levels. The commuter bus station at 42nd Street and US 85 is adjacent to a small single-family residential neighborhood in Evans. The bus station is consistent with the character of the land that surrounds this neighborhood (agriculture, industry, and rail). An increase in bus traffic, noise associated with buses, and change in the visual environment would impact residents • adjacent to 42nd Street. As a result, the value of properties adjacent to 42nd Street could decrease. Social Conditions 3.2.15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Residents adjacent to maintenance facilities proposed at 31st Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley and north of Trilby and Portner Roads in Fort Collins would experience an increase in bus traffic, noise, air, and visual impacts. Noise associated with these stations would not reach impact levels. Summary of Key Impacts for Package A Adverse impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Relocation of 59 residences ► Increased noise and vibration, out-of-direction travel, and travel time delays associated with commuter rail ► Air emissions and visual impacts to residents near carpool lots, commuter rail, transit stations, bus stations, and maintenance facilities ► Exacerbated "barrier effect" in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont ► Temporary construction-related impacts such as, noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, and travel-time delays ► Potential re-distribution of population in response to highway capacity or transit improvements Beneficial impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Regional connections between communities • ► Improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response ► Improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations 3.2.2.3 PACKAGE B Component B-H1: Safety Improvements Safety improvements under this component would result in four residential relocations. One of the affected properties is located in east Wellington and the others are dispersed along 1-25 south of Wellington. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. The proposed improvements do not involve physical changes that would directly result in increases or decreases in population. Impacts to transportation-disadvantaged populations, community facilities and services, and neighborhoods are the same as those discussed for Package A, Component A-H1. Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a similar affect on social resources as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the direct and indirect impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion • focuses on the differences or incremental changes between them. Social Conditions 3.2-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Population and Housing. Twenty residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E-470 (15 between SH 14 and SH 60 [B-H2] and 5 between SH 60 and E-470 [B-H3j). Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Financial access to tolling is an issue that often emerges when addressing the impacts of express lanes. To use the new express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel. Limited studies have been conducted regarding the fairness of new toll facilities and their implementation remains controversial. Equity studies conducted on express lane projects implemented in California and Texas reveal that economically disadvantaged drivers use express lanes voluntarily and are not necessarily excluded, although more frequent use is often exhibited by higher-income drivers. The studies revealed that low-income drivers approved of the express toll concepts, similar to opinions of higher-income households. Most users, even those from higher-income households, choose the express lanes judiciously when they need to benefit most from reduced congestion. Free travel lanes, access points, and frontage roads would be maintained along 1-25. In addition, transit options would be available to all 1-25 commuters. Because a variety of transportation choices would be available to all income levels, the toll lanes would not adversely affect access to transportation for economically disadvantaged populations. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired between • SH 14 and E-470 (B-H2 and B-H3). The increase in capacity would improve emergency response where toll lanes are buffer-separated south of SH 60 in portions of Weld, Broomfield and Adams Counties. Interviews with Larimer and Weld county emergency service providers indicated that barrier-separated lanes would restrict mobility. In these locations (between Harmony Road and SH 60), improvements in emergency response would not be expected. Boulder and Denver counties would not be affected by Components B-H2, B-H3, or B-H4. Neighborhoods. Toll roads can result in a redistribution of traffic into local neighborhoods as drivers take alternate routes in an effort to avoid the toll. This is unlikely to occur in neighborhoods along 1-25 because most are set back from the highway, making local roadways an unreasonable detour; in addition, the current free lanes would still be available to drivers. However, traffic may increase along frontage roads adjacent to the highway. This would result in an increase in traffic and traffic-related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions) for the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, which is immediately adjacent to the frontage road west of 1-25 and south of SH 392. The noise analysis identified impacts to 69 receivers in the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision (with mitigation, impacts would occur at 39 receivers). These receivers would be impacted under all alternatives. Detailed noise analysis results are presented in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration and corresponding technical reports (FHU, 2008b and 2011a; HMMH, 2008 and 2011). Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), approximately ten garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 near 120th Avenue. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would • experience an increase in traffic and traffic-related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Adams County also would experience an increase in traffic and Social Conditions 3.2-17 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • traffic-related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). However, these impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the overall neighborhood. Construction impacts would be greater than those identified for Package A. Maintaining access to cross streets would be more difficult during construction of the barrier and tolled lanes adjacent to the existing lanes. This would result in some out-of-direction travel for local residents and 1-25 commuters. Components B-TI and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Population and Housing. The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor represents a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result provides less incentive for transit-oriented development and population growth. The location of BRT stations along 1-25 and US 34 (e.g., center median versus along side the highway) and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract new housing and population. No residential displacements would occur under Components B-T1 or B-T2. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Public transportation would improve mobility and regional connections for transportation-disadvantaged populations in the regional study area. The location of BRT stations (e.g., center median versus along side the highway) and the distance of the stations from these populations would result in more modest improvements in access to transit when compared to commuter rail. In addition, BRT and feeder bus would not provide the direct connection between communities along US 287 and US 85 and would reach • fewer communities (Johnstown, Milliken, Firestone) than would commuter rail and feeder bus as described for Package A, Components A-T1 and A-T2 and the Preferred Alternative. However feeder bus service would provide a connection between Niwot and Fort Lupton, currently not included in Package A. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired for the BRT stations, queue jumps, or parking lots. Community facilities would benefit from new access to transit. Twenty-three community facilities are located within 0.25 mile of BRT and feeder bus lines and four are within 0.25 mile of BRT stations. Fifteen of these are schools; therefore, transit improvements would expand transportation options for school-aged children. Service to Denver Union Station would improve the regional connections provided by FasTracks. Feeder bus service along Highway 52 would connect tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to FasTracks Stations at Niwot or Gunbarrel, and to BRT at 1-25. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Transit would benefit emergency response in Weld, Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, and Denver Counties by easing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Boulder County would not be affected by Components B-T1 or B-T2. Emergency service providers would experience some temporary out-of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction at queue jump locations. Neighborhoods. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. Impacts to neighborhoods would primarily result from the intensification of transportation activity at BRT • stations and maintenance facilities. Such impacts would be anticipated near five of the twelve new stations: South Fort Collins, Harmony and Timberline, Windsor, Firestone, and Downtown Social Conditions 3.2-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Greeley. Residents adjacent to stations would experience noise, air, and visual impacts. The noise analysis determined that noise would not reach impact levels in any neighborhoods as a result of the BRT (see Section 3.6.3.3 Package B). Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facilities at 31st Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley and north of Trilby and Portner Roads in Fort Collins would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. Summary of Key Impacts for Package B Adverse impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Relocation of 24 residences ► Increased noise, air emissions, and visual impacts to residents near frontage roads, parking lots, bus routes, transit stations, and maintenance facilities ► Temporary construction-related noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, travel-time delays, and access revisions Beneficial impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Regional connections between communities ► Overall improvements in safety, mobility, and emergency response, but no improvements • in emergency response where toll lanes are barrier-separated ► Moderate improvements in mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations 3.2.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1-25 Highway Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes buffer-separated tolled express lanes in each direction of 1-25 from SH 14 to US 36. One general purpose lane would be added in each direction of 1-25 from SH 14 to SH 66, and 16 existing interchanges would be upgraded. Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the 1-25 corridor is expected to increase by 88 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 43,536 in 2005 to 81,764 in 2035). Growth would be most pronounced in the smaller municipalities of Berthoud, Dacono, Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Johnstown, and Windsor. This growth is a result of a large supply of developable land, easy access to 1-25, and locally planned development. The need for additional highway capacity is a response to this growth and would not in and of itself result in increases or decreases in population. Ten businesses and twenty residential relocations would be required to implement highway improvements for the Preferred Alternative. In general, these properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would occur. Improvements in mobility could influence the distribution of population. As incorporated • communities adjacent to 1-25 become more accessible, they could attract residents, especially if opportunities for lower cost housing in the urban fringe continue. In these locations, the demand for new or expanded public services and facilities would increase. Social Conditions 3.2-19 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to transportation-disadvantaged populations and the associated impact of tolling, community facilities and services, and neighborhoods are the same as those discussed for Package B, Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4. 1-25 Express Bus The Preferred Alternative includes express bus service from the northern communities of Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and to DIA. The bus routes would use the proposed express lanes along 1-25. The impacts from the construction of tolled express lanes that would be used for the express bus service are discussed above in the 1-25 highway improvements component. Population and Housing. Similar to BRT, the introduction of express bus service along the I-25 corridor represents a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result provides less incentive for transit-oriented development and population growth. The location of express bus stations along 1-25 and US 34 and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract new housing and population. However, because the express bus stations are located off to one side of the interstate, there is more of a possibility for TOD than with the BRT of Package B, which may result in slight increases in population and housing in the vicinity. No residential displacements would occur as a result of express bus service. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Public transportation would improve mobility and regional connections for transportation-disadvantaged populations in the regional study area. The location of express bus stations and the distance of the stations from these • populations would result in more modest improvements in access to transit when compared to Package A, Components A-T1 and A-T2 or the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative. Express bus and feeder bus would not provide the direct connection between communities along US 287 and US 85 and would reach fewer communities (Johnstown, Milliken, Firestone) than would commuter rail and feeder bus. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired for the express bus stations or associated parking lots. Community facilities would benefit from new access to transit. Twenty-three community facilities are located within 0.25 mile of express bus and feeder bus lines. Fifteen of these are schools; therefore, transit improvements would expand transportation options for school-aged children. Service to Denver Union Station would improve the regional connections provided by FasTracks. Feeder bus service along SH 52 would connect tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to FasTracks Stations at Niwot or Gunbarrel, and to the express bus at 1-25. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Transit would benefit emergency response in Weld, Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, and Denver counties by easing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Boulder County would not be affected by the express bus component. Neighborhoods. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. Impacts to neighborhoods would primarily result from the intensification of transportation activity at • express bus stations and maintenance facilities. Such impacts would be anticipated near four new stations: South Transit Center in Fort Collins, Harmony and Timberline, Windsor, and Social Conditions 3.2-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Firestone. Residents adjacent to stations would experience noise, air, and visual impacts. Detailed noise analysis results are presented in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration and corresponding technical reports (FHU, 2008b and 2011 a; HMMH, 2008 and 2011). Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility at 31st Street west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. Commuter Rail The commuter rail alignment is proposed to be located in the BNSF right-of-way and use existing BNSF track from the Downtown Transit Center in Fort Collins to the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. A maintenance road would run parallel to the BNSF line. The new maintenance road would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing BNSF track. East of the Sugar Mill station a new track is proposed to connect the North 1-25 commuter rail service to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. The track would run parallel to SH 119 east from Sugar Mill, turn south and parallel CR 7, then follow the UPRR alignment across 1-25 to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF right-of-way would not include a maintenance road. Passing track is proposed for four segments along the commuter rail alignment. Passing track would include a new track that would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing or proposed track at the following four locations: • Passing track would be located at the following four locations: ► Beginning at 6th Street in Loveland, continuing north to 0.04 mile south of West 57th Street in Loveland. (Length = 3.7 miles) ► Beginning 0.3 mile south of East CR 6c in Berthoud, continuing north to 0.4 mile north of WCR 14. (Length = 4.5 miles) ► Beginning in Longmont 0.05 mile west of Martin Street, continuing north along existing BNSF corridor to 19th Avenue. (Length = 2.3 miles) ► Beginning 0.6 mile west of 1-25, continuing north along existing UPRR to 0.3 mile south of CR 20. (Length = 5.2 miles) Population and Housing. To capture the population that would benefit from the commuter rail component, population statistics were calculated for the US 287 corridor from Fort Collins to Boulder. The population within 0.5 mile of the US 287 corridor is expected to increase by 24 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 82,763 in 2005 to 102,934 in 2035). Commuter rail would facilitate infill and re-development in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont, accommodating population growth within the center of these communities, which is consistent with local planning efforts. The intensity and size of Longmont would likely increase due to its central location and direct connection to the FasTracks system. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins could attract a larger portion of growth than communities located mid alignment. An increase in population around commuter rail stations would be expected, especially in communities with plans for transit-oriented development. These changes would not represent additional population growth, but rather a shift in its distribution. • In these locations the demand for new or expanded public services and facilities would increase. Social Conditions 3.2.21 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 31 residences and 9 businesses. More than half of the residential displacements would occur in Longmont where there would be 17 full residential displacements. All of these residences are located immediately adjacent to the BNSF corridor. Given the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. Impacts to transportation-disadvantaged populations and community facilities and services are the same as those discussed for Package A Components A-T1 and A-T2. Neighborhoods. The BNSF rail line currently acts as a physical and perceived barrier between development on each side of the railway in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. This "barrier effect" could be somewhat exacerbated with the addition of maintenance roads, passing track, fences or retaining walls. However, because there would not be additional track and, unlike Package A, on-street parking on Atwood Street would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative, this effect is less than that likely to occur with Package A. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, existing access to neighborhoods along the rail alignment would not change. However, the widened right-of- way, operational impacts, and the acquisition of 31 residences along the rail corridor could affect community cohesion. In a city like Longmont, where residents frequently experience delays when traveling across town because of the existing BNSF rail line, delays would become more frequent, although the duration of each delay would be much less than currently experienced because trains would • be much shorter. Currently, four to six freight trains travel along the BNSF rail on a typical weekday, with slightly fewer on the weekends. With the proposed commuter rail, there would be 46 trains per day (except between South Fort Collins and downtown Fort Collins, where there would be 34 trains per day). This is the same as a train every 30 minutes, in each direction, during the peak hours. In the off-peak period, there would be a train once an hour in each direction (however between South Fort Collins and downtown Fort Collins, there would be a train once an hour, in each direction, during peak and off-peak hours). As a result, through traffic could increase in neighborhoods adjacent to stations. In general, transit stations are located within urban areas and are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. When located within walking distance, neighborhood integrity and community cohesion are strengthened by the provision of transit. For example, a station at the Sugar Mill location would support the Casa Vista neighborhood (between SH 119 and County Line Road on Quicksilver) by connecting it to the greater Longmont community. The value of residential and commercial properties near a station generally increases following the implementation of a transit system. The increase is highest for those properties located within 0.25 mile to 1 mile from a station. For residential properties between stations, there is the potential for a decrease in property valuation as a result of noise, vibration, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel (Transportation Research Board, 2004). The requirement of passenger trains to blow their horns at at-grade crossings would increase noise in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified a total of 2,192 residential noise impacts along the commuter rail corridor. Of these impacts 1,495 would be moderate impacts and 697 would be severe impacts. Approximately • half of the impacts would be in Longmont. However, it is estimated that with the implementation of Quiet Zones (and noise walls located outside of Longmont), potential Social Conditions 3.2-22 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. impacts to all residences along the commuter rail corridor would be eliminated (see Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration). The vibration analysis identified impacts at a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track. Of these residences, 26 are in Longmont and 14 are in Loveland. To mitigate for vibration impacts, special trackwork at certain locations and the installation of Tire Derived Aggregate (shredded tires) beneath the tracks would eliminate all potential vibration impacts. Overall, neighborhoods in downtown Berthoud would benefit from the new commuter rail and feeder bus connections. However, the proposed maintenance facility at CR 46 and US 287 would result in an increase in activity and visual impacts to the single-family residential subdivision adjacent to the BNSF rail line in the northernmost portion of Berthoud. The maintenance facility would magnify the presence of the rail and introduce an industrial component to the neighborhood. US 85 Commuter Bus The Preferred Alternative includes commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. In general, the proposed bus routes would run along existing roadways and thus would not result in direct or indirect impacts on existing communities. Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the US 85 corridor is expected to increase by 51 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 40,687 in 2005 to 61,517 in 2035). This growth is expected to occur with or without commuter bus service. Population and housing may increase around commuter bus stations; however, bus stations are less likely to attract • significant transit-oriented development and growth than commuter rail stations. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities have been identified in census tracts adjacent to US 85 in Greeley, Fort Lupton, and Brighton. Commuter bus would improve mobility for these populations. Transit would give non-drivers access to communities along US 85. Mobility and accessibility benefits would be greatest for transportation-disadvantaged populations living within 0.25 mile of station sites or bus stops. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired for the commuter bus stations, maintenance facilities, queue jumps, or parking lots. Community facilities would benefit from new access to transit. Eighteen community facilities are located within 0.25 mile of the feeder bus line and three are within 0.25 mile of commuter bus stations. Twelve of these are schools; therefore, transit improvements would expand transportation options for school-aged children. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities (for employment, school, or services) on a regular basis. Interviews with Weld County emergency service providers indicate that transit would benefit emergency response by potentially easing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Aside from these benefits, emergency service providers in Broomfield, Boulder, and Denver counties would not be affected by commuter bus service. Emergency service providers in Adams and Weld Counties would experience some temporary out-of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction at queue jump locations. • Neighborhoods. The majority of US 85 between Greeley and Denver is undeveloped, with a few scattered rural subdivisions, isolated single-family residences, and mobile home parks. Social Conditions 3.2-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. Impacts to neighborhoods would primarily result from the increased transportation activity at bus stations. Residents adjacent to bus stations would experience noise, air, and visual impacts. According to the noise analysis conducted for this project, noise associated with commuter bus elements would not reach impact levels. The commuter bus station at 42nd Street and US 85 is adjacent to a small single-family residential neighborhood in Evans. The bus station is consistent with the character of the land that surrounds this neighborhood (agriculture, industry, and rail). An increase in bus traffic, noise associated with buses, and change in the visual environment would impact residents adjacent to 42nd Street. As a result, the value of properties adjacent to 42nd Street could decrease. Residents adjacent to the maintenance facility proposed at 31st Street west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would experience an increase in bus traffic, noise, air, and visual impacts. Noise associated with these stations would not reach impact levels. Summary of Key Impacts for the Preferred Alternative Adverse impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Relocation of 51 residences ► Increased noise and vibration, out-of-direction travel, and travel time delays associated • with commuter rail ► Air emissions and visual impacts to residents near highway widening, carpool lots, commuter rail, transit stations, bus stations, and maintenance facilities ► Minor exacerbated "barrier effect" in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont due to maintenance roads, passing track, and fences ► Temporary construction-related impacts such as, noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, and travel time delays ► Potential re-distribution of population in response to highway capacity or transit improvements Beneficial impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Enhanced regional connections between communities ► Improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response ► Improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations • Social Conditions 3.2-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 US • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation for impacts associated with residential and public property acquisitions are addressed in Section 3.4 Right-of-Way. Where feasible, retaining walls would be constructed along 1-25 and the BNSF to minimize impacts to residential development. If toll lanes are constructed, ways to make tolling more equitable would be sought. For example, payment options would be considered to enable the broadest opportunity for all economic groups to use toll facilities. This might entail providing alternative payment options for transponder purchases (for persons who don't own credit cards) and toll replenishment using cash or employer-based payroll deductions. Toll booths would not be installed so additional impacts related to idling vehicles (e.g., noise, air quality) would not occur. Mitigation for impacts associated with noise and vibration are addressed in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. In spite of these efforts, some community and neighborhood impacts would still occur and would not be able to be mitigated. These include operational impacts associated with the implementation of proposed improvements such as commuter rail or BRT (noise, vibration, and traffic delays) as well as increased transportation activity for residences adjacent to commuter rail, bus stations, and maintenance facilities. It is important to consider that these • impacts would be highly localized. Benefits associated with access to transit, regional mobility and connectivity, as well as improvements in safety and emergency response would outweigh these impacts. 3.2.4 Environmental Justice Environmental justice is a public policy goal of promoting the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the transportation planning and decision-making process. Satisfying this goal means ensuring that minority and low-income communities receive an equitable distribution of the benefits of transportation activities without suffering disproportionately high and adverse effects. This section documents the presence of minority and low-income populations and minority- owned businesses in the regional study area, identifies important community resources and connections that serve these populations, and evaluates the potential for impacts to these populations and resources. Special efforts made to involve minority and low-income populations in the decision making process are also described. This analysis has been prepared in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance for addressing environmental justice, including: ► Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Federal Register, February 11, 1994). ► DOT Order 5610.2, Order To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and • Low-Income Populations (Federal Register, April 15, 1997). ► FHWA Order 6640.23, Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (December 2, 1998). Social Conditions 3.2.25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► FTA Circular (FTA C 4702.1A), Title VI Guidelines for FTA Administration Recipients (May 13, 2007). ► DOT 70 FR 74087, Policy Guidance Concerning Recipient's Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons (December 14, 2005). ► EPA's Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (April 1998). ► CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects — Rev.3 (May 27, 2005). Due to the size and complexity of the environmental justice analysis, an Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2011b) has been prepared for this study. The technical memorandum includes a thorough summary of the regulatory background for environmental justice, detailed census data analysis, and the dates and locations of specialized outreach activities. Appendices to the technical memorandum include minutes from small group meetings, completed business surveys, and correspondence with local planning agencies. 3.2.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Minority Populations Minority populations are comprised of ethnic and/or racial minorities. As defined in FHWA Order 6640.23, a minority is a person who is Black, Hispanic, Asian American, or an American Indian or Alaskan Native. Year 2000 census data at the block level were used to identify • minority populations. The percentage of minorities in each census block was compared to county averages. Any blocks with a higher percentage of minorities than the respective county are evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and are selected for outreach. These blocks are shown in Figure 3.2-3. As shown in Figure 3.2-3, minority populations are primarily located in and around urban areas in the regional study area, although some are scattered throughout the regional study area. Census blocks that do not contain minority populations were excluded from the analysis. This includes blocks in which a small population has the effect of exaggerating the percentage of minorities in that block. For example, there are 60 blocks with two people, one of which is a minority. In these blocks, 50 percent of the population is minority. While 50 percent appears high, one minority person out of a total population of two persons does not indicate a minority population. Low-Income Populations FHWA Order 6640.23 defines low-income as "...a household income at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines." A different threshold (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau poverty threshold or HUD Community Development Block Grant income thresholds) may be used as long as it is not selectively implemented and is inclusive of all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines. CDOT's recommended approach in determining low-income populations is to derive the low-income threshold from a combination of census average household size data at the block group level and low-income thresholds set annually by HUD for the distribution and allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds. • Social Conditions 3.2-26 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The percentage of low-income households in each block group was compared to county averages. Any block group in the regional study area with a higher percentage of low-income households than that of its respective county was evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and targeted for outreach. These block groups are shown in Figure 3.2-3. As shown in Figure 3.2-3, low-income households are concentrated around US 287 and the BNSF rail line in Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins; US 85 in Greeley, Gilcrest, and Brighton; SH 119 in Boulder; and 1-25 in the Fort Collins and Denver County portions of the regional study area. Additional Data Sources Census data alone are too broad to accurately represent the social and economic make-up of the households in the regional study area. For this reason, additional efforts were made to identify minority and low-income populations and services in the regional study area. These efforts included contacting local planners, non-profit organizations, health and human services, chambers of commerce, and housing authorities. Locations of minority and low-income populations and services identified by these contacts are shown in Figure 3.2-4. Minority-Owned Businesses Minority-owned businesses were initially identified through the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office. In all, 56 minority businesses were identified through this resource. To ensure adequate identification of minority-owned • businesses and gather more specific employment information, a business survey was also prepared and distributed in December 2006 to 1,297 businesses throughout the regional study area. Of these, 175 (14 percent) were returned. Surveys were distributed in both English and Spanish and were hand-delivered to large employers and targeted locations along SH 85. Results of the survey are summarized below. The complete survey is contained in the Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2011b) in Appendix C. The analysis that can be derived from a survey is only as good as the response. Some responses were incomplete or left unanswered. This analysis uses only those responses that were answered completely. Of the businesses surveyed, 17 percent are minority-owned. Approximately 113 businesses reported having full-time minority employees. For 35 of these businesses, more than 50 percent of their full-time staff was comprised of minorities. Approximately 87 businesses reported having part-time minority employees. For 68 of these businesses, more than 50 percent of their part-time staff is comprised of minorities. • Social Conditions 3.2-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.2-3 Minority and Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Data LEGEND /V Study Corridors / Highways --"/ •... /\/ Arterial Roads /' 1 ,..,-� 851 L- Regional Study Area 14 /• _ %' , 711 City Boundaries ,. ., o Cities & Towns t ,_fort Collins. Census Identified Minority Populations j4 -' - 1 Akio I Minority and Low-Income Populations • I 257 • ' 1 di Low-Income Populations Identified Using ' • .11-1 'L_ qty I ' r limnath Q Sevekanre "F at 1 Census and HUD Data 1 Sources U S Census Bureau, 2000; HUD 2006 I ' • ____.- yWnxlsa i Lucernee JJG 1 f i ---T 1 Greeley~ 1 I l uvcland Garden c , i j 34 'Ivan:. • i / plot Johnstown j 60 i% 85 L3 SWIP % ' or Mdhken Li.--•eH•, i jIII Colo r;: I I i /. Platbrmie . I Longmont I . —1 lone 7, , Vollmer'0 l/. 0 Fur st«rl • o Ahwot (11��7 - O'Ftetlenckl I 4 f)acono Fat Lupton ui ; (,unbanel I O Eric Velmam 1 / 1 _ 0 I Warier*, : , Boulder `_ t •— "`'� • - 14.. .,�fl:i r • Brighton SupenaIII / a / ..--•; L. ' Ft • •�• • Broofrdiald .. p ,;Hake lien !.,,!.on o, a ..� ,lliko Sa : 72 • \\ ' , - / 91ri 4°R J' 70 ". 0 2 4 6 8 10 i\ - ' ii , 4 • t ter ` Miles North •--- / Social Conditions 3.2-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.2-4 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources LEGENDII Av Study Corridors "/ Highways "/ Arterial Roads '\�' L' si_j Regional Study Area ' \, City Boundaries i\ Pierce . * Community Facilities Serving Low-Income f -i - I Fort Collins. - `� 0 Cities & Towns 14 • Ault Planner Identified Low-Income Populations F4I k I 4p Planner Identified Minority Populations I I t TimnaM v Severance Eaton •1 Source Communications with Local Planners/Agencies. 2006. I i c 7insor l. — lucerne ` 392 i Greeley �' 263 1331—N,! 1.--- ' 1 Loveland ` Ga-clen City I , r N Dons • I I / La Salle " • I I Campion Johnstown Berthoud 0 Millik}n 85 / I / i ilclesi I I I Mead // I 66 i Platteville t I Longmont r -% lone • I Vellma: 0 ; firestone I RiNi.vot Qsfrederick I p 1 f 0 - Fat Lupton ' I 52 Gunbanel 1 / I Erie i / 0 Valmont I 0 el Wattenberg 1 i Boulder . 1 . Lafayette �" / Loulsvlrle &ighlOn ! , \ `� Arperi� E f � / `'\ 0 Eastlake Henderson / •`'• Broomfield N'-N.. j �� / 93 •'�\ 361 Nmtliglem `� 1 , ' 0 Thornton II., SiVll / 72i a r / ,• � a�' : At ; / it. " DMS enver/ 70 Iata �. FNSo 2 4 6 8 10 �\ is / i...• -it�rrrttttti ->_ Miles North IN. /f -.-1.‘%\. \V/ )\,.Social Conditions 3.2-29 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transpoetation. • Minority-owned businesses in the regional study area provide a variety of services that range from food and clothing to automotive and insurance services. Seventeen percent of the minority-owned businesses surveyed have been in their current location for 15 years or more. Approximately 25 percent of businesses surveyed (minority- and non-minority-owned) reported transportation concerns. Many cited long commutes and heavy congestion along 1-25 and other roadways; others indicated a need for transit along roadways. Of minority-owned businesses, seventeen percent reported transportation concerns, including long commutes, high fuel prices, and the need for public transportation. When asked what mode of transportation most employees use to get to and from work, 74 percent of businesses surveyed reported that all of their employees use a vehicle. Only six businesses surveyed reported less than 50 percent of employees using a vehicle to travel to work. None of these businesses were minority-owned. 3.2.4.2 SPECIALIZED OUTREACH TO MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS Political Context of Specialized Outreach Efforts Some of the public involvement and specialized outreach activities associated with the North 1-25 project occurred during a local and national immigration debate as well as during an electoral campaign where immigration was one of the key issues. Many members of the Hispanic/Latino community may have considered public meetings as a low-priority event or may have been hesitant to attend public meetings for fear of persecution. Declining • participation in planning processes already has been noticed in Colorado. At recent planning meetings and public events for unrelated projects in Silverthorne and in Aspen, for example, there was no Hispanic/Latino participation, even though there are known Hispanic/Latino populations in these towns. Every effort was made to inform and involve the Hispanic/Latino community throughout the project: community leaders were identified to build trust and guide public involvement efforts, small group meetings were held in local communities after regularly scheduled events, informational booths were set up during cultural events and activities, local print and electronic media were used to announce meetings and provide information about the project, flyers were posted in key community locations, and project information was hand delivered to major businesses. In spite of these efforts, participation by the Hispanic/Latino community may have been hindered by the political climate. In general, participation in small group meetings was low (several meetings had less than 10 attendees). In addition, multiple attempts made to distribute information and organize small group meetings in Greeley were met with resistance by the local community. Because of this, fewer small group meetings were held in minority communities than had originally been anticipated. Specialized Outreach Activities While it was expected that minority and low-income populations would receive project information through the general public outreach discussed in Chapter 9 Public and Agency Involvement, additional efforts were made to ensure an increased level of awareness and participation in the project. These efforts included coordination with community leaders and liaisons, targeted distribution of project information, translation of materials into Spanish, the • use of Spanish language media, attendance at cultural and community events, and use of small group meetings. Social Conditions 3.2.30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The project team contacted approximately 42 Hispanic/Latino community and church leaders. Hispanic/Latino community leaders were offered information about the project and the opportunity for small group meetings. Eleven small group meetings were held in minority and low-income neighborhoods at various times throughout the process. Specialized outreach efforts also identified the potential for a Hmong population, an Asian ethnic group from southern China and southeast Asia, in the northern communities of the regional study area. Consultation with community leaders in the North Front Range revealed that the Hmong population consists of five clans with patriarchs. To more specifically focus on impacts to low-income and minority populations, a public meeting was held in Longmont in October 2010 to discuss Preferred Alternative impacts specific to Longmont. Specialized outreach was used to encourage attendance of these populations at the meetings. This outreach included providing project and contact information in Spanish, personally visiting and delivering meeting notices to locations targeting these populations, and providing a translator at the meeting. Hmong community leaders indicated that they would be more responsive to project fact sheets and surveys than community or small group meetings. Based on this information, the project fact sheet, business survey, and travel survey were translated into Hmong and given to community leaders for distribution to the Hmong population. Input Received through Specialized Outreach Input received through specialized outreach centered on community needs and concerns • regarding the proposed improvements. Participants indicated repeatedly that transit service between Longmont, Loveland, Denver, Boulder, and southwest Weld County was needed. Congestion on 1-25 limits access to businesses and participation in cultural events in Metro Denver. Most residents from Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and Longmont would be willing to drive to access transit service to Denver. Participants expressed general concern about the cost of the build packages and how they would be funded. Participants disagreed about the impacts of tolling. Some felt that public transportation should be open to all and that tolling would exclude citizens. Others preferred tolling because it provided revenue for construction and would ease congestion. Participants indicated a need for transit options to reach important community facilities (local schools and churches), regional employment centers (DIA and the Denver Technical Center), and commuter cities (Cheyenne, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, and Denver). It was also pointed out that much of the minority community does not work typical business hours and may hold multiple jobs. For transit to be effective, it would need to be flexible, affordable, accommodate persons with disabilities and bicycles, and operate on weekends and evenings. In a meeting held in Brighton, attendees indicated that there were negative feelings toward transit because it is unreliable, provides limited service, and requires lengthy wait times. In addition, transit was not deemed feasible for those with construction jobs who are required to be in several locations throughout the day. While some suggested that bus service should be provided along US 85, most felt that more lanes are needed on US 85, SH 7, and I-25. Other • than Brighton, participants generally felt that transit would enhance employment opportunities Social Conditions 3.231 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • and increase access to shopping, cultural events, and services for minority and low-income populations throughout the Front Range. Many participants also preferred transit to highway widening because they considered it a cheaper, safer, and a less stressful option. Most participants said that existing transit does not adequately serve minority and low-income communities. Some underserved locations identified by meeting participants include the Outreach United Resource (OUR) Center in Longmont, new development east of SH 119 in Longmont, Casa Vista residential subdivision (Longmont), St. John's Church (Longmont), Casa Esperanza (Longmont), Bill Reed middle school (Loveland), Centerra (Loveland), and the Holy Catholic Church (Fort Collins). Participants preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants also identified key community facilities, minority and low-income neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses throughout the regional study area. These include the Pullman Center (12th and Garfield in Loveland); Wal-Mart (Loveland); Loveland Lake Park; Wynona Elementary School (Loveland); the Hispanic neighborhoods of Cherry Street, Buckingham, La Colonia, Andersonville, Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park, and Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park (Fort Collins); Hispanic businesses along US 287 north of Cherry Street in Fort Collins; and Hispanic businesses along US 34 east of US 287 in Longmont. Participants also preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants indicated that immigration policy is a concern for Hispanic/Latino populations throughout the regional study area. Hispanic or Latino populations may not use public transit if they have to show identification or are distrustful of authority. In terms of the highway options, • some indicated that they avoid using 1-25 because they feel that Hispanic/Latino drivers are pulled over more frequently by the State Highway Patrol. 3.2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental justice analysis evaluated each alternative to determine whether there is a potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income populations when compared to populations that are not minority or not low-income in the regional study area. According to CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects, Rev. 3, a (CDOT, 2005b) a disproportionately high and adverse effect is defined by FHWA as one that is: (1) Predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income population, or (2) Suffered by the minority and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that would be suffered by the non-minority/non- low-income population. A disproportionately high and adverse effect may include, but is not limited to: ► Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death ► Air, noise, water pollution, or soil contamination ► Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources ► Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values • ► Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality Social Conditions 3.2-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services ► Vibration ► Adverse employment effects ► Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations ► Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community ► The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities Supporting technical documentation and other analyses prepared in conjunction with the Final EIS were reviewed to determine whether the build packages overall, as well as individual modal components, would have adverse impacts on the overall population, as well as minority and low-income population groups. If no adverse impacts were expected for a resource, then no further environmental justice analysis was undertaken with regard to that particular resource. If, however, adverse effects were identified for a resource, additional environmental justice analysis was performed and is described below. Note that impacts to natural resources (i.e., flora and fauna, geology and soils, wetlands) were assumed not to have any direct impacts or indirect effects on human populations. No-Action Alternative • Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for any of the build packages. However, certain adverse effects on minority and low-income residents in the regional study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the direct and indirect effects on communities from traffic congestion and impaired mobility. These effects would include an increase in air emissions and noise, longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. These impacts would be experienced by all segments of the population. Safety improvements at SH 1 and SH 392 would benefit the minority and low-income populations in these areas. While these improvements would provide some relief, traffic congestion would continue to result in traffic queues and delays for travelers. The No-Action Alternative would not provide local communities with the accessibility benefits associated with transit services, as would Package A, the Preferred Alternative, and to some extent Package B. Low-income populations are often dependent on transit service and would particularly benefit from the provision of new transit services along US 287 and US 85. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 101 residential receivers between SH 14 and SH 60. Sixty-nine of these are residences concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, a community with minority populations in the southwest quadrant of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. Noise impacts would occur at all 69 residences and would range in intensity from 66.0 dBA to 77.5 dBA; however no residence would experience an increase of • more than 3.3 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. These receivers also would be impacted under all build packages. The 32 impacted residences not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision Social Conditions 3.2.33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • represent a combination of minority and non-minority residences. Many of these are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. Because of the noise impacts to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, there are more low-income and minority communities that would be impacted by noise than non minority and low-income. However, the increase in noise level is very small and would not be noticeable to most people. There are no plans in the No-Action Alternative to do any noise mitigation for these impacts. Package A Component A-H1: Safety Improvements. For this component, safety improvements have the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations at two locations: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. There are minority and non-minority populations west of the SH 1/1-25 interchange, low- income east of 1-25 (from County Road 56 south to SH 14), and low-income and minority populations north of SH 14 on both sides of 1-25. Minority populations would benefit from interchange improvements and signalization at SH 1. The carpool lot in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange would be located across 6th Street from a single-family neighborhood of approximately 39 homes, which is approximately 37 percent minority. This location would be a benefit to these homes. Although conveniently located, there would be some traffic, noise, and activity associated with the lot that could disturb adjacent residents. The four residential displacements associated with this component are located between SH 1 and SH 14, along the east side of 1-25. They are widely distributed on rural parcels that are not • part of an established neighborhood. Three of the homes are located in low-income areas. Table 3.2-3 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements. Table 3.2-3 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-Hl: Safety Improvements Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; minimal One residential property displacement; minimal traffic impacts from carpool lot. traffic impacts from carpool lot. 12 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of 49 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 6 after recommended noise impacts reduced to 35 after recommended noise abatement. abatement. Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. These components have the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations in four locations: ► SH 14/1-25 Interchange. In the northeast quadrant of the interchange, the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park and adjacent single-family neighborhood are identified as having a concentration of minorities and low-income households. A small single-family neighborhood that does not contain minority or low-income populations is located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. • Social Conditions 3.2-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ► SH 392/1-25 Interchange. In the southwest quadrant of the interchange, the Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision is identified as having a concentration of minorities. A newer single-family residential subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant and does not contain a concentration of minorities. ► LCR 16/1-25 Interchange. The Johnson's Corner RV Park and a few single-family residences are identified as having a concentration of minorities. The Johnson's Corner RV Park allows short and long-term stays. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. ► SH 119/1-25 Interchange. The River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and a small single- family residential neighborhood abut a strip of commercial properties in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. These residences are located in a census block with a concentration of minorities. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. These four locations are the only areas with concentrated populations. Between these locations, scattered residences are contained within large rural census blocks that extend outward from 1-25 (up to a mile). Nineteen residential displacements would occur between SH 14 and E-470 (14 between SH 14 and SH 60 [A-H2], and five between SH 60 and E-470 [A-H3]). Of these, three are located in census blocks with minority populations and 16 are located in census blocks and block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced • properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. The social analysis identifies the potential for impacts to residents within the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park in the northeast quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange. Census data indicate that this community contains minority and low-income populations. Impacts would include a new access configuration for residents of the Cloverleaf Community. Existing access is provided from an unsignalized intersection along SH 14. New access would be from a re-aligned frontage road that would be signalized to provide safer and more direct access for the Cloverleaf Community. A carpool lot with 150 spaces would also be constructed across the street from the community. Some residents may consider the proximity of this lot a convenience. Others might find the added pavement and increase in local traffic and activity disruptive. However, the area surrounding the interchange is highly urbanized and dominated by transportation facilities. The carpool lot would not considerably alter this setting. The Mountain Range Shadows subdivision in the southwest quadrant of the SH 392/1-25 interchange consists of three census blocks that contain minority populations. To accommodate highway improvements, the frontage road would shift approximately 15 feet closer to the community and 1-25 would be relocated approximately 30 feet farther from the community. For all alternatives, noise impacts would occur at 69 residences within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision; however, no residence would experience an increase of more than 3.3 dBA over existing conditions. In March 2006, the project team met with residents of the Mountain Range Shadows community to gather input on the SH 392 interchange design and frontage road configuration. To minimize impacts to the community, • the project team suggested relocating the frontage road behind the community. Residents were concerned with this approach and indicated a strong preference for the proposed Social Conditions 3.2-35 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • configuration. As a result, the highway would be moved approximately 30 feet east of the interstate, resulting in two property displacements from a neighborhood that does not contain minority populations. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and café, existing access would be replaced so that customers would have to travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. A consequence of this configuration would be the displacement of a single minority residence that would otherwise be isolated by the new access road. Near the Johnson's Corner RV Park, 1-25 would be widened to the east. As a result, access to the park would not change and no displacements would occur. Improvements near the SH 119/1-25 interchange would include a realignment of the northbound off-ramp. Residents of the River Valley Village Mobile Home RV Park would experience short-term, construction-related impacts including, noise, dust, detours, and traffic delays. No long-term impacts would occur. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of twelve businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (eleven between SH 14 and SH 60 [A-H2] and one between SH 60 and E-470 [A-H3]). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a • minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 757 receivers between SH 14 and US 36 (A-H2 and A-H3). Sixty-nine of these receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, as discussed previously. Proposed mitigation would reduce the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 39, an improvement over the No-Action condition. The remaining impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, are located in both minority or low-income populations as well as non-minority and non-low-income populations. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The visual analysis (Section 3.14 Visual Quality) determined that new retaining walls 15 feet and greater in height and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. A total of 31 retaining walls (18 for Component A-H2 and 13 for Component A-H3) would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non- minority/non-low-income populations. New bridges proposed at US 34 would impact visual conditions for all segments of the population. Noise barriers constructed to mitigate noise impacts at Mountain Range Shadows would also change the visual environment for homes adjacent to the highway, affecting views to the east. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9 Construction Impacts), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated • in areas with minority or low-income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. Table 3.2-4 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. Social Conditions 3.2-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-4 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; access 16 residential property displacements. revision. No known displacement of businesses owned by 12 business displacements. minorities or of special importance to minority populations. 82 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of 52 residences impacted by traffic noise. No noise impacts reduced to 52 after recommended noise abatement recommended for these impacts. abatement. Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. in a high effect on visual conditions. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades. Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to minority and low-income populations south of E-470 would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.2.2.1. Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Minority and low-income populations are • distributed along the BNSF alignment with concentrations in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. One hundred and sixty populated census blocks and 50 block groups are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. Of these, 50 census blocks have higher than average populations of minorities and 21 census block groups have higher than average numbers of low-income households. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 35 residences (18 for Component A-T1 and 17 for Component A-T2). For Component A-T1, 16 of the 18 residential displacements (88 percent) would occur in census blocks or block groups containing minority or low-income populations. All of these would occur in Longmont, in minority and low-income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. The additional commuter rail tracks plus the displacements would exacerbate the existing barrier effect of the existing BNSF corridor, so would not result in a new impact to an established community. No residential displacements associated with Component A-T2 are located in a census block or block group with minority or low-income populations. Commuter rail would improve access to the following community facilities that were identified through specialized outreach efforts as being important to minority and low-income populations: ► Bill Reed Middle School. This school has a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino students. Existing transit to the school is limited. The school is within 0.25 mile of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail would benefit school-aged children. Although the school is currently located in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. The commuter rail option would benefit these students by • providing service to the school and alleviating a long bus ride for many students. Social Conditions 3.2-37 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Impacto De Fe. This largely Hispanic church in Loveland, with a historic presence, is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► Salud Family Health Center. This health center is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit persons along the Front Range who are uninsured or underinsured and in need of medical care. ► St. John's Church. This church is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► OUR (Outreach United Resource) Center. This medical center is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit families in need of medical care. ► St. Joseph's Church. This church is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► The Pullman Center. This community center is located less than one mile from the Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community events and activities. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, minority and low-income • neighborhoods in Berthoud, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland would not be newly divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. Local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across the BNSF rail line. These delays would become more frequent and would be experienced by all segments of the population. Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include Martinez Park (minority and low-income), Historic Fort Collins High School (minority), and Troutman Park (minority). Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for minority and low-income neighborhoods, connecting residents to cultural events and employment in Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, and Denver. Property values would likely increase near station sites. Over time, this could make housing less affordable for existing residents. Minority and low-income residents on Atwood Street would lose street parking between 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue. Although some access revisions would occur as a result, all homes would retain access to their properties from their driveways and/or alleys. For example, some residents in this area appear to use street parking instead of the alley (i.e., alley is fenced off) or driveway (i.e., driveway is used for storage). These residents would have to begin using their driveway or access their property from the alley when street parking is no longer available. Loss of street parking in this area would not affect OUR Center because this facility currently has alley access and on-site parking. The proposed maintenance facility at East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road would be adjacent to the northern portion of the Collins Aire Park (a mobile home park that is both minority and low-income). This community would likely experience an increase in activity and visual impacts as a result of the new facility. However, such land uses are consistent with the • area, as industrial, rail, and airport uses are in close proximity Social Conditions 3.2-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, and Milliken. Feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 16 businesses for right-of-way acquisition. Fifteen of these would occur between Fort Collins and Longmont (Component A-T1). The remaining relocation would occur between Longmont and FasTracks North Metro (Component A-T2). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include food sales, rail related, lumber, investment services, automotive, warehouse/storage, equipment/machinery, and manufacturing. None of these businesses were identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. However, due to their proximity to minority populations along the BNSF rail line, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. The requirement of passenger trains to blow their horns at at-grade crossings would increase noise in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified a total of 2,192 residential noise impacts along the commuter rail corridor. Of these • impacts 1,495 would be moderate impacts and 697 would be severe impacts. Approximately half of the impacts would be in Longmont. Most of the noise impacts would occur in census- identified minority or low-income areas. However, it is estimated that with the implementation of Quiet Zones (and noise walls located outside of Longmont), potential impacts to all residences along the BNSF corridor would be eliminated. CDOT and FHWA will work with local agencies (who must submit quiet zone applications to the PUC) to implement quiet zones, where feasible and reasonable. If quiet zones cannot be implemented, other mitigation measures (such as noise barriers) have been identified as described below and in Section 3.6. Noise and Vibration. The vibration analysis identified impacts at a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track. Of these residences, 26 are in Longmont and 14 are in Loveland. To mitigate for vibration impacts, special trackwork at certain locations and the installation of Tire Derived Aggregate (shredded tires) beneath the tracks would eliminate all potential vibration impacts. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Minority and/or low-income populations at five of the nine proposed station sites (Downtown Fort Collins Transit Center, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, North Longmont, and Sugar Mill)would be affected. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project (Section 3.5 Air Quality), emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proximity of the station sites would be beneficial for the nearby populations, especially those within walking distance. The visual analysis (Section 3.14 Visual Quality) concluded that the introduction of retaining walls, noise barriers, and new bridges would have a high visual effect to residents adjacent to • the rail corridor. Overall, retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas with concentrations of minority or low-income populations and 7 residential areas with non-minority/non-low- income populations. Retaining walls would be constructed on the east side of the rail (where new track would be laid) between Mountain View Avenue and 21st Street in minority and low- Social Conditions 3.2-39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • income portions of the Clark Centennial and Lanyon neighborhoods. Twelve residences immediately adjacent to the proposed track also would be displaced from these neighborhoods. Retaining walls and noise barriers would shield residences from the existing rail line, lessening the visual impacts of the railroad. As described in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation, noise barriers will be considered if quiet zones and/or wayside horns are not feasible and reasonable. Fourteen of the 16 potential locations for noise barriers are adjacent to minority and/or low- income populations. While these would reduce noise levels for the surrounding communities, they would alter the visual landscape primarily affecting minority and low-income residences adjacent to the BNSF rail line in Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. However, these same residences would benefit the most from the noise barriers. The North Loveland, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont stations would have a high visual effect on the surrounding community because they would require relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views from the east to the mountains. Minority and/or low-income populations would be affected by three of these stations - Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont. Adverse effects would occur to two historic properties between Longmont and FasTracks North Metro (A-T2). Both of these properties would be acquired for right-of-way purposes. Adversely affected properties include the Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) and Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244). Both of these buildings are in Longmont adjacent to the BNSF rail line within areas identified as having minority and/or low-income populations. The • Old City Electric Building is designated by the City of Longmont as a local landmark. Loss of these buildings could negatively affect community character and cohesion for both low-income and minority populations as well as non-low-income and non-minority populations. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9 Floodplains), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low-income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. The additional commuter rail track, operational traffic impacts, right-of-way fencing, noise, vibration, and visual impacts would negatively affect minority and low-income neighborhoods and community cohesion in Longmont. These impacts could reduce property values in minority and low-income areas, except for the areas within walking distance of the two stations, where property values would likely be increased. In addition, two stations would serve the community of Longmont: SH 66 in the north and SH 119 in the south. Residents along the commuter rail alignment in Longmont would have to drive or take a local bus north or south to access the rail and would be unable to stop to access services between SH 66 and SH 119. Comments received at a meeting with El Comite de Longmont (a Latino community organization in Longmont) in September 2006 indicated that these residents feel that there would be no additional community division resulting from the commuter rail. According to El Comite, minority and low-income communities in Longmont rely heavily on local bus service. Underserved areas that are important to the minority community include the OUR Center (medical clinic) and Casa Vista (a minority neighborhood between SH 119 and County Line Road on Quicksilver). A station at the Sugar Mill location would support these areas and • Social Conditions 3.2-40 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. connect the Casa Vista neighborhood to the northern part of Longmont as well as Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder and Denver. Table 3.2-5 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-T1 and A-T2: commuter rail. Table 3.2-5 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations 16 residential property displacements(all in 19 residential property displacements (none in Longmont); improved access to Front Range Longmont); improved access to Front Range communities, community facilities, and services; communities, community facilities, and services; potential degradation of community cohesion in travel time delays and out-of-direction travel at at- Longmont; travel time delays at at-grade crossings. grade crossings. No known displacement of businesses owned by 16 business displacements. minorities; displaced businesses most likely provide services and employment for minority persons. Approximately 2024 receivers impacted by rail Approximately 231 receivers impacted by rail noise noise levels. However, with the implementation of levels. With the implementation of mitigation mitigation measures, there would be no noise measures, there would be no noise impacts. impacts. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at five proposed station sites; populations at four proposed station sites; emissions would not exceed NAAQS. emissions would not exceed NAAQS. Retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas; Retaining walls would impact 7 residential areas; • sound walls would result in a high effect on visual sound walls would result in a high effect on visual conditions at 14 locations; commuter rail stations conditions at two locations; commuter rail stations would have a high effect on visual conditions at would have a high effect on visual conditions at one three locations. location. Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. The provision of commuter bus service would benefit minority and low-income communities along US 85. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, and Fort Lupton are all located in minority and/or low-income areas and would expand employment opportunities and services to these populations. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities on a regular basis. Construction of queue jumps, bus stations, and maintenance facilities would require the relocation of five businesses. Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include a convenience store, welding, and professional services. Impacted businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. However, due to their proximity to minority populations along US 85, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. Site visits indicated numerous businesses that appeared to be minority-owned (e.g., company name and signage was in Spanish). None of the businesses identified during site visits would be directly impacted by the commuter bus components. Employees and business owners would benefit from the improved access that would be • provided by commuter bus service. Social Conditions 3.2-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would primarily affect minority and/or low-income populations at four of the five proposed station sites (Greeley, South Greeley, Platteville, and Fort Lupton). According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Table 3.2-6 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-T3 and A-T4: commuter bus. Table 3.2-6 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations One property displacement; improved access to No property displacements; improved access to communities along US 85. communities along US 85. No known displacement of businesses owned by Five business displacements. Displaced minorities; displaced businesses most likely provide businesses provide services and employment for all services and employment for minority persons. populations. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at four proposed station sites; populations at one proposed station site; emissions emissions would not exceed NAAQS. would not exceed NAAQS. Benefits of Package A. Package A would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. Other benefits associated with implementing Package A would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of • the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.2 for more specific information) ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel ► Safety and emergency response times would improve ► Transit components would improve access to community facilities, provide broader opportunities for employment, facilitate participation in regional social and cultural events, promote interaction between communities, and stimulate business activity ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. Package B Component B-H1: Safety Improvements. Safety improvements under this component are similar to those associated with Package A, Component A-H1. The potential for impacts exists in the same two locations as under Component A-H1: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. Impacts would be the same as those identified in Package A for Component A-H1. Table 3.2-7 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements. • Social Conditions 3.242 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements located One residential property displacement located east east of 1-25 on rural parcels between SH 1 and of 1-25 on rural parcels between SH 1 and SH 14; SH 14; minimal traffic impacts from carpool lot. minimal traffic impacts from carpool lot. 12 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of 49 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 6 after recommended noise impacts reduced to 35 after recommended noise abatement. abatement. Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes. Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a similar effect on minority and low-income populations as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the direct and indirect impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion focuses on the differences between them. Twenty residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E-470 (15 between SH 14 and SH 60 [B-H2] and five between SH 60 and E-470 [B-H3]). Four of the 15 displacements between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2 and B-H3) are located in census blocks • with minority populations and eleven are located in census blocks and block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. None of the residential displacements between SH 14 and E-470 are located in census blocks or block groups that contain minority or low- income populations. In general, displaced properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), approximately 10 garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 near 120th Avenue. None of these would be from areas with minority or low-income populations. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). The regional study area is a non-attainment area for ozone. This would affect all segments of the population. Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County would also experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low-income and non-minority/non-low-income populations. Impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the overall neighborhood. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 15 businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (13 between SH 14 and SH 60 [B-H2] and two between SH 60 and E-470 [B-H3]). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. • These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no Social Conditions 3.2-43 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. Financial access to tolling is an issue that often emerges when addressing the impacts of express lanes. To use the new tolled express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel. Limited studies have been conducted regarding the fairness of new toll facilities and their implementation remains controversial. Equity studies conducted on express lane projects implemented in California and Texas reveal that economically disadvantaged drivers use express lanes voluntarily and are not necessarily excluded, although more frequent use is often exhibited by higher-income drivers. The studies revealed that low-income drivers approved of the express toll concepts, similar to opinions of higher-income households. Most users, even those from higher-income households, choose the express lanes judiciously when they need to benefit most from reduced congestion. A general discussion with minority and low-income residents at a town hall meeting at the Northside Atzlan Community Center in Fort Collins (January 2006) indicated mixed feelings toward tolled express lanes. While some supported the tolling concept, others felt that tolling would exclude citizens with lower incomes. Free travel lanes, access points, and frontage roads would be maintained along 1-25. In addition, BRT and vanpools would be available to all 1-25 commuters. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 779 receivers between SH 14 and US 36 (B-H2). Sixty-nine of these impacted receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range • Shadows subdivision. Noise levels would increase at all of the 69 residences; however, no residence would experience an increase of more than 3.3 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. Proposed mitigation would reduce the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 39, an improvement over the No-Action condition. The remaining impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, would impact minority or low-income populations as well as non-minority and non-low-income populations. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The visual analysis (Section 3.14 Visual Quality) determined that structural impacts associated with Components B-H2 and B-H3 would result in a high effect on visual conditions. Structural impacts include new retaining walls 15 feet and greater in height and new bridges. A total of 28 retaining walls (19 for Component B-H2 and 9 for Component B-H3) would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non- minority/non-low-income populations. New bridges proposed at US 34 would impact visual conditions for all segments of the population. Noise barriers constructed to mitigate noise impacts at Mountain Range Shadows would also change the visual environment for homes adjacent to the highway affecting views to the east. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. Noise barriers would also be constructed in several residential areas from E-470 to US 36 (B-H4) along 1-25: Thorncreek Parkway, Community Center Drive, Badding Reservoir, and Brittany Ridge. Residences adjacent to the proposed barrier at Community Center Drive are considered low-income. The visual analysis determined that sound walls would have a • moderate visual effect to the surrounding community and would reduce the visual effect of the highway. Social Conditions 3.2-44 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Four residential property displacements; access 16 residential property displacements; acquisition revision at Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home of 10 garages. Park. No known displacement of businesses owned by 15 business displacements. minorities or of special importance to minority populations. 278 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number 346 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 168 after recommended of impacts reduced to 295 after recommended noise abatement. noise abatement. Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. in a high effect on visual conditions. Components B-Ti and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). No residential displacements would occur under Components B-T1 or B-T2. Feeder bus service would provide benefits similar to those described under Package A for Components A-T1 and A-T2. However, BRT would improve access to some community facilities in Longmont over the No-Action Alternative and Package A, and would improve access along 1-25 similar to the Preferred Alternative. In Longmont, the feeder bus line would run east along SH 119 and north along US 287. Frequent • stops would provide more direct service than commuter rail to Casa Vista, Salud Family Health Center, St. Johns Church, the OUR Center, and Hispanic-owned businesses along US 287. Construction of the BRT station in Firestone would require the relocation of one business. This business provides services that include a home center and RV sales. This business was not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that this business has any particular connection to a minority community or provides employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would primarily affect minority and/or low-income populations at three of the 12 proposed stations sites (Harmony Road and Timberline, Firestone, and Greeley Downtown Transfer Center). There are no residential populations in the immediate vicinity of six of the proposed station sites. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility at 31st Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. BRT stations in Windsor (southwest of the SH 392/1-25 interchange) and Firestone (southwest of Firestone Road) would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. The station • platforms would be 20 feet wide by 300 feet long, with a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, kiss-and-ride, lighting, and landscaping. The station in Firestone would require one business relocation. This relocation would change the visual landscape for travelers, affecting Social Conditions 3.2.45 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. iranspertation. • all population segments including minority residents of River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and adjacent neighborhoods west of the Firestone Road interchange. Table 3.2-9 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit. Table 3.2-9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-Ti and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations No residential property displacements. No residential property displacements. No known displacement of businesses owned by One business displacement. minorities or of special importance to minority populations. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at three proposed station sites; populations at three proposed station site; emissions would not exceed NAAQS. emissions would not exceed NAAQS. Station platforms and overpasses would result in Station platforms and overpasses would result in visual impacts to the surrounding community in two visual impacts to the surrounding community in two locations. locations. Benefits of Package B. Package B would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. Other benefits associated with Package B would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of • the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.3 for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. ► Safety and emergency response times would improve. ► Transit components would result in moderate improvements in mobility and would improve regional connectivity. ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements This component has the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations in six locations. Between these locations, scattered residences are contained within large rural census blocks that extend outward from 1-25 (up to a mile). Below are descriptions of the six minority and/or low-income locations: ► SH1/l-25 Interchange. The Wellington East neighborhood, located in the northwest quadrant of the interchange, is identified as having a concentration of minority households. The residential area southwest of the interchange also includes minority households. ► SH 14/1-25 Interchange. In the northeast quadrant of the interchange, the Cloverleaf • Community Mobile Home Park and adjacent single-family neighborhood are identified as Social Conditions 3.246 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. having a concentration of minorities and low-income households. A small, single-family neighborhood that does not contain minority or low-income populations is located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. ► SH 392/1-25 Interchange. In the southwest quadrant of the interchange, the Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision is identified as having a concentration of minorities. A newer single-family residential subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant and does not contain a concentration of minorities. Although the interchange itself is a component of the No-Action Alternative, general purpose lanes will be included as part of the Preferred Alternative. ► LCR 16/1-25 Interchange. The Johnson's Corner RV Park and a few single-family residences are identified as having a concentration of minorities. The Johnson's Corner RV Park allows short and long-term stays. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. ► SH 119/1-25 Interchange. The River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and a small single- family residential neighborhood abut a strip of commercial properties in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. These residences are located in a census block with a concentration of minorities. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. Safety improvements from SH 1 to SH 14 would require the relocation of these residences, as compared to the four residences affected by Packages A and B. These residences are all • located in low-income areas along the east side of 1-25. Twenty total residential displacements (including the three for the safety improvements)would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative highway component. Of these, six total displacements would be located in minority or low-income identified areas (three in census blocks with minority populations and three with low-income populations). The remaining residential displacements are located in census blocks or block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36, approximately 10 garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 near 120th Avenue. None of these would be from areas with minority or low-income populations. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). This would affect all segments of the population. Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County would also experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low-income and non-minority/non-low-income populations. Impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the overall neighborhood. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of ten businesses as a result of the • highway component. Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by Social Conditions 3.2.47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority or low-income population group. For the highway component, the noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 679 Category B land uses (residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas and parks) and 161 impacts to Category C land uses (developed lands, properties, or activities like commercial uses). With the implementation of noise mitigation (including Quiet Zones and noise barriers), 181 residential (Category B) noise impacts would be eliminated. Twenty of the mitigated receivers are located in Wellington East and 30 of the mitigated receivers are located in the Mountain Range subdivision; both of these neighborhoods comprise minority communities. Other mitigated receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. Noise impacts would affect both minority and low-income populations, as well as non-minority and non-low-income populations along 1-25. Visual impacts to low-income and minority communities associated with the highway component of the Preferred Alternative would result from replacement and modification of bridges and interchanges, new retaining walls, new noise walls, and the addition of carpool lots. Overall, the reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would not have a noticeable visual effect on minority and low-income communities along 1-25. The number of retaining walls increased in the Preferred Alternative to minimize and avoid • right-of-way impacts. The visual analysis finds that structural impacts associated with highway component of the Preferred Alternative would result in a high effect on visual conditions. Structural impacts include 99 retaining walls that are 15 feet and greater in height. Eighty-five retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, resulting in a moderate visual effect. These retaining walls would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. Of the seven noise walls proposed to mitigate noise impacts for the Preferred Alternative, four would have moderate visual impacts on low-income and/or minority communities. These four noise walls include a 10-12-foot wall located at SH 1 and 1-25 (near the Wellington East neighborhood), a 12-foot wall located south of SH 392 and north of CR 30 along 1-25 near the Mountain Range Shadows community, and a 14-foot wall on the east side and a 10-12-foot wall on the west side of 1-25 near Community Center Drive, both of which would impact the Stone Mountain Apartments. Five new carpool lots are proposed as part of the highway component. Two of these carpool lots would have minor visual impacts to low-income and minority communities: a new lot located in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange near Wellington East, and a new lot located in the northeast quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange near the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park. To use the new express lanes included in the highway component, tollway users in single occupant vehicles would be required to pay for their travel. Impacts as a result of tolled • express lanes are the same as those described for Package B, Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4. Table 3.2-10 summarizes environmental justice impacts for the highway component of the Preferred Alternative. Social Conditions 3.2.48 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-10 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for the Highway Component of the Preferred Alternative Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Six residential property displacements; access 14 residential property displacements; acquisition of revision at Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home 10 garages. Park. No known displacement of businesses owned by 10 business displacements. minorities or of special importance to minority populations. 284 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of 395 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 168 after recommended noise impacts reduced to 330 after recommended noise abatement. abatement. Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result retaining walls(> 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. in a high effect on visual conditions. Commuter Rail Minority and low-income populations are distributed along the BNSF alignment with concentrations in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. One hundred and sixty populated census blocks and 50 block groups are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. Of these, 50 census blocks have higher than average populations of minorities and 21 census block • groups have higher than average numbers of low-income households. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 31 residences. Of the 31 residential impacts, 14 would occur in census blocks or block groups containing minority or low-income populations. All of these would occur in Longmont, in minority and low-income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. Given the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. Commuter rail would improve access to the following community facilities that were identified through specialized outreach efforts as being important to minority and low-income populations: ► Bill Reed Middle School. This school has a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino students. Existing transit to the school is limited. The school is within 0.25 mile of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail would benefit school-aged children. Although the school is currently located in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. The commuter rail option would benefit these students by providing service to the school and alleviating a long bus ride for many students. ► Impacto De Fe. This largely Hispanic church in Loveland, with a historic presence, is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► Salud Family Health Center. This health center is located approximately 0.5 mile from the • proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit persons along the Front Range who are uninsured or underinsured and in need of medical care. Social Conditions 3.2-49 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► St. John's Church. This church is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► OUR (Outreach United Research) Center. This medical center is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit families in need of medical care. ► St. Joseph's Church. This church is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► The Pullman Center. This community center is located less than one mile from the Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community events and activities. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, minority and low-income neighborhoods in Berthoud, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland would not be newly divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. The addition of maintenance roads, passing track, fences or retaining walls could somewhat exacerbate this "barrier effect;" however, because there would not be additional track and, unlike Package A, on-street parking on Atwood Street would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative, this effect is less than that likely to occur with Package A. Local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across the BNSF rail line. These delays would become more frequent; however, each delay would be much less than currently experienced because trains would be much shorter. • Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include Martinez Park (minority and low-income), Historic Fort Collins High School (minority), and Troutman Park (minority). Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for minority and low-income neighborhoods, connecting residents to cultural events and employment in Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, and Denver. Property values would likely increase near station sites. Over time, this could make housing less affordable for existing residents. Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, Windsor, Fort Lupton, Dacono, and Milliken. Feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Construction of the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative would require the relocation of nine businesses. Of the nine impacted businesses, one is located within a census-identified low-income area. This business, a storage warehouse in Berthoud, was not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that this business has any particular connection to a minority or low-income community or provides • employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority or low-income population group. Social Conditions 3.2-50 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The requirement of passenger trains to blow their horns at at-grade crossings would increase noise in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified a total of 2,192 residential noise impacts along the commuter rail corridor. Of these impacts 1,495 would be moderate impacts and 697 would be severe impacts. Approximately half of the impacts would be in Longmont. Most of the noise impacts would occur in census- identified minority or low-income areas. However, it is estimated that with the implementation of Quiet Zones (and noise walls located outside of Longmont), potential impacts to all residences along the BNSF corridor would be eliminated. CDOT and FHWA will work will work with local agencies (who must submit quiet zone applications to the PUC) to implement quiet zones, where feasible and reasonable. If quiet zones cannot be implemented, other mitigation measures (such as noise barriers) have been identified as described below and in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration). As described in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation, noise barriers will be considered if quiet zones and/or wayside horns are not feasible and reasonable. Two of the three proposed noise barriers (at 29th Street and CR 28 in Loveland, and at CR 14 and CR 18 in Campion) are adjacent to minority and/or low-income populations. While these would reduce noise levels for the surrounding communities, they would alter the visual landscape primarily affecting minority and low-income residences adjacent to the BNSF rail line. However, these same residences would benefit the most from the noise barriers. The vibration analysis identified impacts at a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track. Of these residences, 26 are in Longmont and 14 are in Loveland. To mitigate for • vibration impacts, special trackwork at certain locations and the installation of Tire Derived Aggregate (shredded tires) beneath the tracks would eliminate all potential vibration impacts. An increase in commuter rail and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Minority and/or low-income populations located near proposed stations would be affected. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project (Section 3.5 Air Quality); emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proximity of the station sites would be beneficial for the nearby populations, especially those within walking distance. The visual analysis concluded that the introduction of retaining walls, noise barriers, grade- separation, and new stations would have a visual impact on residents adjacent to the rail corridor. The Preferred Alternative increased visual impacts with the addition of a maintenance road that was not included in Package A and a greater number of retaining walls than in Package A. Retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas with concentrations of minority or low-income populations and 7 residential areas with non-minority/non-low-income populations. Retaining walls would be constructed in Longmont between Mountain View Avenue and 21st Street in minority and low-income portions of the Clark Centennial and Lanyon neighborhoods; however, these retaining walls will be shorter than 5 feet; therefore, there would not be a visual impact. Retaining walls and noise barriers would shield residences from the existing rail line, lessening the visual impacts of the railroad. Noise walls are proposed in three locations along the commuter rail alignment. One of these proposed noise walls (located along 29th Street near CR 28 in Loveland) would have high 1111 visual impact on a low-income community just east of the railroad corridor, north of 37th Street, but would eliminate 14 residential noise impacts. Of the five new grade separations for the Preferred Alternative commuter rail component, one new grade separation (located at SH 52) would impact a minority community just east of the railroad corridor. Social Conditions 3.2-51 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The North Loveland and Berthoud stations would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding minority and low-income populations because each would require a relocation of a business or residence. Because the proposed maintenance facility in Berthoud would change the visual character of the area, there would be a moderate visual effect to the low-income community across the rail corridor. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9 Floodplains), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low-income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. The addition of passing track and maintenance roads and the resulting operational traffic impacts, right-of-way fencing and noise, vibration, and visual impacts would negatively affect minority and low-income neighborhoods and community cohesion in Longmont. These impacts could reduce property values in minority and low-income areas, except for the areas within walking distance of the two stations, where property values would likely increase. Table 3.2-11 summarizes environmental justice impacts of commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative. Table 3.2-11 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Commuter Rail Component for the Preferred Alternative Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations 14 residential property displacements(all in 17 residential property displacements(none in Longmont); improved access to Front Range Longmont); improved access to Front Range • communities, community facilities, and services; communities, community facilities, and services; potential degradation of community cohesion in travel time delays and out-of-direction travel at at- Longmont; travel time delays at at-grade crossings grade crossings 1 displacement of business in a census-identified 8 business displacements minority area; business is not owned by minorities 2024 residences, schools, churches, or parks 231 residences, schools, churches, or parks impacted by rail noise or vibration. Number of impacted by rail noise or vibration. Number of impacts reduced to zero after recommended impacts reduced to zero after recommended abatement abatement actions. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at five proposed station sites; populations at four proposed station sites; emissions would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS Retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas; Retaining walls would impact 7 residential areas; One noise wall would impact a low income noise walls would result in a high effect on visual residential area in Loveland; commuter rail stations conditions at two locations; commuter rail stations would have a visual impact on surrounding would have a visual impact on surrounding communities communities 1-25 Express Bus No business displacements or residential displacements would occur under the express bus component. Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, Windsor, Fort Lupton, Dacono, and Milliken. Additionally, feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such • as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Social Conditions 3.2-52 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Of the eleven express bus stations proposed for the Preferred Alternative, only the Firestone station located at 1-25 and SH 119 would impact a minority community. A pedestrian overpass associated with the bus station would change the visual character for the nearby River Valley Village Mobile Home Park community. Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility at 31st Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. Table 3.2-12 summarizes environmental justice impacts of express bus in the Preferred Alternative. Table 3.2-12 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for the Express Bus Component Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations No residential or business property displacements No residential or business property displacements Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at three proposed station sites; populations at three proposed station site; emissions would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS US 85 Commuter Bus The provision of commuter bus service would benefit minority and low-income communities • along US 85. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, and Fort Lupton are all located in minority and/or low-income areas and would expand employment opportunities and services to these populations. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities on a regular basis. There would be four business displacements as a result of commuter bus stations. None of these businesses were identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Platteville, and Fort Lupton would have a moderate visual effect because they would result in the relocation of a business or residence. These stations, however, would not impede views to the mountains. Construction of bus stations and maintenance facilities would not require the relocation of any residences or businesses. However, an increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would affect minority and/or low-income populations located near proposed station sites. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Table 3.2-13 summarizes environmental justice impacts for the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative. • Social Conditions 3.2-53 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.2-13 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Commuter Rail Component of the Preferred Alternative Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations One property displacement; improved access to No property displacements; improved access to communities along US 85 communities along US 85. No known displacement of businesses owned by Four business displacements. Displaced minorities; displaced businesses may provide businesses provide services and employment for all services and employment for minority persons populations. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at four proposed station sites; populations at one proposed station site; emissions emissions would not exceed NAAQS would not exceed NAAQS. Benefits of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems, including commuter rail and bus transit options. Other benefits associated with the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.3 for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. • ► Safety and emergency response times would improve. ► The commuter rail component would improve access to community facilities, provide broader opportunities for employment, facilitate participation in regional social and cultural events, promote interaction between communities, and stimulate business activity. ► Both express bus and commuter bus transit components would result in moderate improvements in mobility and would improve regional connectivity. ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. 3.2.4.4 CONCLUSION In making a determination of disproportionately high and adverse effects, it is important to balance the impacts of the project with the benefits. Below is a discussion of the impacts and benefits of each alternative, an analysis to determine if impacts are predominantly borne by low-income and minority communities, and an assessment on whether the impacts are appreciably more severe (high and adverse) for these low-income and minority communities. No-Action Alternative While impacts for the No-Action Alternative would be less substantial than the impacts described for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, local populations would not benefit from much-needed transportation improvements. In addition, local communities would receive adverse effects resulting from transportation needs unmet. These adverse • effects would result in direct and indirect effects on communities that are typically caused by traffic congestion and impaired mobility, including an increase in air emissions and noise, Social Conditions 3.2-54 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. The increase in noise level to minority and low-income populations would be small and would not be noticeable to most people. No noise abatement measures are included in the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would not provide any communities with the accessibility benefits associated with transit services and adverse impacts would affect both low-income and minority communities, as well as the general population. Therefore, impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative would not be predominantly borne by low-income and minority communities. Similarly, all segments of the population would be affected by the impacts. Low-income and minority populations would not receive more severe impacts than non low-income and minority populations as a result of the No-Action Alternative. Package A Implementation of Package A would result in the relocation of 59 residences (23 of which are located in minority and low-income areas), increased noise and visual impacts, an increase in air emissions, and an exacerbated barrier effect for communities located along the commuter rail alignment. However, local populations would benefit from stronger regional connections between communities, improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response, and improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. • Relocations, noise, and visual impacts would occur. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, they would still affect local communities. Increased air emissions would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because a community division already exists along the BNSF corridor, the exacerbation of the barrier effect would not result in a high and adverse impact on community cohesion. Although there would be some adverse effects, these would not be predominately borne by minority or low-income populations. In general, impacts and benefits from Package A would be distributed across all communities, including minority and low-income populations, as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. Although construction of the commuter rail under Package A would require 16 residential relocations within minority/low-income areas, there is no evidence these would be disproportionately high and adverse effects since the mitigation commitments, including relocation benefits are generous. There would be no noise impacts (after mitigation), but there would be visual impacts, traffic impacts, and the potential for exacerbating the existing barrier created by the BNSF corridor. As with the relocations, the visual impacts, traffic impacts, and community cohesion impacts would not be considered disproportionately high and adverse effects. Minority and low-income residents, as well as the overall community, would benefit from safety and access improvements to businesses, residences, and community facilities. For all of Package A, no segment of the population would receive more severe impacts, or impacts of a greater magnitude than any other segment of the population. In Longmont there would be noticeable impacts; however, because the totality of the adverse impacts balanced with benefits and mitigation, the low-income and minority populations would not receive disproportionately high and adverse effects from Package A. • Social Conditions 3.2-55 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Implementation of Package B would result in the relocation of 24 residences (7 of which are located in minority and low-income areas), increased noise and visual impacts, and an increase in air emissions. However, local populations would benefit from stronger regional connections between communities (though, to a lesser degree than in Package A or the Preferred Alternative), improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response, and improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Relocations, noise and visual impacts would occur. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, they would still impact local communities. Increased air emissions would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Package B would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems, but to a lesser degree than Package A or the Preferred Alternative. Any adverse impacts or benefits resulting from the Package B improvements would affect both low-income and minority communities, as well as the general population. No segment of the population would receive more severe impacts, or impacts of a greater magnitude than any other segment of the population, Therefore, as a result of mitigation commitments and benefits received from Package B, it is determined that, overall, minority and low-income communities would not suffer disproportionately high and adverse effects from the alternative. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Packages A and B, • and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the relocation of 51 residences (20 of which are located in minority and low-income areas), increased noise and visual impacts, an increase in air emissions, and an exacerbated barrier effect for communities located along the commuter rail alignment (although, to a lesser degree than Package A). Benefits resulting from the alternative include enhanced regional connections between communities, improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response, and improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Noise, visual, traffic circulation, and air quality impacts would occur. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, they would still impact local communities. Emissions of all air pollutants would increase slightly with the Preferred Alternative when compared to the No-Action Alternative. The regional study area is a non-attainment area for ozone. Because a community division already exists along the BNSF corridor, the minor exacerbation of the barrier effect would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on community cohesion. Impacts and benefits resulting from the Preferred Alternative would be distributed across all communities, including minority and low-income populations, as well as non-minority/non-low- income populations. Relative to Package A, the Preferred Alternative reduces impacts in Longmont by removing the second track and adjusting the alignment to fit more closely to the existing corridor(i.e. there will be no removal of parking and no relocations along Atwood Street). Further, all segments of the population would benefit from safety and access improvements to businesses, residences, and community facilities, from stronger regional community connections resulting from the Preferred Alternative; and from mitigation • commitments which will, in some cases, improve conditions over existing conditions and over the No-Action Alternative. Social Conditions 3.2-56 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. For all of the Preferred Alternative, no segment of the population would receive more severe impacts, or impacts of a greater magnitude than any other segment of the population. In Longmont there would be noticeable impacts; however, the totality of the impacts when combined with mitigation commitments and benefits received from the Preferred Alternative, would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations. 3.2.4.5 MITIGATION MEASURES In accordance with U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 on Environmental Justice, DOT decision makers (i.e., FHWA) will ensure that any of their programs, policies, or activities that could have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations will be carried out only if further mitigation measures or alternatives that will avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effect are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is practicable, decision makers will take into account the social, economic, and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the disproportionately high and adverse effects. Mitigation has already been factored in to the analysis of impacts to minority and low-income populations. CDOT and FHWA intend to install new highway traffic noise abatement measures in the form of barriers (see Section 3.6.4.5 Noise and Vibration, Impacted Receivers After Recommended Mitigations). If it subsequently develops during final design that these conditions have changed substantially, the abatement measures will be reassessed in • accordance with the latest applicable guidance. A final decision regarding installation of the abatement measure(s)will be made upon completion of the project's final design and the accompanying public involvement processes. In a similar manner, CDOT and FHWA intend to establish quiet zones at grade crossings for commuter rail based on the rail noise abatement analyses accomplished thus far(see Section 3.6.4.4 Noise and Vibration, Impacted Receivers After Recommended Mitigations). The quiet zones will require lead involvement by the various local governments that control the various streets that cross the commuter rail corridor. These agencies have indicated support, but complete participation by the local agencies cannot be guaranteed at this time. To supplement the quiet zones, CDOT and FHWA intend to construct three noise walls along the rail corridor (see Section 3.6.4.4 Noise and Vibration, Impacted Receivers After Recommended Mitigations). These commitments would be finalized during final design through various intergovernmental agreements. If it subsequently develops during final design that conditions have changed substantially, the abatement measures will be reassessed in accordance with the latest applicable guidance. A final decision regarding installation of quiet zones will be made upon completion of the project's final design and the accompanying public involvement processes. If in the end, local governments do not want to pursue quiet zones, CDOT and FHWA commit to mitigating the noise impacts by other means, including building noise walls following FTA guidelines. Quiet zones are the best and preferred train horn mitigation because quiet zones would eliminate the noise source. The direct involvement and sponsorship of local government agencies is required for quiet zone implementation, and they must apply to the PUC for quiet zone approval. CDOT and FHWA cannot guarantee such local government agency actions; • however, CDOT and FHWA anticipate that local government agencies will agree that quiet Social Conditions 3.2.57 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • zones will be beneficial and be willing to sponsor the required PUC applications. If for any reason, one or more quiet zones cannot be implemented, the recommended mitigation would change to additional noise walls for those locations along the rail corridor. Vibration impacts from commuter rail have been identified for several locations (see Section 3.6.4.4 Noise and Vibration, Impacted Receivers After Recommended Mitigations). CDOT and FHWA intend to eliminate these impacts through the strategic use of special trackwork and tire-derived aggregate (TDA) in the construction of commuter rail line. The final decision on the best methods to eliminate the rail vibration impacts will be made at final design. Mitigation for construction related impacts to minority and low-income populations could include the provision of reduced price bus passes during construction, acceptable access modifications, and translated information on construction processes and alternate modes available during construction and pre-opening day. Right-of-way acquisition will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act). This purpose of this act is to provide fair and equitable treatment for all persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms. Owners of property to be acquired will be compensated at fair market value for their property. If toll lanes are constructed, ways to make tolling more equitable will be sought. For example, payment options will be considered to enable the broadest opportunity for all economic groups • to use toll facilities. Alternate payment options will be provided so that persons who do not have a credit card can still participate in the tolled express lanes. Toll replenishment using cash or employer-based payroll deductions could also be included in the tolling program. A context sensitive approach to project design and mitigation is encouraged to ensure that project elements enhance the community. This will include involving the public in the development of rail or bus station design treatments. • Social Conditions 3.2-58 • N oRrx I-25 EIS , information, cooperation. transportation. Section 3.3 Economic Conditions • • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.3 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Affected Environment What's in Section 3.3? 3.3.1.1 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 3.3 Economic Conditions 3.3.1 increases in employment are Affected Environment expected in all seven regional study area 3.3.1.2 Employment Statistics andP 9 3.3.1.2 Economic Activity and Regional counties from 2005 through 2035. According Growth to statistics provided by Denver Regional 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences Council of Government (DRCOG) and North 3.3.2.1 No-Action Alternative Front Range Metropolitan Planning 3.3.2.2 Package A Organization (NFRMPO), the largest growth 3.3.2.3 Package B 3.3.2.4 Preferred Alternative in employment is expected to occur in the 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Weld County and the City and County of Broomfield portions of the regional study area (182 percent and 129 percent, respectively). This growth translates to over 142,000 new jobs in Weld County and 38,000 jobs in the City and County of Broomfield. In terms of the total number of new jobs forecast by 2035, Weld County is followed by the Adams County and Denver County portions of the Regional Study Area (see Table 3.3-1). Table 3.3-1 Study Area Employment by County • Employment County 2005 2035 Change(%) Adams 122,736 228,434 +105,698 (86%) Boulder 120,786 151,929 +31,143 (26%) Broomfield 29,982 68,523 +38,541 (129%) Denver 170,348 272,831 +102,483 (60%) Jefferson 10,619 21,457 +10,838 (102%) Larimer 138,017 214,991 +76,974 (56%) Weld 78,052 220,433 +142,381 (182%) Figure 3.3-1 shows the distribution of future employment by municipal area. Employment statistics at the county level reflect only the unincorporated portion of the county. Substantial growth is anticipated in Loveland, Fort Collins, Greeley, unincorporated Adams County, and Denver. Employment growth in these areas would inevitably strain roadways between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. According to the 2000 census, more than half (65 percent) of the 397,000 jobs in the regional study area are service-related. By 2035, the services sector would contain the largest number of jobs overall (914,000). This is reflective of a statewide shift from an economy historically • driven by agriculture and mining to one driven by services. Many employees working in service positions are employed in the major employment centers and central business districts throughout the regional study area. Economic Conditions 3.3-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 3.3-1 Future Employment Summarized by Municipal Area LEGEND I, ; ; Regional Study Area _ - -_ _ _ , o Cities & Towns - - ..` • -- Study Corridors ...----\....„rsi'l-r\ - ..\ 747I1,199 `•Highways 7 1� Arterial Roads a a . N LMWel County Boundaries Ii.b9 r 6.6043.182e2 r 19.566 1nr132 City Boundaries Art 2005/2035 Em to ment �° ' 339 ►.n Cd9a p 8/.79911:127, (Summed in Project Area) tor a Trade 16 r 3.629 211 1814 1,029] 11,892 11 XXX,XXX ag 2005 Employment 1 15.980 119' \t_____ 2035 Employments I e 4 r 51.717 1 191.868 J 7 fr84i7&M5 I EvIMF ra % - - 3.43717.431. ay / Wale / ' "� 5981978 r PS MMm / �� 818 18.959 1423 1 4,109 // 3,090 1 8.779 / 98cI5 �/. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _1(_ _ _ .; 248 1 599 411 I kind 4 1,4061 7,1* PMItMiIY - 741 11,232 • _ 9Ndd 28,599133,798 ' • 3.84 12424,202 ' // Fredrick rata 1 + / i 586 12100 r 1.045 r 4.953 / fr 1 I \ / eV , i U._p.bolder 1 7,221110228 6Y a183t 53j 8 i 1,02213.478, Demo I � ; Jr 219 1 1.181 1 II • J I 1 I I 1 1N47e0a +'t i--' ' 1 Baal79,655 I ta889 -- - --- - - -- -- - --- - - --- 60,418 r 79.135 `e,.. a ? l. ta E **- 12.,75 122.918 `' (8,219 1 12.8171 4'l 1 1 -.- --- _ _ _ --- -.-_- _ -. _ 2493 14.218 30,OB21 71,315 8.8331 11,198 ` 7Mmla 4;21,028 f 41,820 - - - Kg Wed Hart Mne.atr I 1,60412.622 /% ' •' 35,181 1 8 i ' -8.326 i ) : I Adanu / I '‘.` Atrlda 35.149 ! 89.708 / - - - ^l I (9,11619.779 J, ; u �' � I _I_ - I' Casco ^.`, 25,508 1 30 838 0 2 4 6 8 10S 01na �� 1 t l I MileS North ' 212,379I32a128 ' --\\/7 'Slit • Economic Conditions 3.3-2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The three major north-south corridors in the regional study area are expected to absorb a predominant share of the expected future employment for the region over the next 25 years. The largest increase in employment is expected to occur in the 1-25 corridor where an increase of 301 percent (31,942 jobs in 2005 to 128,233 in 2035) is expected to occur within a half-mile of the highway. Employment within a half-mile of the US 287 corridor, which generally parallels the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) line, is expected to increase 54 percent (66,765 to 102,934) during the same time frame. Even given this disparity of employment growth, in terms of future 2035 employment, areas along the US 287 corridor will continue to affect a large share of total employment. Within the US 85 corridor, employment is expected to increase by 30 percent (39,678 to 51,586). 3.3.1.2 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND REGIONAL GROWTH The Northern Colorado 1-25 Corridor Plan, 2001 is a resource and policy document prepared by eight northern Colorado jurisdictions (Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, Timnath, Johnstown, Berthoud, Larimer County, and Weld County) and the NFRMPO that serves as a guide for land use decisions and actions for the land along 1-25 in northern Colorado. According to this plan, 1-25 from the Berthoud exit to CR 58 just north of Fort Collins is Northern Colorado's primary economic corridor. The high visibility of the corridor has made it extremely attractive from a business and economic development perspective. It is anticipated that the corridor would be subject to considerable development activity over the coming years. Substantial projects that are partially developed or are in the planning • stages in this portion of the corridor include Centerra (3,000 acres of commercial, residential, and office development along 4 miles of North 1-25 at the northeast quadrant of the US 34 interchange near Loveland) and Villages at Johnstown (4.5 million square feet of regional retail space, a golf course, and executive home development along 4 miles of North 1-25 at the southeast quadrant of the US 34 interchange near Johnstown). Two developments are also planned or underway in Windsor (80 acres of regional commercial and employment activities on the southeast corner of 1-25 and SH 392 and 70 acres of light industrial development on the southwest corner of 1-25 and SH 392). Substantial development is also occurring farther south along the 1-25 corridor. In Westminster, several commercial centers and big box retailers are currently under construction along 1-25. One of these is The Orchard at Westminster, an open air entertainment, retail, residential, and office center at 144th Avenue and 1-25. This development is expected to create more than 3,000 new permanent or part-time jobs and generate more than $150 million in sales revenues annually, producing $86.4 million in new retail sales tax, property tax, and business license taxes over a 10-year period. Throughout Weld County, particularly in the corridor along and between 1-25 and US 85, growth has been very rapid. Coupled with the presence of developable land, this growth has resulted in annexations by smaller towns reaching out to the highways to capture potential commercial and industrial users. Today, substantial amounts of land are zoned for economic development along 1-25. Commercial development within the US 85 corridor consists of small, local businesses and • retail centers. Many of these occur immediately adjacent to the highway or along the frontage road. Commercial uses between Greeley and Brighton include motels, restaurants, auto body Economic Conditions 3.3-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • and repair shops, rail-related industry, small business centers, and agricultural operations, such as corn mazes and produce stands. Many businesses in this portion of the project corridor provide services and employment for low-income and minority populations. The BNSF rail line and US 287 extend through central Longmont, Berthoud, Loveland, and Fort Collins. A wide variety of retail, commercial, office, and industrial enterprises are adjacent to US 287 in these areas. Further south along US 287, at the Northwest Parkway interchange, a corporate campus, and mixed-use development are in the process of being developed. 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences This section details how each alternative would affect economic conditions within the project area. Impact analysis was based on information gathered in Section 3.3.1 Affected Environment. Additional site visits to the project area, evaluation of county assessor parcel data, review of aerial photography, and analysis of GIS data were also conducted. To allow comparison with other regional projects, the methods used to estimate changes in employment, tax base, and revenues are consistent with those used in the US 36 EIS and Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study, as described below. Construction employment was estimated by taking the project construction cost and attributing a portion of it to labor costs (assuming an industry standard of 50 percent). The estimated labor cost was then divided by the average income (including benefits) for a construction worker in the Denver/Boulder Metropolitan Area, Larimer County, and Weld County (estimated at $65,300 in 2005). This produced an approximate number of employees for the project. • Changes to the property tax base and revenues were estimated using county assessor data for each parcel to be acquired, either partially or fully. To calculate these changes, parcels with exempt status (municipally owned land) or insufficient data (no value or tax data available) were removed from the calculations. To avoid overstating the changes, if only partial acquisition was required, only a portion of the total assessed value was used. For example, if 10 percent of a parcel was impacted then 10 percent of the assessed value was used. The tax base and revenues were calculated utilizing the adopted 2007 to 2008 assessment rates. Year 2005 county mill levies were applied to the taxable base to determine the tax rate. 3.3.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for the build alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would not require relocation of any existing businesses. In addition, there would be no loss to property tax base and revenues. In the absence of the transit or capacity improvements proposed under the build packages, there would be no opportunities for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues that would result from transit-oriented development (TOD). Worsening congestion and safety concerns would make it increasingly difficult to access businesses in the regional study area. Future economic growth would most likely concentrate along the 1-25 corridor, where regional access and large parcels of undeveloped land are available and in the southern end of the study area where transit enhancements and adequate infrastructure are already in place. • Economic Conditions 3.3-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.3.2.2 PACKAGE A Component A-HI: Safety Improvements Employment. Employment in Wellington is expected to grow by 55.7 percent between 2005 and 2035 (from 747 jobs in 2005 to 1,163 jobs in 2035). This growth would occur regardless of whether safety improvements are implemented or not. Construction of Components A-H1, A-H2, A-H3, and A-H4 would generate 6,300 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Because construction costs are not broken down by highway segment, it is impossible to estimate the number of jobs that would be generated as a result of the implementation of Component A-H1 alone. Improvements associated with Component A-H1 are limited to safety upgrades and would generate fewer jobs than Components A-H2 and A-H3. No businesses would be displaced under Component A-H1. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $162,360 loss in the tax base and $5,630 loss of tax revenues. Access. The proposed improvements would not change access to businesses along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14. Activity associated with the proposed carpool lot in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange could increase patronage for businesses along SH 1 west of the interchange. • During construction some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. Construction-related impacts would be greatest for businesses in the vicinity of the SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive interchanges (Subway, Burger King, Comfort Inn Wellington, First National Bank, Anheuser Busch, and Mountain Vista Greens Golf Course). These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Employment. Growth within the North 1-25 corridor would result from a large supply of developable land, easy access to 1-25, local pressure to develop land, and a pro-growth political climate. As stated above, construction of all highway components under Package A would generate 6,300 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 12 businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (11 between SH 14 and SH 60 and 1 between SH 60 and E-470). Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $2,246,750 loss in the tax base ($1,943,840 for Component A-H2 and $302,910 for Component A-H3) and $71,600 loss of tax revenues ($66,190 for Component A-H2 and $5,410 for Component A-H3). • Economic Conditions 3.3-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • In locations where access would be improved or capacity added, property values would likely increase. It is also possible that property values could decrease in locations where proximity to improved transportation facilities would result in noise impacts, increased air emissions, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel. Access. A new access configuration would result in out-of-direction travel for patrons and employees of businesses in the southwest quadrant of the I-25/SH 14 interchange. Motorists would be required to travel east on the frontage road and then beneath SH 14 before reaching the business center. Access to both Centerra and the Loveland Outlets would be via grade separated single point urban interchanges, in lieu of the existing signalized intersection. The US 34/1-25 interchange would be converted to a dual diamond/directional interchange. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and cafe, Larimer County Road (LCR) 16 would go over 1-25 to more safely accommodate traffic. The two access points to Johnson's Corner from LCR 16 would remain in their existing location. Some out-of-direction travel would be required for patrons traveling along the frontage road. Existing access from the frontage road would be replaced so that customers would have to travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. This configuration would accommodate trucks. Access ramps to 1-25 would be added at this interchange. Access to businesses in the northwest quadrant of the SH 60/1-25 interchange would remain similar to existing. Interchange ramps would be shifted to the east to minimize impacts to these • businesses. A new frontage road between 71st Street and Crossroads Boulevard in Loveland would provide additional access to businesses west of the Crossroads/I-25 interchange. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. Construction-related impacts would be greatest for businesses adjacent to interchanges where improvements are proposed. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to economic conditions south of E-470 would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.3.2.1. Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail Employment. Commuter rail would facilitate infill and re-development in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont; accommodating economic growth within the center of these communities. An increase in jobs and commercial activity around commuter rail stations would be expected, especially in communities with plans for TOD. • Economic Conditions 3.3-6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Construction would generate 4,450 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. The commuter rail would also generate long-term employment for rail operators, security officers, and at the commuter rail maintenance facility. Approximately 90 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 16 businesses. Fifteen of these would occur between Fort Collins and Longmont and the remaining one would occur between Longmont and SH 7. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the existing right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $2,104,200 loss in the tax base ($823,110 from Component A-T1 and $1,281,090 from Component A-T2) and $62,920 loss of tax revenues ($27,460 from Component A-T1 and $35,460 from Component A-T2). However, this would likely be offset by the benefits of public transportation. TOD expands business revenues, leading to new jobs and higher wages and salaries, thus increasing the tax base and revenues flowing to local and state governments. Typically, state and local governments realize a 4 percent to 16 percent gain in revenues as a result of increases in business profits and personal income generated by public transportation (Cambridge Systematics, 1999). Implementation of TOD often requires financial incentives on the part of the local jurisdiction, • so these programs can have an initial negative impact on the jurisdiction's budget. However, studies show that, nationwide, residential and commercial property values rise with proximity to rail transportation systems and stations (Porter, 1997). The increase in value is highest for those properties located between 0.25 and 1 mile from a station. For residential properties along segments between stations, property values may decline. For every dollar earned, the average U.S. household spends 18 cents on transportation, 98 percent of which goes towards buying, maintaining, and operating vehicles, the largest expense after home mortgages (McCann, 2000). Public transportation can save these households thousands of dollars each year in transportation expenditures. Access. Commuter rail would increase access to established businesses and major employment centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Broomfield, and Denver), resulting in an increase in economic activity and expanding opportunities for employment. Development around stations would strengthen existing businesses and attract new businesses. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would create some delay for business patrons and employees traveling across the BNSF. Because commuter rail would operate primarily in an existing rail corridor, access to businesses would not otherwise be changed. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Many industries along the existing rail line depend upon the consistent operation of freight trains. Construction of an additional track south of Colorado State University (CSU)would require that existing operations be shut down for short periods of time. This would affect the Great Western Connection in Loveland and Longmont, local • industries with direct rail access between Loveland and Longmont, and industries that are served by the Barnett Spur, north and west of Longmont. Economic Conditions 3.3-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Employment. Growth within the US 85 corridor would occur with or without commuter bus service. Construction would generate 50 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Commuter bus would also generate long-term employment for bus drivers, security officers, and at the commuter bus maintenance facility. Approximately 85 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of-way acquisition. Construction of the bus stations and maintenance facilities would require the relocation of five businesses. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $566,650 loss in the tax base and $10,140 loss of tax revenues. Commercial activity may increase around commuter bus stations. However, bus stations are less likely to attract TOD and economic growth than commuter rail stations. Access. Commuter bus would increase access to established businesses and community centers, resulting in an increase in economic activity and expanding opportunities for employment. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required • to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. This would primarily affect businesses near bus stations. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Summary of Key Impacts for Package A Adverse impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Relocation of 33 businesses ► $5,079,960 loss in the tax base and $150,290 loss of tax revenues ► Temporary construction-related detours, delays, and out-of-direction travel ► Temporary impacts to existing freight operations during construction Beneficial impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a result of TOD ► Some access revisions; transit would improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunities ► Creation of 10,800 temporary jobs over the six-year construction period; permanent employment created by transit operation and maintenance • Economic Conditions 3.3-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.3.2.3 PACKAGE B Component B-HI: Safety Improvements Because impacts associated with safety improvements under this component are similar to those in Package A, Component A-H1, the following discussion focuses on the differences or incremental changes between them. Employment. Construction of Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4 would generate 9,500 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Because construction costs are not broken down by highway segment, it is impossible to estimate the number of jobs that would be generated as a result of the implementation of Component B-H1 alone. Improvements associated with Component B-H1 are limited to safety upgrades and would generate fewer jobs than Components B-H2 and B-H3. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $167,660 loss in the tax base and $5,820 loss of tax revenues. Access. Impacts are the same as described for Component A-H1. Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a • similar effect on economic conditions as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion focuses on the differences or incremental changes between them. To use the new express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel, potentially impacting discretionary income. However, free travel lanes would be maintained along 1-25; toll lanes would most likely be used judiciously, when users need to benefit most from reduced congestion. Therefore, impacts to discretionary income would be minimal. The impact of tolling on minority and low-income populations is discussed in Section 3.2.4 Environmental Justice. Additional capacity and reduced congestion would improve the flow of goods and services, facilitate commuter travel, and improve access to established businesses and major employment centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Denver). Employment. As stated above, construction of all highway components under Package B would generate 9,500 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 15 businesses (13 for Component B-H2 and 2 for Component B-H3). Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. • Economic Conditions 3.3.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $2,595,440 loss in the tax base ($2,107,500 from Component B-H2 and $487,940 from Component B-H3) and $81,650 loss of tax revenues ($72,940 from Component B-H2 and $8,710 from Component B-H3). Access. Construction impacts would be greater than those identified for Package A. Maintaining access to cross streets would be more difficult during construction of the barrier- separated tolled express lanes adjacent to the existing lanes. This would result in some out-of- direction travel for business patrons and employees. Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Employment. Construction would generate 700 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. BRT would also generate long-term employment for bus drivers, security officers, and at the BRT maintenance facility. Approximately 90 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. One business would be displaced under Component B-T1. No businesses would be displaced under Component B-T2. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The construction of Component B-T1 would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $51,120 loss in the tax base and $1,250 loss of tax revenues. Access. BRT would increase access to established businesses and employment centers, • expanding opportunities for employment. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. This would primarily affect businesses near BRT stations. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Summary of Key Impacts for Package B Adverse impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Relocation of 16 businesses ► $2,814,220 loss in the tax base and $88,720 loss of tax revenues ► Temporary construction-related detours, delays, and out-of-direction travel Beneficial impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Limited potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a result of TOD ► Creation of 10,200 temporary jobs over the six-year construction period; permanent employment created by transit operation and maintenance ► Some access revisions; transit would improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunities. • Economic Conditions 3.3.10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.3.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1-25 Highway Improvements The Preferred Alternative would consist of safety improvements between SH 1 and SH 14 and widen 1-25 with general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes from SH 14 to US 36. To use the new express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel, potentially impacting discretionary income. However, free travel lanes would be maintained along 1-25; toll lanes would most likely be used judiciously, when users need to benefit most from reduced congestion. Therefore, impacts to discretionary income would be minimal. The impact of tolling on minority and low-income populations is discussed in Section 3.2.4 Environmental Justice. Additional capacity and reduced congestion would improve the flow of goods and services, facilitate commuter travel, and improve access to established businesses and major employment centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Denver). Employment. Employment in the north 1-25 corridor is expected to grow regardless of whether highway improvements are implemented or not. This growth would result from a large supply of developable land, easy access to 1-25, local pressure to develop land, and a pro-growth political climate. Construction of 1-25 highway improvements would generate 8,050 temporary jobs over the construction period. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- • way acquisition. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 10 businesses: nine from SH 14 to SH 60 and one from SH 60 to E-470 in Weld County. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a loss in the tax base and tax revenues for the respective county. The loss in tax base and tax revenues reported for Packages A and B are based on past years property tax values. Therefore, in order to provide a comparative measure for the loss of tax base and revenues associated with the Preferred Alternative a comparison of the acreage of right-of-way required against Packages A and B was used. The amount of acreage acquired for right-of-way under the highway improvements for the Preferred Alternative is 7.3 percent less than right-of-way acquisition for the highway improvements as described under Package A and 22.5 percent less than Package B. Using those percentages to calculate the figures for the Preferred Alternative highway component provided reasonably equitable figures. An average of the figures shows that the Preferred Alternative highway component would result in a loss of approximately $2,187,324 from the tax base and $69,691 from tax revenues. It should be noted that property values are not static and will likely be completely different at the time of acquisition. The assessment will be updated at that time. However, it is expected that the changes would be relatively similar for each of the alternatives. In locations where access would be improved or capacity added, property values would likely • increase. It is also possible that property values could decrease in locations where proximity to improved transportation facilities would result in noise impacts, increased air emissions, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel. Economic Conditions 3.3-11 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Access. Changes in access are described from north to south along the 1-25 Corridor. The proposed improvements would not change access to businesses along 1-25 at SH 1. Activity associated with the proposed carpool lot in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange could increase patronage for businesses along SH 1 west of the interchange. Construction-related impacts would likely impact businesses in the vicinity of the SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive interchanges (Subway, Burger King, Comfort Inn Wellington, First National Bank, Anheuser Busch, and Mountain Vista Greens Golf Course). These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. A new access configuration would result in out-of-direction travel for patrons and employees of businesses in the southwest quadrant of the I-25/SH 14 interchange. Motorists would be required to travel east on the frontage road and then beneath SH 14 before reaching the business center. Access to both Centerra and the Loveland Outlets would be similar to existing. The US 34/1-25 interchange would be converted to a grade-separated, single-point urban interchange, in lieu of the existing signalized intersection. A new frontage road between 71st Street and Crossroads Boulevard in Loveland would provide additional access to businesses west of the Crossroads/l-25 interchange. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and cafe, Larimer County Road (LCR) 16 would go over 1-25 to more safely accommodate traffic. The two access points to Johnson's Corner from LCR 16 would remain in their existing location. Some out-of-direction travel would be required for patrons traveling along the frontage road. Existing access from the frontage road would be • replaced so that customers would have to travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. This configuration would accommodate trucks. Access to businesses in the northwest quadrant of the SH 60/1-25 interchange would remain similar to existing. Interchange ramps would be shifted to the east to minimize impacts to these businesses. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. Construction-related impacts would be greatest for businesses adjacent to interchanges where improvements are proposed. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Employment. Commuter rail would facilitate infill and re-development in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont; accommodating economic growth within the center of these communities. An increase in jobs and commercial activity around commuter rail stations would be expected, especially in communities with plans for TOD. Construction would generate 2,750 temporary jobs over the construction period. The commuter rail would also generate long-term employment for rail operators, security officers, and at the commuter rail maintenance facility. Approximately 90 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. • Economic Conditions 3.3-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of-way acquisition. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of nine businesses. Five of these would occur in Longmont, three would occur in Berthoud, and one in Weld County. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the existing right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a loss in the tax base and tax revenues for the respective county. The loss in tax base and tax revenues reported for Package A is based on past years property tax values. Therefore, in order to provide a comparative measure for the loss of tax base and revenues associated with the Preferred Alternative a comparison of the acreage of right-of-way required against Package A was used. The amount of acreage acquired for right-of-way under the highway improvements for the Preferred Alternative is 38 percent less than right-of-way acquisition for the commuter rail improvements as described under Package A. Using that percentage to calculate the figures for the Preferred Alternative commuter rail component show that it would result in a loss of approximately $1,304,604 from the tax base and $39,010 from tax revenues. It should be noted that property values are not static and will likely be completely different at the time of acquisition. The assessment will be updated at that time. However, it is expected that the changes would be relatively similar for both alternatives. • Loss of this tax base and revenues would likely be offset by the benefits of public transportation. TOD expands business revenues, leading to new jobs and higher wages and salaries, thus increasing the tax base and revenues flowing to local and state governments. Typically, state and local governments realize a 4 percent to 16 percent gain in revenues as a result of increases in business profits and personal income generated by public transportation (Cambridge Systematics, 1999). Implementation of TOD often requires financial incentives on the part of the local jurisdiction, so these programs can have an initial negative impact on the jurisdiction's budget. However, studies show that, nationwide, residential and commercial property values rise with proximity to rail transportation systems and stations (Porter, 1997). The increase in value is highest for those properties located between 0.25 and 1 mile from a station. For residential properties along segments between stations, property values may decline. For every dollar earned, the average U.S. household spends 18 cents on transportation, 98 percent of which goes towards buying, maintaining, and operating vehicles, the largest expense after home mortgages (McCann, 2000). Public transportation can save these households thousands of dollars each year in transportation expenditures. Access. Commuter rail would increase access to established businesses and major employment centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Broomfield, and Denver), resulting in an increase in economic activity and expanding opportunities for employment. Development around stations would strengthen existing businesses and attract new businesses. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would create some delay for business patrons and employees traveling across the BNSF railroad. Because commuter rail would operate primarily • in an existing rail corridor, access to businesses would not otherwise be changed. Economic Conditions 3.3-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Many industries along the existing rail line depend upon the consistent operation of freight trains. Express Bus (Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/DIA) Employment. Construction would generate 500 temporary jobs over the construction period. Express bus would also generate long-term employment for bus drivers, security officers, and at the bus maintenance facility. Approximately 85 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility, as described under the commuter bus component above. No businesses would be displaced by the express bus component. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The construction of the express bus component would require a very small amount of land not within the right-of-way. Because this property is directly adjacent to and in conjunction with the right-of-way requirements for the 1-25 highway improvements it has been included in the calculations for that component. Access. Express bus would increase access to established businesses and employment centers, expanding opportunities for employment. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. This would primarily affect businesses near the express bus stations. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. • US 85 Commuter Bus (Greeley to Denver) Employment. Employment in the US 85 corridor is expected to increase. This growth would occur with or without commuter bus service. Construction would generate 100 temporary jobs over the construction period. Commuter bus would also generate long-term employment for bus drivers, security officers, and at the commuter bus maintenance facility. Approximately 85 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. Construction of the bus stations and maintenance facilities would require the relocation of four businesses including two in Greeley, one in Platteville, and one in Ft. Lupton. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in similar impacts to the tax base and tax revenues as described under Package A components A-T3 and A-T4. Commercial activity may increase around commuter bus stations. However, bus stations are less likely to attract T0D and economic growth than commuter rail stations. Access. Commuter bus would increase access to established businesses and community centers, resulting in an increase in economic activity and expanding opportunities for employment. • Economic Conditions 3.3-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. This would primarily affect businesses near bus stations. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Summary of Key Impacts for the Preferred Alternative Adverse impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Relocation of 23 businesses ► Based on the difference in amounts of right-of-way acquired under the alternatives the loss in tax base and tax revenues would be approximately 17 percent less than that described for Package A but approximately one percent more than that described under Package B ► Temporary construction-related detours, delays, and out-of-direction travel ► Temporary impacts to existing freight operations during construction Beneficial impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a result of TOD ► Some access revisions; transit would improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunities ► Creation of 11,400 temporary jobs over the construction period; permanent employment • created by transit operation and maintenance 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Acquisition or relocation of property as a result of this project will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and other applicable relocation assistance programs. New access will be provided for properties where existing accesses are removed. Although some businesses may have changes in access due to the project, CDOT will work to insure that some form of access is provided to all businesses. To avoid disruption of business activities during construction, the new access will be provided before the existing access is removed. A traffic control plan will be developed to minimize interference to traffic flow from construction equipment and activities. CDOT will provide advance notice to emergency service providers, local businesses, rail operators, and residents with regard to road delays, access, and special construction activities. Such notifications will be accomplished through radio and public announcements, newspaper notices, on-site signage, and CDOT's website. To minimize disruption to traffic and local businesses, construction activities will be staged and work hours varied. Throughout the construction stage, access will be preserved for each affected business. • Where feasible, retaining walls will be constructed along 1-25 and the BNSF to minimize impacts to commercial development. Economic Conditions 3.3-15 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Economic Conditions 3.3.16 • NORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.4 Right-of-Way • . • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY This section discusses right-of-way requirements and displacements of What's in Section 3.4? residences and businesses that may occur under each of the build packages. These 3.4 Right-of-Way 3.4.1 Affected Environment right-of-way requirements and displacements are preliminary and are 3.4.2 Environmental Right-of-Way ConsequencesImpacts 3.4.2.1 Impt subject to revision during final design and 3.4.2.2 Property Impacts and right-of-way acquisition. Displacements 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.4.3.1 Acquisition 3.4.3.2 Relocation The regional study area extends from Wellington, north of Fort Collins, along the 1-25 corridor to the Denver Metro Area, and from US 287 on the west to US 85 to the east. Generally, improvements are proposed to occur along 1-25, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way and US 85. There is also an area of new right-of-way or right-of-way owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) proposed for the Longmont-North Metro connection. Table 3.4-1 provides existing 1-25 mainline right-of-way widths in the project area. This includes paved surface and CDOT-owned land beyond the pavement along the 1-25 mainline. • Right-of-way widths are narrowest at the southern and northern ends of the corridor and widest from SH 7 to SH 66. The widths expand considerably at existing interchanges, as shown in Table 3.4-2. Table 3.4-1 I-25 Existing Right-of-Way Widths in the Project Area Average Right-of-Way Width Segment (feet) SH 1 to SH 14 350 SH 14 to SH 68 250 SH 68 to SH 392 255 SH 392 to US 34 285 US 34 to SH 402 315 SH 402 to SH 60 325 SH 60 to SH 56 300 SH 56 to SH 66 300 SH 66 to SH 119 445 SH 119 to SH 52 510 SH52toSH7 415 SH 7 to E-470 210 E-470 to SH 128 200 SH 128 to US 36 225 • Source:CDOT right-of-way plans,parcel data from Weld,Adams, and Larimer counties Right-of-Way 3.4-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.4-2 I-25 Existing Interchange Widths in the Project Area Location Average Interchange Width (feet) SH 1 850 SH 14 1,750 LCR 50 1,300 Prospect Road 1,500 SH 68 1,875 LCR 36 750 SH 392 1,125 Crossroads Boulevard 1,150 US 34 1,675 SH 402 875 SH 60 600 SH 56 800 WCR 38 800 WCR 34 1,125 SH 66 800 SH 119 1,125 SH 52 1,650 WCR 8 1,300 SH 7 1,000 • E-470 1,125 136th Avenue 1,125 120th Avenue 925 104th Avenue 650 Thornton Parkway 725 84th Avenue 825 US 36 1,625 Source:CDOT right-of-way plans,parcel data from Weld,Adams,and Larimer counties Table 3.4-3 shows the existing BNSF rail corridor width parallel to US 287. This includes the railroad bed and railroad-owned land beyond the bed. Table 3.4-3 Existing BNSF Rail Corridor Widths Parallel to US 287 Segment Average Rail Corridor Width (feet) SH 14 to SH 68 100 SH68toUS34 105 US 34 to SH 402 125 SH 402 to SH 60 135 SH 60 to SH 56 100 SH 56 to SH 66 115 SH 66 to SH 119 80 • Source:Parcel data from Weld,Adams, and Larimer counties Right-of-Way 3.4-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The BNSF rail corridor shares right-of-way with streets in some locations. Table 3.4-4 shows the existing UPRR rail corridor width in the project area. Table 3.4-4 Existing UPRR Right-of-Way Widths for Commuter Rail Alignment at Connection to North Metro Line Location Average Rail Corridor Widths (feet) WCR 10 130 East of 1-25, north of WCR 8 100 WCR 11, south of WCR 8 90 East of 1-25, north of WCR 6 215 Source:Parcel data from Weld,Adams, and Larimer counties As described in Chapter 2 Alternatives, numerous facilities such as stations and maintenance facilities for the various transit service types are included in the build packages. The right-of- way acreage and displacement impacts for these facilities are summarized in Section 3.4.2. Property acquisition along the US 85 corridor would generally be limited to commuter bus stations and a maintenance facility. Commuter bus queue jumps would be located at various signalized intersections along US 85 and US 34. The proposed design of the queue jumps • would not require acquisition of additional right-of-way. 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences The implementation of any of the build alternatives would require acquisition of property for additional right-of-way and the displacement of some occupants. This section summarizes the impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative and each of the build packages. Impacts are summarized in two categories: ► Right-of-Way Impacts. Right-of-way impacts describe the total amount of physical land (in acreage)that would be required as additional right-of-way for each build package. Right-of- way needs are identified by build package component. ► Property Impacts and Displacements. Impacted properties include those properties where a build package would result in a partial or total acquisition of the property or modify access to the property. Access modifications include changing the locations of existing access to certain streets and providing new access from different streets. Displacements occur where the impacts are substantial. Displaced occupants are eligible for relocation benefits. Property impacts and displacements are identified by build package component. All agricultural, residential, industrial, and commercial land uses and ownership information are reported using 2006 data and do not consider future development or ownership changes that might occur prior to right-of-way acquisition for the proposed action. • Right-of-Way 3.4-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.4.2.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would not include major changes from the existing conditions, and so would not require acquisition of property or any relocations. However, safety and maintenance improvements would need to be constructed if no build alternative was constructed. No-Action Alternative improvements include bridge and pavement replacement or rehabilitation and minor safety modifications within existing right-of-way. Package A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and bus service. Table 3.4-5 summarizes the additional amount of right-of-way needed for Package A highway and transit components. Table 3.4-5 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package A Package A: General Purpose Lanes + Commuter Rail and Bus Component I ROW(acres)* Package A Highway Components A-H1 - Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 81 A-H2-General Purpose Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 406 A-H3-General Purpose Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 231 A-H4-Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 1 • Total Package A Highway 719 Package A Transit Components A-T1 - Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 165 A-T2-Commuter Rail: Longmont to North Metro 166 A-T3-Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 18 A-T4-Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA 0 Total Package A Transit 349 Total ROW for Package A 1,068 * Includes partial acquisitions and displacements. Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives Package B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Table 3.4-6 summarizes the additional amount of right-of-way needed for Package B highway and transit components. • Right-of-Way 3.4-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.4-6 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package B Package B: Tolled Express Lanes + Bus Rapid Transit Component J ROW(acres)* Package B Highway Components B-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 81 B-H2—Add Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 465 B-H3—Add Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 236 B-H4—Add Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 51 Total Package B Highway 833 Package B Transit Components B-T1 - BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver 80 B-T2- BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 0 Total Package B Transit 80 Total ROW for Package B 913 * Includes partial acquisitions and displacements. Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes • on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and bus service. Table 34-7 summarizes the additional amount of right-of-way needed for Preferred Alternative highway and transit components. Table 3.4-7 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative: General Purpose Lanes + Commuter Rail and Bus Preferred Alternative Highway Improvements ROW (acres)* SH1toSH14 68 SH 14 to SH 60 351 SH 60 to E-470 173 E-470 to US 36 43 Total Preferred Alternative Highway 635 Preferred Alternative Transit Improvements ROW(acres)* Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 77 Commuter Rail: Longmont to North Metro 129 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 14 Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA 0 1-25 Express Bus: Fort Collins to Denver 34 Total Preferred Alternative Transit 254 Total ROW for Preferred Alternative 889 * Includes partial acquisitions and displacements. Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives • Right-of-Way 3.4-5 Final EN NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Comparison of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative Right-of-Way Impacts Table 3.4-5, Table 3.4-6, and Table 3.4-7 summarize the approximate amounts of right-of-way that would need to be acquired for Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. As these tables show, Package A would require the greatest amount of right-of-way acquisition, approximately 155 acres more than Package B and 179 acres more than the Preferred Alternative. This difference is in part attributed to the inclusion of the commuter rail component in Package A. 3.4.2.2 PROPERTY IMPACTS AND DISPLACEMENTS No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would not require acquisition of property nor relocations (see Section 3.4.2.1). Package A Table 3.4-8 summarizes Package A property displacement information by highway and transit components, including the number of business and residential property relocations involved and impacted acreage. Figure 3.4-1 displays Package A business and residential property displacement totals graphically by component. Where access to business and residential properties must be modified, reasonable access will be provided. Access modifications will be confirmed during final design. • The impacted acreage in Table 3.4-8 is for property displacements only. The right-of-way acreage in Tables 3.4-5, 3.4-6, and 3.4-7 are for all property impacts, including displacements and partial takes. Table 3.4-8 Property Displacements for Package A Package A: General Purpose Lanes+ Commuter Rail and Bus Component Business Residential Relocations Relocations Package A Highway Components A-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 0 4 A-H2- General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 11 14 A-H3-General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 1 5 A-H4- Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 0 0 Total Package A Highway 12 23 Package A Transit Components A-T1 -Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 15 18 A-T2- Commuter Rail: Longmont to North Metro 1 17 A-T3-Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 5 1 A-T4- Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA 0 0 Total Package A Transit 21 36 Total for Package A 33 59 • Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives Right-of-Way 3.46 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Residential Displacements. Figure 3.4-1 shows the general location of Package A property displacements by highway and transit components, including residential displacements. As the figure shows, residential displacements in the A-H1 highway component are irregularly located along the corridor in Weld County. Residential displacements in the A-H2 highway component are located in Larimer and Weld counties along the 1-25 corridor from US 34 south to CR 16. Residential displacements in the A-H3 highway component are along 1-25 at locations in the Johnstown area. As Figure 3.4-1 shows, residential displacements in the A-T1 transit component are concentrated adjacent to the existing BNSF right-of-way in the City of Longmont. These homes were constructed in the early 1900s to mid-1970s. A concentration of displacements is found along SH 7 in the A-T2 transit component in rural Boulder County, and along CR 7 between SH 119 and SH 52. The one residential displacement in the A-T3 transit component is along US 85 in Evans. Business Displacements. Figure 3.4-1 shows the general location of Package A property displacements by highway and transit component, including business displacements. Business displacements in the A-H2 highway component are located through Larimer County along the 1-25 corridor. The one business displacement in the A-H3 highway component is at the l-25/WCR 34 interchange. • • Right-of-Way 3.4-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.4-1 Package A Displacements 7 LEGEND 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area L..J Regional Study Area wr inm«� maA-T1 - Commuter Rail 85 Businesses - 0 i ( _ ___—____ NM A-T2 - Commuter Rail / Pr. Residences - 4 .\ amA-H1 - Safety Improvements ,a :41\ A-H2 - General Purpose Lanes i Fort Coliln:; ' I g an A-H3 - General Purpose Lanes 1 - 14 4� 'Alit, IS A-T3 /A-T4 Commuter Bus I 1 /I/ Highways D /\/ Arterial Roads i L. ' t2tI 4p City Boundaries 1a ;� .user» . 392 r_17 County Boundaries Businesses - 11 �' - Residences - 14 Greeloy Q '� - 263 34 i _ I I'L' � -I. 34 . � / i 60 `a /t 56 Q 85, i I / tarrma, Businesses - 15 I I ," _ _county Residences - 18 IIII — ---- Bouldc+ •-- - -!---- - .. i County I I , a / Businesses - 5 it; Residences - 1 i 66 1 rn -1 ' Businesses - 1 Residences - 5 rt 1 Businesses - 1 Residences - 17 . ' 1 a 1... i u I a n 3 J u a I i • 0 gyp,, O , 52 ." I I� I• I at_ I - t i o 1 0 art !� 1 �V:,t;a,le•n Weld E33'n I`fie, -------- h ki Ye t 1. ..e ti. WWI' : .I_ _ Adams county _ &ir_,htac 7 \ { -- Boulder l,--' county N. l ?!G.mf pl:r a t Jefferson `�Th- ��, t / County 93 �'. 136 •,, eh t r+` / 1-- jr"--t_\ 287 Q 1_r\Lmonguir f•— ! . -Ng! •,, N 41.4 f '' I ., \.� �, Adams 1 1� - LJ- 'ti \ / r r county ] iJ t Th I re 1 t_� Denver I ' _ Denver- �j ,twee --r_J le n i ® - 0 2 4 6 8 10 ® 4 1-A // t —�. I I i Miles North ----'' l , \ 0 Right-of-Way 3.4-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Package B Table 3.4-9 summarizes Package B property displacement information by highway and transit components, including the number of business and residential property relocations involved and impacted acreage. Figure 3.4-2 displays Package B business and residential property displacement totals graphically for each highway component. Table 3.4-9 Property Displacements for Package B Package B: Tolled Express Lanes+ Bus Rapid Transit Component Business I Residential Relocations I Relocations Package B Highway Components B-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 0 4 B-H2-Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 13 15 B-H3- Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 2 5 B-H4 - Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 0 0 Total Package B Highway 15 24 Package B Transit Components B-T1 - BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to 120th 1 0 B-T2 - BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 0 0 Total Package B Transit 1 0 • Total for Package B 16 24 Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives Table 3.4-9 and Figure 3.4-2 summarize Package B property displacements. Right-of-way displacement needs for B-H2 and B-H3 tolled express lanes would be similar to those needed for A-H2 and A-H3 general purpose lanes. • Right-of-Way 3.4-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.4-2 Package B Displacements LEGENDks ( I o Cities & Towns in Project Area I ._"� r1 � Regional Study Area e- t.. 9 �� w.anreco. -•.,‘ B-H1 - Safety Improvements and , ��•� 85 B-H2 - Tolled Express Lanes and ,,..<" /e. Businesses - o ♦,\, ��' Residences -4 -\ /i B-T1 - Bus Rapid Transit S r• B �,:e°ti F g ISM B-H3 - Tolled Express Lanes and I ; I .2. ' 1\ B-T1 - Bus Rapid Transit I `' \—IF B-H4 - Tolled Express Lanes and f -} 257 i 1 B-T1 - Bus Rapid Transit i "/ Highways i j /� Arterial Roads l 28r �/\./ 1#1 ' WinA;a "� I Lucerne 492 City Boundaries I f Businesses - 13 a:-I Residences - 15 Greeley ,._j- County Boundaries 263 i 4-1rer`I 1 N� �.. I 34 . i j a r % i -F 1 tha ' 60 t851 • t�.t I a nn'I'Ik j L , i O 85 adios. i i/. / / way cm , ,, n '66 I. V � rterille 66 I Longmont Businesses - 2 I Residences - 5 Vollmar O / 6 ` g t Freston H, ,r 7 = a ? 16 J Frederick J (;rxtxn rat Lupton t * , 0 R:nlaarrel , I , _ , , i v L Wattenberg d .Boulder . ___ __rJ J--- ____ Ca , )(.-) J ,..,I I Ads !• 7 W \` ! ; , % N. i•.5rtrria' . . • —1 Ptah ii„ • -s s _ __ I Cant' 115`,• r.. `( - Businesses - o __� 1 ' 3 �� 36 r' 1 `N`Ydi'."„—^— Residences - 0 I r I \ 287 0 / � ,_J' `r ,;vnta, ,: I I r I , \ . I — J `t L„_ \ ! Adams I f r—' k � \----'--- j j — cedoh _ 1.I 1 Denver f 70L's Coe ,Z_ 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 /1 `. I I ' I I I Miles North ''—'�� .. -.I -N. I 4 / \ J41 i 1111 Right-of-Way 3.4-10 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Preferred Alternative Table 3.4-10 summarizes Preferred Alternative property displacement information by highway and transit components, including the number of business and residential property relocations involved and impacted acreage. Figure 3.4-3 displays Preferred Alternative business and residential displacement totals graphically for each highway component. Table 3.4-10 Property Displacements for Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative: General Purpose Lanes + Commuter Rail and Bus Improvements Business Residential Relocations Relocations Preferred Alternative Highway Improvements SH1toSH14 0 3 SH14toSH60 9 15 SH 60 to E-470 1 2 E-470 to US 36 0 0 Total Preferred Alternative Highway 10 20 Preferred Alternative Transit Improvements Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 8 14 Commuter Rail: Longmont to North Metro 1 17 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 4 0 Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA 0 0 • Total Preferred Alternative Transit 13 31 Total for Preferred Alternative 23 51 Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives Residential Displacements. Figure 3.4-3 shows the general location of the Preferred Alternative property displacements by highway and transit improvements, including residential displacements. As the figure shows, residential displacements along the SH 1 to SH 14 highway improvements are irregularly located along the corridor in Weld County. Residential displacements through the SH 14 to SH 60 highway improvements are located in Larimer and Weld counties, scattered irregularly along the 1-25 corridor. No Residential displacements are located in the SH 60 to E-470 or the E-470 to US 36 highway improvement areas in the Preferred Alternative. As Figure 3.4-3 shows, residential displacements along the Fort Collins to Longmont commuter rail improvements are concentrated adjacent to the existing BNSF right-of-way in the City of Longmont. These homes were constructed in the early 1900s to mid-1970s. A concentration of displacements is found along SH 7 through the Longmont to North Metro commuter rail improvements in rural Boulder County, and along CR 7 between SH 119 and SH 52. No residential relocations are located through the US 85 Greeley to Denver improvements. Business Displacements. Figure 3.4-3 shows the general location of the Preferred Alternative property displacements by highway and transit improvement, including business • displacements. Business displacements in the SH 14 to SH 60 highway improvements are located through Larimer County along the 1-25 corridor. The one business displacement through the SH 60 to E-470 highway improvements is located at the l-25/WCR 34 interchange. Right-of-Way 3.4-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.4-3 Preferred Alternative Displacements LEGEND I I v Cities & Towns in Project Area (4-1.1 Regional Study Area Commuter Rail - Fort Collins to Longmont j , i'� Wallington �`' , r i �� 85j INN Commuter Rail - Longmont to North Metro 87 ----- ' i' .r -i ;Businesses - 0 I �� SH 1 - SH 14 Highway Improvements \� Residences - 3 SH 14 - SH 60 Highway Im rov 1 II U ,,,rr�• 9 Y P ments I I 1 Fi I - SS SH 60 - E-470 Highway Improvments i 'o�" .,. , �� ISO US 85 Commuter Bus Improvements i _ ar;' t " ' /\/ Highways i 2 /\/ Arterial Roads 0 • City Boundaries j t I 287 1;f I County Boundaries w'� ° i:.:1,:., I. 392 • ; Businesses - 9 Residences - 15 Greeley 263 i 34 i ..� i i Loveland ° '� ' t'+ 134 I :n.- ;/ - m,irur i T� ldmstrnvn / j "-60�-A► 85 / ' Env _Fic....,Li a ,;, atiMer Businesses - 8 t --- unI' Residences - 14_-__j—_.1III Bonhler 1 r ` H , County.,- I ,/ ' r , c- / Businesses -4 I Residences - 0 i 66 ,��' l cn yniu ,' Businesses - 1 i Residences - 2 Businesses - 1 Residences - 17 ,! Pr ` "'o` o ; a c -.5 `� 'Irestone I i 1 ! s • NI 287 O •r�dHiC+ nmb, re I at Ulf' et. _ i l on° I 2 ` 119 i ar a Weld I Boulder ACttarrr_ coon — — —I Irmo__ h; —_-- --- —Q .at4sttt NWI ..-_ .__ Adams �dsne I 7 County N. sulk, <r . / -- — Boulder / -'� i • ! J \ / -- — -- ----- draarr•ield' IJefferson �„� , _, �- Cenury 93 --1+'� / 1 "--I I \ 36 287 ; r a ! I ,-f / l I • 72 f, r-• t. �, /- Adams I t f--r� L\ �\,, % 11 - County , (- , , ....his-- - 1 ,9 our; 1. Denver.-- Iv.- Ce n� VII ./ 0 2 4 6 8 10 �! --�r ' ' ' ' I Miles North _t' J.....,. I. 11 Right-of-Way 3.4-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Comparison of Package A, Package B, and Preferred Alternative Displacement Impacts Table 3.4-8, Table 3.4-9, and Table 3.4-10 summarize the number of business and residential property displacements associated with Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Of the three packages, Package A would require more business and residential relocations than Package B and the Preferred Alternative. This is due in large part to the inclusion of double-track commuter rail in Package A. Availability of Replacement Residential and Commercial Properties Market data for replacement properties was collected from a variety of sources including commercial real estate firms, residential multi-listing services, and city and county websites. The data and subsequent analysis indicates a sufficient number of comparable replacement homes and business sites at similar values and in the same general areas are available at this time to accommodate relocatees. Regarding potential future conditions, residential building permits remain steady and market emphasis on affordable housing remains high. Prior to relocation, a relocation analysis will be prepared that will enable the relocation activities to be planned so that the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and nonprofit organizations are recognized, and solutions are developed to minimize the adverse impacts of displacement. The scope of planning will be based on the complexity and nature of the anticipated displacing activity, including the evaluation of program resources available to carry out timely and orderly relocations. The relocation study will include • the following: ► A current estimate of the number of households to be displaced, including information such as owner/tenant status, estimated value and rental rates of property to be acquired, family characteristics, and special consideration of impacts on minorities, the elderly, large families, and the handicapped, when applicable. ► An estimate of the number of comparable replacement dwellings in the area (including price ranges and rental rates)that are expected to be available to fulfill the needs of displaced households. When an adequate supply of properties for displacees to be relocated into is NOT available, CDOT must take actions or make assurances to address the inadequate supply before it can start any relocation activities. ► An estimate of the number, type, and size of businesses and nonprofit organizations to be displaced and the approximate number of employees that may be affected. ► Consideration of any special advisory services that may be necessary from CDOT or any other implementing agency. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3.4.3.1 ACQUISITION For any person(s)whose real property interests may be impacted by this project, the acquisition of those property interests will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended(Uniform Act). The Uniform Act is a federally mandated program that applies to all acquisitions of real property or • displacements of persons resulting from Federal or federally assisted programs or projects. It was created to provide for and insure the fair and equitable treatment of all such persons. To further ensure that the provisions contained within this act are applied "uniformly," CDOT Right-of-Way 3.4-13 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • requires Uniform Act compliance on any project for which it has oversight responsibility regardless of the funding source. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property may not be taken for a public use without payment of"just compensation."All impacted owners will be provided notification of the acquiring agency's intent to acquire an interest in their property including a written offer letter of just compensation specifically describing those property interests. A Right-of-Way Specialist will be assigned to each property owner to assist them with this process. 3.4.3.2 RELOCATION In certain situations, it may also be necessary to acquire improvements that are located within a proposed acquisition parcel. In those instances where the improvements are occupied, it becomes necessary to "relocate" those individuals from the subject property (residential or business) to a replacement site. The Uniform Act provides for numerous benefits to these individuals to assist them both financially and with advisory services related to relocating their residence or business operation. Although the benefits available under the Uniform Act are far too numerous and complex to discuss in detail in this document, they are available to both owner occupants and tenants of either residential or business properties. In some situations, only personal property must be moved from the real property and this is also covered under the relocation program. As soon as feasible, any person scheduled to be displaced shall be furnished with a general written description of the displacing Agency's relocation program which provides at a minimum, detailed information related to eligibility requirements, advisory services and assistance, payments, and the appeal process. It shall also provide notification that the displaced person(s) will not be required to move without at least 90 days advance • written notice. For residential relocatees, this notice cannot be provided until a written offer to acquire the subject property has been presented, and at least one comparable replacement dwelling has been made available. Relocation benefits will be provided to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Benefits under the Act, to which each eligible owner or tenant may be entitled, will be determined on an individual basis and explained to them in detail by an assigned Right-of-Way Specialist. • Right-of•Way 3.4-14 • N of m I-25 PIN EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.5 Air Quality • • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.5 AIR QUALITY In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) What's in Section 3.5? requires all states to submit a State 3.5 Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) to address all 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework areas that do not comply with the National 3.5.2 Affected Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 3.5.2.1 Meteorology A SIP contains the set of actions or control 3.5.2.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results 3.5.2.3 Fugitive Dust measures that the state plans to implement 3.5.2.4 Class I Federal Areas and to meet NAAQS. Non-attainment areas Nitrogen Deposition contain one or more pollutants levels that 3.5.2.5 Transportation Conformity are in violation of NAAQS. 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3.5.3.1 Corridor Analysis Attainment/maintenance areas are those 3.5.3.2 Attainment/Maintenance Area areas where the NAAQS have been Analysis 3.5.3.3 Project-Level CO Analysis achieved and a long-term maintenance plan 3.5.3.4 Project-Level PM10 Analysis has been approved by EPA. 3.5.3.5 Project-Level MSAT Analysis 3.5.3.6 Localized Effects of 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework Commuter Rail and BRT Air quality standards establish the St 3.5.3.7 tiocs Indirect Effects concentration above which a pollutant is 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures • known to cause adverse health effects to sensitive groups in the population, such as children and the elderly. The amount of pollutants released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and disperse the pollutants affect a given pollutant's concentration in the atmosphere. Factors affecting transport and dispersion include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and, for photochemical pollutants, sunlight. The Front Range's air quality can largely be attributed to emissions, topography, and meteorology. The CAA as amended led EPA to establish NAAQS for each of six criteria pollutants to protect the public from the health hazards associated with air pollution. The six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. NAAQS for these criteria pollutants were established based on known human health effects and measurable, health-related threshold values. Carbon monoxide is a gas produced when carbon contained in fuel is not completely burned. Sources include motor-vehicle exhaust, industrial processes, or forest fires. CO affects the central nervous system by depriving the body of oxygen and mostly affects people with respiratory, cardiovascular, or blood anemia sensitivities. Lead is a metal that is typically ingested and accumulates in blood, bones, and soft tissues. It can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. With the near elimination of lead as an additive in gasoline, the non-industrial emissions of lead have been reduced significantly. Nitrogen dioxide is a gas that can be an irritant to the eyes and throat. Oxides of nitrogen • (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) are formed when the nitrogen and oxygen in the air are combined in high-temperature combustion, such as at power plants and in motor vehicle engines. Air Quality 3.5-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Ground-level ozone is a gas that is not emitted directly from a source, as are other pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant. Its precursors are certain reactive hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which react chemically in sunlight to form ozone. The main sources for these reactive hydrocarbons are automobile exhaust, gasoline, oil storage and transfer facilities, industrial paint and ink solvents, degreasing agents, and cleaning fluids. Exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of health effects, including significant decreases in lung function, inflammation of the airways, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep breath. Particle pollution (particulate matter) is a mixture of suspended microscopic solids and liquid droplets made up of various components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, dust particles, and pollen or mold spores. The size of a particle is directly linked to its potential for causing health problems. Small particles, that is, those less than 10 micrometers (PM10) in diameter, pose the greatest problems because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both the lungs and heart. Particles larger than 10 micrometers (PM10) act as an irritant to the eyes and throat. Fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers is called PM2.5. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, particularly diesel exhaust, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes. Because these smaller particles penetrate deeper into the respiratory system, they have a strong association with circulatory (heart disease and strokes) disease and mortality. Sulfur dioxides are formed when fuels containing sulfur(mainly coal and oil) are burned at • power plants or for other industrial processes. Fuel combustion, largely from electricity generation, accounts for most of the total sulfur dioxide emissions. High concentrations of sulfur dioxide can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. The NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3.5-1. • Air Quality 3.5-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant/Averaging Time Primary Standard* Secondary Standard* Carbon monoxide(CO) 8-hour' 9.0 ppm** 1-hour' 35 ppm -- Lead (Pb) Rolling 3-Month Average 0.15 pg/m3 0.15 pg/m3 Calendar quarter2 1.5 pg/m3 1.5 pg/m3 Nitrogen dioxide(NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 53 ppb 53 ppb 1-hour 100 ppb 100 ppb Ozone(O3) 1-hour3 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 8-hour° 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm Particulate matter less than 10 microns(PMto) Annuals Revoked Revoked 24-hours 150 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Annual' 15 pg/m3 15 pg/m3 24-hours 35 pg/m3 35 pg/m3 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) • Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm -- 24-hour' 0.14 ppm -- 1-hour 75 ppb -- 3-hour' -- 0.5 ppm • Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of"sensitive"populations such as asthmatics,children,and the elderly.Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment,damage to animals,crops,vegetation, and buildings. **Due to mathematical rounding,a measured value of 9.5 ppm or greater is necessary to exceed the standard. pg/m3... micrograms per cubic meter ppm parts per million ppb parts per billion Not to be exceeded more than once per year 2 This level may not be exceeded in any quarter of a year. 3 The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on April 15,2009 for the Denver metro area and the north Front Range. o The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.075 ppm is< 1;To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. 5 Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution,the EPA revoked the annual PMto standard in 2006,effective December 17, 2006. 6 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15 pg/m3. • To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each • population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 pg/m3, effective December 17,2006. Source:EPA Air Quality 3.5-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE-APCD) monitors concentrations of these pollutants. Geographic areas that violate a particular NAAQS are considered "non-attainment" areas for that pollutant. Violations are determined by a prescribed number of exceedances of the particular standard over a specific interval of time. 3.5.2 Affected Environment The North 1-25 regional study area includes the cities of Boulder, Brighton, Broomfield, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Northglenn, Thornton, and northern Denver, plus numerous other small towns. The core of the regional study area is experiencing urban growth resulting in increased conversion of farmland and open ranchlands to residential development and urbanization. Ozone is formed as a by-product of combining the precursor pollutants of oxides of nitrogen (NO,) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with sunlight. Air quality modeling has established emission levels for the 2005 base year and 2010 attainment year. Effective November 20, 2007, the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the North Front Range as a non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3). In March 2008, EPA lowered (strengthened) the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality data for the years 2005 to 2007 were collected from monitoring stations. In July 2007, there were exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard recorded which violated the NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. Therefore, EPA designated this area as a non-attainment area. • Weld County contains over 10,000 active oil and gas wells and production facilities. Revisions to Colorado AQCC Regulation No. 7 provide more stringent emissions controls for these facilities that produce flash hydrocarbon and VOC emissions. Agricultural sources, such as fertilizers, animals, and off-road mobile sources, are also important sources of ozone precursor emissions in Weld County Four areas in the regional study area are in CO attainment/maintenance: Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont. Denver is also in attainment/maintenance for particulate matter under 10 micrometers in size (PMto). In 2004, EPA determined particulate matter under 2.5 micrometers in size (PM25)within the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range area had met the 1997 air quality standards; therefore, designating the Denver metro area and north Front Range as an attainment area. In 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3)to 35 pg/m3. Due to the lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollutions, the EPA revoked the annual PMto standard in 2006. Modeling of PM2.5 emissions was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are designated as attainment areas. Precursors of PM25 include NO, and VOC which were modeled for this project. Figure 3.5-1 shows the location of the Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont criteria pollutant non-attainment and attainment/maintenance areas. • Air Quality 3.5.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. All other criteria pollutants in the Denver Metro area and North Front Range are in attainment and not considered pollutants of concern. In addition, the portions of the regional study area located outside of the Denver Metro area and North Front Range are designated as attainment areas for all criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutants in attainment areas are not considered pollutants of concern. 3.5.2.1 METEOROLOGY Regionally, weather systems emanate from the west across the Front Range to the plains. Winds are generally strong when associated with a low-pressure system or temperature front. These turbulent weather conditions help disperse atmospheric pollutants. Atmospheric inversions are common in the Front Range where geomorphic basin landforms are configured to allow cold mountain air to override warm basin-filling air, forming a "ceiling" to atmospheric mixing. The air trapped in the "inversion" layer remains stagnant, concentrating pollutants, and leading to poor air quality conditions, particularly in winter. Wind direction data from monitoring sites west of 1-25 along the foothills demonstrate westerly and northwesterly prevailing winds. Wind distributions from farther east along the 1-25 corridor show more widely distributed wind patterns, but include a strong bi-directional north and south wind preference. Denver area sites located in the Platte River valley have wind patterns favoring the elongated southwest-northeast axis of the valley. • The dry, windy climate of the 1-25 corridor from north Denver to the Wyoming border is prone to blowing soil particles disturbed by grazing, farming, or construction. The area averages 10 to 19 inches of precipitation per year, and 48 to 83 inches of snowfall annually. Temperatures average 32°F and 73°F for January and July, respectively. • Air Quality 3.5-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.5-1 Non-Attainment and Attainment/Maintenance Areas I LEGEND \II t Alternative Corridors / / Highways �� "kiorttrnn '� , N/ Arterial Roads �• 85 L. J Regional Study Area I______Lk., ;/ , �'N City Boundaries j - t 41 • Q Cities & Towns Fort Collins Ozone Non-Attainment Area J '„!!i; \ 14 CO Attainment/Maintenance Areas ( I 257 1 \ iiiri Rocky Mountain National Park I o sPveanC¢ Hr. , 1 // PM to Attainment/Maintenance Area 1 II i 2875 — • 1Wu'xiscv — \, 392 1 Greeley 1 - - I ; 34 N. i lovelafH e.iile!,oty I 34 s.! ; Camp.tx ow Johnstn ' ITT! a 44. �. L' j Berthoud •.... 0 Milliken 85 1 Gileresi , m i ll ' d , meat( Ill �• ) til f// Platteiohe i • •% i • I i 0 Longmont I i. • I i/je lure en n 0 / O- j 52 /fed / 1 � Iss� !nc' f,xt Lupbm �i i e �� 0 1 ../. 4. -�� i 76 • waltent,,i 1 Boulder �' i _ _ 1 �fr.� r ► +tafavrNW /��'� enie dr / ; • ; ' Loutsvdle/ ►'lJI,eI ariyhtun �' 7 E 47O -'%.*s....s.. <Prifr. 2/ ft . .• reit or /A. 4\ 013 it � 4 1 rA / /, 72 70 _7N , , . , . / 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 I VI," t i _____ l__1 Miles North tr flr - / - )/) f • Ill Air Quality 3.5-6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.5.2.2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS Based on 2009 and 2010 data, there are 19 active air quality monitoring stations located in the regional study area. Monitoring station locations and monitored mobile source related criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 3.5-2. CO, NO., ozone, PM10, PM2.5,total suspended particulate matter less than approximately 40 microns in diameter (TSP), lead, and sulfur dioxide are monitored in the general area. Lead and sulfur dioxide are generally considered to be industrial pollutants and are not included in Table 3.5-2. Table 3.5-2 2009-2010 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Stations Monitoring Stations Criteria Pollutants County Site Name Location CO NO, O3 PM1 PM2,s TSP Adams Commerce City 7101 Birch St. X X Welby 78th Ave. &Steele St. X X X X Boulder 2440 Pearl St. X X Boulder 2102 Athens St. X Boulder 1405 '/z S. Foothills Hwy X Boulder Longmont 350 Kimbark St. X X Longmont 440 Main St. X Denver CAMP 2105 Broadway X X X X Denver Firehouse#6 1300 Blake St. X Denver Visitors Center 225 W Colfax Ave. X • Denver Denver 2325 Irving Street X X Denver 4650 Columbine Street X Fort Collins 251 Edison St. X X Larimer Fort Collins 708 S Madison St. X X Fort Collins 3416 La Porte Ave X Greeley 1516 Hospital Rd. X X Weld Greeley 3101 35th Ave. X Greeley 905 10th Ave. X Platteville 1004 Main St. X CAMP...Continuous Ambient Monitoring Program 03 ozone TSP total suspended particulates Source: CDPHE-APCD, Colorado Annual Monitoring Network Plan 2009-2010(June 30, 2009a). Criteria Pollutants and Critical Pollutant Data Trends Monitoring data from the stations noted in Table 3.5-2 illustrate the following trends in criteria pollutants concentrations: ► Carbon monoxide 8-hour concentrations (2nd maximum) have declined steadily across the regional study area over the past 10 years and are below the 9.0 ppm standard. ► NO,levels have remained relatively flat in spite of increasing vehicle miles traveled. • ► Ozone concentrations have fluctuated and currently remain above the national standard. Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional study area returned to levels below the 8-hour standard concentrations after the 2003 peak. However, concentrations Air Quality 3.5-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • peaked again after 2005 and currently remain above the 8-hour standard. In 2006, Fort Collins added a new monitoring station to monitor ozone concentrations (3416 La Porte Avenue). This monitoring station had the highest concentrations of ozone within the North Front Range. ► PM10 24-hour maximum concentrations have been much more irregular, but show a trend of gradually increasing in concentration in many areas. Concentrations at all stations remained below the 150 pg/m3 standard. ► PM2.5 annual average concentrations have remained flat and below the particulate matter standards over the past 10 years throughout the regional study area. PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentration shows a steady decrease over the last few years but has only consistently remained under the new 35 pg/m3 standard in Fort Collins and Boulder. The Greeley and Longmont areas show a steady decline in the past five years and are currently below the 35 pg/m3 standard. ► A portion of the project area is located within the City of Fort Collins which is designated as an attainment area for particulate matter. However, particulate matter levels even below the NAAQS can impact the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins has implemented a policy to "continually improve air quality as the city grows". Mobile Source Air Toxics Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the EPA regulate 188 air • toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants form Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No.37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These components are acrolein, benzene, 1, 3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle-miles traveled, VMT) increases by 145 percent as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in Figure 3.5-2. • Air Quality 3.5-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.5-2 National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 to 2050 for Vehicles Operating 150000 7 ft -o J� ' - 6 • i • • - 5 • I 100000 — • L ( 1.4 - 4 O � c � ' cn • E 50000 ~1 T w _ a'�4 - 2 - - 1 eOT xi NAPH .,AFR0_ 0 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Calendar Year LEGEND : DPM - Diesel PM — — — VMT - Vehicle-Miles Traveled BENZ - Benzene NAPH - Naphtalene FORM - Formaldehyde ACRO - Acrolein BUTA - 1 ,3-Butadiene Source FHWA http://wwwfhwa.dot.gov/environrnent/air quality/air toxics/policy and guidance/100109guidmem.cfm On Roadways Using EPA's Mobile 6.2 Model Notes: 1 Annual emissions of polycyclic organic matter are projected to be 561 tons/yr for 1999, decreasing to 373 tons/yr for 2050. 2 Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors Source: EPA. MOBILE6.2 Model run 20 August 2009. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or • anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, Air Quality 3.5.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects" (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). Each report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.orq/view.php?id=282) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.orq/view.php?id=306). The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts - each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would • have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. The results produced by the EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, the California EPA's Emfac2007 model, and the EPA's DraftMOVES2009 model in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly inconsistent. Indications from the development of the MOVES model are that MOBILE6.2 significantly underestimates diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions and significantly overestimates benzene emissions. Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation of EPA's guideline CAL3QHC model was conducted in an NCHRP study (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion alt.htm#hvroad), which documents poor model performance at ten sites across the country - three where intensive monitoring was conducted plus an additional seven with less intensive monitoring. The study indicates a bias of the CAL3QHC model to overestimate concentrations near highly congested intersections and underestimate concentrations near uncongested intersections. The consequence of this is a tendency to overstate the air quality benefits of mitigating congestion at intersections. Such poor model performance is less difficult to manage for demonstrating compliance with NAAQS for relatively short time frames than it is for forecasting individual exposure over an entire lifetime, especially given that some information needed for estimating 70-year lifetime exposure is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location. There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the • various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.orq/view.php?id=282 ). As a result, there is no national consensus on Air Quality 3.5-10 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/basicinformation.htm#q ) and the HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.orq/getfile.php?u=395) have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings. There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a "safe" or"acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than safe or acceptable. • Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis. In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action. 3.5.2.3 FUGITIVE DUST Fugitive dust from unpaved roads is a notable contributor to particulate matter emissions in rural Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties where 50 percent to 80 percent of roads, or over 3,450 miles, are unpaved. Each of these counties employ dust suppressant programs utilizing magnesium chloride and/or other additives to establish a hard surface and promote moisture retention on unpaved roadways. The more urbanized areas, such as Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins and other municipalities, as well as CDOT, have instituted street sweeping programs after winter-storm sanding operations to minimize excess roadside sand available for re-entrainment. Winter liquid de-icing operations used by CDOT and local road departments • for winter operations also help to reduce fugitive dust emissions throughout the regional study area. Air Quality 3.5-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.5.2.4 CLASS I FEDERAL AREAS AND NITROGEN DEPOSITION Combustion of fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal, generates emissions that form NOx in the atmosphere and is the major contributor to nitrogen deposition. Agricultural releases of nitrogen are primarily in the form of NH3 from fertilizer manufacturing, livestock production activities, and cultivation of various crops. Ammonia is also emitted from vehicle catalytic converters. Both NOx and ammonia are evaluated here because they contribute to nitrogen deposition in the project area. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Class I Federal Areas include areas such as nationally protected forests, wilderness areas, and parks larger than 6,000 acres, designated for their natural environment and attributes. Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) is a Class I federal area of 267,370 acres, straddling the Continental Divide in the northern Front Range. The park was created to protect the scenic beauty and unique natural resources of the region and its ecosystems are managed to be as natural or unimpaired as possible. The park is 93 percent existing or proposed wilderness. High-elevation ecosystems in RMNP are vulnerable to atmospheric nitrogen deposition and have been affected by regional pollutants as evidenced by about a 2 percent per year increase in nitrogen deposition over the past 20 years. There is more nitrogen deposited in high- elevation ecosystems than plants can use, and excess nitrogen is leaching into park lakes and streams during certain times of the year. Pine and fir trees are experiencing excess nitrogen- derived disease. Experiments near the park show that nitrogen increases change the kind and diversity of plants that grow in the tundra. Grasses and sedges out-compete flowering plants, a • change that could reduce habitat for some animals and diminish alpine flowers in the park. Potential consequences of nitrogen saturation on terrestrial systems include loss of species biodiversity, changes in forest species composition, and increased incursion by more nitrogen- tolerant invasive species. Nitrogen-affected ecosystems and the accompanying changes in species composition, soil, water, and tree chemistry have been documented in eastern areas of RMNP. Total annual wet and dry nitrogen depositions monitored in the park since the mid 1990s average around 21 pounds/acre/year. Pre-industrial or"natural" levels of nitrogen deposition are estimated to be about one pound/acre/year. Nitrogen deposition is a growing concern not only in RMNP but also in sensitive mountain environments all along the Front Range. NO„ and ammonia (NH3) can be transported long distances and eventually are deposited on land and water through precipitation in wet deposition or as gases and particles in dry deposition. This process is known as nitrogen deposition. The transport of these pollutants typically occurs from the west to east. However, large snowfall events east of the Continental Divide, associated with easterly upslope flow, can bring pollutants from the Front Range urban corridor and eastern plains. Further, localized upslope flows from the morning heating of the east-facing slopes can also transport pollutants from the Denver-Boulder-Fort Collins urban area. The morning heating can also trigger convective rain shower leading to precipitation events in the park which contributes to wet deposition. Therefore, emissions from the Front Range are also a large contributor to nitrogen deposition in the RMNP. The Colorado Front Range area experienced a rapid population growth from 1980 to 2000. In • addition, the RMNP has over 3 million visitors per year and the community of Estes Park borders the RMNP which also attracts many visitors. The majority of these travelers arrive by Air Quality 3.5-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. gasoline and diesel powered vehicles which contribute to the NOX emissions deposited in the RMNP. As a result of population increases and recreational use, emissions from point and mobile sources were responsible for most of the emission increases. 4 Ammonia NH3 C Over 3,254 tons of NH3 were estimated along the Front Range in 2002. Regional studies 6 indicate that Front Range NH3 emissions due to mobile sources would grow to over 3,700 tons by 2018 (Taipale, 2006). Unlike transportation and utility NOX emissions, agricultural NH3 emissions are not regulated. Front Range sources of ammonia are graphically represented in Figure 3.5 3. Figure 3.5-3 2002 Ammonia Emissions for the Front Range Area 12.5% Domestic Sources 1 .4°/0 25.2% . Fertilizer Application Livestock 8.0% E. Mobile Sources Native Soils 1 .8% Open Burning Point Sources • 3.6% - Waste Disp. Treat. & Recov. Wild Animals 12.7% 4.0% 30.8% 11 Note: The following 12 counties comprise the Front Range: 12 Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, Pueblo, and Weld. c' Source: Adapted from Taipale, 2006; Colorado 2002 Ammonia Emissions Inventory, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division. Visibility Under the 1977 amendments to the CAAA, Congress set national goals for visibility as "the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing , impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution" (CDPHE-APCD, 2007b). The federal visibility regulations (40 CFR Part 51 Subpart P — Visibility Protection 51 .300 - 309), which were divided into two phases, were set forth to determine existing impairment in each of the Class I areas, how to remedy such impairment, and how to establish goals to restore visibility to "natural conditions" by the year 2064. The first phase addresses Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI ) impacts in Class I areas by evaluating source specific visibility impacts, or plume blight, from individual sources or small groups of sources. In 1999, another section (second phase) was added to the CAAA to address Regional Haze which focuses on the overall decreases in visual range, clarity, color, and ability to discern texture and details in Class I areas. EPA finalized the Regional Haze Air Quality 3.5-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Rule (RHR) requiring states to adopt a SIP to address visibility impairment in Class 1 areas. Colorado has developed a SIP and has set the initial planning period (2007- 2018) as the "foundation plan". The RHR requires that Class I areas establish goals to improve visibility for the most impaired (20 percent worst) days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired (20 percent best) days over the same period to ultimately meet the National Visibility Goal established by Congress by 2064 [40 CFR 51.308(d)]. Tracking of visibility conditions in terms of the haze index (HI) metric is expressed in the deciview (dv) unit. As shown in Table 3.5-3, baseline conditions are the worst at the RMNP (13.83 dv) compared to the other class I areas. In order to achieve natural conditions by 2064, a calculation of a uniform rate of progress (UPG) is used. The amount of visibility improvement needed per year over the 60-year period is multiplied by the number of years in the initial planning period (14 years). This will determine the uniform progress needed by 2018 (initial planning year) to be on the path to achieving natural visibility conditions by 2064. The 2064 visibility goal for the RMNP is 7.24 dv. Table 3.5-3 Uniform Rate of Progress for Each Colorado Class I Area Baseline Summary of Best and Worst Days in Haze Index Metric* 20%Worst Days 20% Best Days • Mandatory Class I Baseline 2018 2018 Goal 2064 2064 Delta Baseline Federal Area Condition Uniform Delta Natural (Baseline Condition Progress Conditions 2064 NC) Goal (Deciview) (Deciview) (Deciview) (Deciview) (Deciview) (Deciview) Great Sand Dunes National Park and 12.78 11.35 1.43 6.66 6.12 4.50 Preserve Mesa Verde National 13.03 11.59 1.44 6.83 6.20 4.32 Park Mount Zirkel and Rawah Wilderness 10.52 9.56 0.96 6.14 1.08 1.61 Area Rocky Mountain 13.83 12.29 1.54 7.24 6.59 2.29 National Park Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Weminuche and 10.33 9.38 0.95 6.24 4.09 3.11 La Garita Wilderness Areas Eagle Nest, Flat Tops, Maroon Bells— Snowmass and West 9.61 8.89 0.72 6.54 3.07 0.70 Elk Wilderness Areas *Baseline Period(2000-2004) Source: Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Twelve Mandatory Class I Federal Areas in Colorado, (CDPHE-APCD, 2007b). • Air Quality 3.5-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. In order to establish these goals, states are required to inventory emissions from pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area [40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v)]. Section 3.5.3 summarizes regional and project emissions as a result of this project. 3.5.2.5 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY Transportation conformity, as a provision of the CAA (as amended in 1990), helps to ensure that transportation funds go to projects that are consistent with local air quality goals outlined in the SIP. Conformity applies to federally funded or approved transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and highway and transit projects. Conformity requires that these actions be included in a fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that meet certain statutory and regulatory air quality tests. This is required for areas that do not meet, or have not in the past met, air quality standards for CO, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, or particulate matter. A conformity determination includes a regional emissions analysis at the RTP and TIP level, and demonstrates that those emissions are within the limits set by the SIP. Federal projects require a separate project-level conformity determination, which includes an evaluation of localized pollutant concentrations if the project is in a CO or PM area. One of the first steps in the development of a SIP is the preparation of an emissions inventory, which is based on the actual or modeled emissions from all sources of air pollution within the non-attainment or attainment/maintenance area. The inventory of mobile source emissions is • further categorized by on-road and non-road emissions. The emissions inventory helps define the extent of the pollution problem relative to air quality standards in current and future years. Emission estimates for on-road mobile sources are usually based on the combination of two fundamental measures: VMT and emissions rates (the rate of pollutants emitted in the course of travel based on vehicle speed and other factors). The SIP identifies the allowable on-road emissions levels to attain the air quality standards as an emissions budget. These budgets act as a cap on emissions and represent the "holding capacity" of the area. Project Phasing and Regional Conformity Because there is not enough money in the fiscally constrained and air quality conforming 2035 RTPs for either DRCOG or NFR, only the portion of the Preferred Alternative that is included in the fiscally constrained and air quality conforming 2035 RTPs can be approved by FHWA in the ROD. Multiple conformity analyses were performed. To ensure that air quality conformity would not be an issue if money were to become available to completely build out the Preferred Alternative or other alternative evaluated in the document, conformity analyses were performed. As required by law, the Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative was analyzed separately and will be included in the fiscally constrained and air quality conforming RTPs prior to FHWA approval in the ROD. Protect Level (Hot Spot) Conformity At the project level, CDOT is most concerned with CO since it is directly emitted from the tail pipes of motor vehicles. PMio emissions are also a local project concern, often derived from • motor vehicle exhaust. However, most PMfo in the atmosphere is generated as fugitive dust-fine fine dust created by vehicle re-entrainment of excess roadside sand and disturbed ground surfaces from both farming and construction. Conformity at the project-level requires Air Quality 3.5-15 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • "hot spot" analysis if an area is "nonattainment" or"maintenance" for CO and/or particulate matter. In general, projects must not cause the CO or PM standard to be violated, and in "nonattainment" areas the project must not cause any increase in the number and severity of violations. If a known CO or PM violation is located in the project vicinity, the project must include measures to reduce or eliminate the existing violation(s) as well. 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3.5.3.1 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Emissions from mobile sources for various air pollutants within the entire regional study area were estimated for the existing condition (Year 2005), the No-Action Alternative (2035), Package A (2035), Package B (2035), Phase 1 (2035), and Preferred Alternative (2035). The existing condition year is the year that the travel demand models were calibrated (see Travel Demand Traffic Technical Report for more detail). Future emissions were based on anticipated traffic levels for each alternative for the design year 2035 (see Table 3.5-4). Emissions levels included winter-summer seasonal influence, expected vehicle types, and traffic composition. Portions of all six SIP areas were included within this evaluation. Fugitive dust and construction generated emissions were not included in these analyses. Information for Phase 1 is provided throughout the rest of this section because that is the only portion of the Preferred Alternative that is on the two Regional Transportation Plans. For more information about Phase 1, please see Section ES 8 Phased Project Implementation or Chapter 8 Phased Project Implementation. • Travel demand forecasting completed for this Final EIS generated a calculation of VMT for the regional study area. The traffic network was evaluated by roadway linkages (as described in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts) and found an influence from proposed project changes on traffic volume of 5 percent or more around the primary travel corridors of US 287, 1-25, and US 85. Results tabulated in Table 3.5-4 illustrate the trend of decreasing criteria pollutant emissions with increasing VMT in future years. The reason for this is increasing controls on the vehicle sources. Regional VMT measured over the regional study area would increase approximately 80 percent between 2005 and 2035. Regional analyses of total criteria pollutants show reductions in total emissions between 2005 and 2035, although the difference is more pronounced in some cases than others: CO decreases 12 percent, VOC decreases 55 percent, NOx decreases 76 percent, and PM10 decreases 1 percent. Criteria pollutant emissions for all of the 2035 build alternatives (Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1) would average about 1 percent higher than the 2035 No-Action emissions. Package B and Phase 1 would generate slightly fewer criteria pollutant emissions than Package A or the Preferred Alternative due to proposed transit improvements for Package A and the Preferred Alternative. • Air Quality 3.5-16 I 0 \ _ co o r..- n w o & m co Co) # o .- _ 0 co \ CO 0 ■ a o CD o / CO 0 E @ 0 / « 0 - co w d a d a d 0 n Z / N- R a ( k ,, W § / o 0 o r co N- « N m q � > 'Cr 0 (N & � G G 0 CO 0 0 0 - I. t m _ 03 o .,- 1- o R m e c en g a w a w o a - 6 6 6 03 OE 0 k CO NI - � Q \ m N n w # 0 = & _ N. ■ NY k \ 2 CO 0 \ / / CO A 2 CII Colin CNi « 0 - q * d 6 a a 6 0 C ~ L.6 � NI - CO o * o o N- 0) 0 (N o n co cu / g q co N- . 0 . k / $ - CO 0) 2 o N- al a d 0 6 6 0 N 44 CO / . 0 9 . 0 " '2 • 0 @ 2 - c ■ co m o # o CO o M r n 2 2 K $ / \ 2 % 0 k $ g § < § 0 ? < 0 $ f ® 6 0 — a 6 6 0 2 0 ~ � CO ac Z < 2 2 O & $ \ 2 / 2 CD \ I V' ® 0 2 y 9 N 9 0 5 0 0 r f 01 0 0 § 0 G « g 0 / 6 0 0 a 6 .- w E" >- � 0 Z CO CU N — ' r I , C 2 'A >, cd '0 RI 2 0 2 iv co co 2 2 g Q 1- 473 E k as 2 k ® ° \ 0 a3 / f CO 2 ) \ c 0 >, 0 = i 7 2 m a a E = 2 a Q - 3 m c > @ / § c ■ c e $ E $ E < Q • a _■ o -0 . c _ us 2 k if) cu 2 ° k § « . 2 a 0 % 0 0 0 2 o k $ n 2 ( k J as a > ce 0 > Z a < < co 6 LL I- z & Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The decrease in regional CO and PM,() emissions from year 2005 to 2035 are related to changes in the vehicle composition and future emissions characteristics. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 regulations implemented by EPA beginning in 1994 and 2004, respectively, placed tighter controls on CO, VOC and NO), emissions from light duty motor vehicles. EPA has also adopted tighter emission standards for heavy duty highway vehicles beginning with the 2007 model year, more stringent Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards for heavy duty nonroad engines (e.g., locomotives), and lower limits on the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuel. The vehicle fleet used in transportation air quality modeling is projected 25 years into the future, allowing for increasingly stringent emissions controls and improved engine efficiency. Once fleet turnover is complete (e.g., all vehicles meet the most recent set of emissions standards), then emissions rates start to go back up primarily because of VMT increases. The differences in annual regional total emissions between the 2035 No-Action and the build alternatives (Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1) is less than 1 percent or approximately 13.95, 0.364, 12.97, and 5.118 tpd, respectively. The total pollutant emissions increases are attributed primarily to the 1 percent higher year 2035 VMT for Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1. Total 2035 emissions for Package A and the Preferred Alternative would be 13.59 and 10.98 tpd, respectively, more than total emissions for Package B or Phase 1. Approximately 8.40 and 7.86 tpd would be emissions from the commuter rail components for Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Because ozone emissions are a regional pollutant created from photochemical reactions • between NQ and VOCs in the atmosphere, localized sources of these ozone precursors are not easily related to direct ozone effects within the regional study area. Ozone is also created from emissions from non-mobile sources such as lawn mowers, small engine equipment, and industrial sources. Ozone concentration is highly susceptible to weather conditions, such as local upslope winds or regional upper level wind patterns. Because ozone is a regional-scale pollutant, the conformity rule does not require analysis of ozone at the project level. However, the conforming TIPs or RTPs do not include regional ozone analyses that include Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative. Only Phase 1 improvements are included in the RTPs. MSAT emissions would be reduced between 51 percent and 57 percent for acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde between 2005 and the 2035 No-Action Alternative. Diesel particulate matter (DPM)were reduced by over 93 percent during that same timeframe. PMloemissions reductions shown in Table 3.5-4 are much less than reductions in DPM emissions because PM,o is made up of more components than DPM, including gasoline and diesel engine exhaust and evaporative emissions, brake wear, tire wear, and road dust. Forecasted emissions for MSATs would in all cases be increased between No-Action levels in 2035 and those predicted for the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1. On a percentage basis, the increase are less than one percent for benzene and acrolein. Acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene would both be increased between one and two percent. For formaldehyde, percent increase would be 2.6 percent with the Preferred Alternative and 2.8 percent with Phase 1.Percent increases would be highest with diesel particulates: 5.8 percent than the Preferred Alternative and 4.8 for Phase 1. Phase 1 emissions would be slightly higher than Preferred Alternative for • two pollutants: benzene and formaldehyde. The reason for this is that the vehicle mix for the Preferred Alternative would include more heavy trucks because it would have more travel on freeways. Air Quality 3.5-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 3.5.3.2 ATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE AREA ANALYSIS Emissions for various air pollutants within each attainment/maintenance area were estimated to provide a comparison against important mobile source air quality area pollutant emission burdens calculated by local planning and air quality agencies for each SIP area. These emission calculations are similar to the attainment/maintenance area conformity modeling and include the North 1-25 regional study area. Comparisons are meant to compare emissions generated among the project alternatives. Future emissions were based on traffic distributions, speeds and volumes for each component located in each of the attainment/maintenance areas. Emissions levels included seasonal influences, vehicle types and traffic composition. The following tables show emissions levels for the criteria and MSAT pollutants by SIP (attainment/maintenance) area. In general, emissions from each SIP area mimic the regional trend of decreasing pollutant emissions from current 2005 levels to the year 2035. Emissions budgets calculated by the various metropolitan planning organizations and published by CDPHE-APCD in the SIP maintenance plan revisions are projected to planning years in the future. Not all planning organizations have updated their plans to a consistent planning year, therefore; emissions budgets listed in the following SIP area data tables may be for different years. Fort Collins Attainment/Maintenance Area For CO • Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 2035 components within the Fort Collins SIP area would generate between 18 and 20 percent fewer total emissions than are estimated for the baseline condition in 2005. The 2035 design year total CO emissions for Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would range between 60.679 to 62.649 and (see Table 3.5-5) less than the Fort Collins CO attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2015. The Preferred Alternative 2035 total CO emissions would be about 0.436 to 1.971 tons more than the other build alternatives in 2035. This increase would be attributed in part to the vehicle VMT since increased VMT is directly linked to increased emissions. Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area For CO Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 2035 components within the Greeley SIP would generate between 13 and 14 percent fewer total emissions than are estimated for the baseline condition in 2005. The 2035 design year total CO emissions for Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would be 31.43, 31.60, 31.39, and 31.60 tons, respectively, less than the estimated Greeley CO attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2015 (see Table 3.5-6). A comparison shows that Package B and Phase 1 within the Greeley SIP area would contribute more emissions of CO than Package A and the Preferred Alternative. The higher emissions would be due to corresponding higher VMT. • Air Quality 3.5-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Longmont Attainment/Maintenance Area For CO Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 2035 components within the Longmont SIP would generate between 25 and 28 percent fewer total emissions than are estimated for the baseline condition in 2005. The 2035 design year total CO emissions for Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would be 23.03, 22.43, 23.170, and 22.39 tons, respectively, less than the Longmont CO attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2020 (see Table 3.5-7). A comparison shows that Package A and the Preferred Alternative within the Longmont SIP area would contribute more emissions of CO than Package B and Phase 1. The higher emissions would be due to corresponding higher vehicle and rail VMT associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative. • • Air Quality 3.5.20 O N- N N- O LO CO N- N U7 U • 1- CD � O CD 0 0 N N d O 0 O O O O ON ,_ p Z O N O O O O O O O K) .. o .,, t N N 0 c d tt c c o in (.1') § CA �T"1 n d , I, +1 0 'O > ti O LO (6 In e- CO N- N In CO 0 w M O V O co .,— O CO O O N C) c it (o in N v CD CO _ O O O O O O CO E- 4 ,F ` p N O O O O O O O to Q! io i t N N i (O U LI a. .7( m N I O) , (V , i- 0) 10 CO N- N U) C) C N- in (o O O CO 0 0 (N C) N CO CD O ti '- O O O O O Cr-. Y2Y N (`•)CD�(O Is- N Z O (Ni ,- O O p O O , O ' O 4 V N CV a 'a Cl) 0. .1. CFA Q v in ('-) co v 0) U7 CO N- N LO ei- W C) in N M La CO. N- O 0 O CD O 0 eF cn V N N CV CV O O O O O O O COt o a Cl) w r • d A C N IN- LO 0 M M O r N- (N h 3 N c Q co o ti o o 0 0 0 Co vi Q Z c�i o • o O O O O C) Q _ N Li) CO = z Q r 0J i+ ...i CD 6 } N co N- O) (D N CO - CO .4- 0-) . C) d (C1 CO CD O 0 N O O CO O O O ' CO ++��" C G � Z O U7 , Cf) • O O O O O O O 0. .m N co co E n1 N , C m Z <i cl, V) ~ 'C cn O Z Z g z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U 6 •E 02 N rn L W t a O w . cu co 13 C _ m T (o C U CO N (3 0 a 73 00 0 V) Cu .5 W low Ito) H H >, m cca (13 c1)m c m j • m O o ca -o -0 -O C p C U �y V) U Q. • '1 Q .z 0 g c , o a o _c c m a (- a W 'a 14:1 (-) .7 U > v " o (p N lJ m 22 N Z U I o a c O O O cm 15) (i a) r? ai o `o (" O Q o 1-i a. > C c> > z CL < < m — 5 0_ . z co O t0 C I!) O Uf) O O) O 0 0 O O 0 O (D N a • to z ' O O O 0 O O M O O n .c a N Ch M a N C O N -- n h+�l F+a g (O N- 0 N- CO — U p t§ To co 0o 0) 0 Op) O O O 0 0 0 0 I- .� d E N NO O M ' O O O 0 O O O O (M ) Q E 0. - N z a " C d Q) 0) (0 O 1.0 0 0 C') 0 0 4- CO C) M (C) O Q) O 0 O O O O O co Y N z M O C? O O O O O O t) N M ea a (-4 V7 a) 4 CO Ira d N- C') (f) O (C) 0 0 Cam, 0 0 CO O E c in 0 -a: 0 000000o O O O O O O O 1C) Y C5 0 O M — O O O p O O O p M U) V N N W a. N GO O - ..r •U) E co ≥ CO CO (N r -) CO — u7 - ,— C') N N 0 �,, O O 0 0 O 0 M Yh W 4., (0 el CO Q N O 9 O O O O O O O Cq d Q i O N z z-,.,-) r- O O CD 0 0 0 0 O M 'CI M O .C,, N N a z Q N 0) V 0 b 0 C) _ .5 co CO CO M CO co O ((O N. N N O ..�".i b O n Q (O v) CO 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 00 ea } N c,.9 .,= z M N N O O 0 O O O a co ., M 0) E 0 .e 41 u) o o , < Q O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 4 >, a ; N z z a 0w• In d a L5 , G co ( as T v v O �, c m v) U Q. O '(o o (of, ow o in CD Q co N v n1 T T T T N m J CO O 0 z W H �o l- m V -8 c co c () -. 'y ." a 7 In -0 N - >. O v N 1 r .. Tx O c OI M = > F- y C C C N N N T N O U • O w O 2 c o O o -a C c :D c- (0 '� W g Q 1l. Q 3 U > 2 V o .0. O o O N 42 (0 -. Z U 1 O .-Ca) CO O O O 2 U U N C? ?' c 0 -. O Q C ii 'o F., a > CC U > z a. < Q co 0 IL 1— z (n I • r M 0 N r d CO N O 10 ° W M Lo r Q O O O O o d O U) o f0 O O 2 N O O O O O O d O O M n L N ci, N N m C o _ In NI i--i `m 13 >r��+ W $ v N N-N N in 10[) O 0 r 0 O 0 0) Z V co M r r a0 1() 0 0 0 O O d o er �~. 0 a) a N N O O O O O O o O O N O d6. - 61 Z Q r I a) 0)) O1 r 00 u) 0 0 r 0 0 0 - 0) M O) Q '- co v O o o o o 0 0 to V N z cc O 0 O O o O O O O N ca u) cu 4- eE s Q a) O CO d' CO N. Tr O 00 N r c0 M CD r 1f) 0 0 N CO 0 0 r d O O co it a)cl) Ca in in co (vy N-N � O O 0 0 O 0 0 M W V N CO C\I N O O O O C O o O O Ti cf) 01 O a. 0 ... .., E • Wcv C w1n r CO (17 O 00 0) N v- = , O m o d ,- w " 1c) I- Q O CO O O d O 0 0 0 co) ` in 1y Q i O tn co z N d O O O O O o O O M Q ei Q O4, N N 4. V Q Z O I C i. I6 ., cv) N N CO In r r c0 co 0 N cs >-' C o M Q N- (0 r O O 0 8 O O O 0 N N z co r N d O O O C d d N N M R co r �5 m A t a) IA 4.44 Q c r.. i 0 y b c. z z (`. z z z z z z z z z z w W m N Q 0 ..a _ CJ of as • v _ v O -0 U) >, c co C 4 0 _ _ _0 ca (a O a) N N Q (/) N O N >, N N c .0 II, w-CI 0 m W 2 Q -0 T o c aci r H � a Q • Hj te2c20 v c c> ° O g .`2 m o N N E a Z iii P. H 0 a ( O O O °; t3 a A. ?' 0 0 0 0 ¢ oo a > 1 0 > z 14 Q Q co r O - 1L — i z co Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Denver Attainment/Maintenance Areas For Ozone and PM to Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 2035 components within the Denver ozone and PM10 SIPs would generate approximately 24 percent fewer total emissions than are estimated for the baseline condition in 2005 (see Table 3.5-8). The 2035 design year average VOC and NOx emissions differ by approximately 0.04 tons between the build alternatives. The emissions would be less than the Denver attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2020. The 2035 design year total PM10 emissions for Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would be 2.915, 2.913, 2.912, and 2.912 tons, respectively, less than the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2020. A comparison shows that Package A and Package B within the Denver ozone and PM10 SIP areas would contribute more overall criteria pollutant emissions than the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1. The higher emissions would be due to corresponding higher VMT associated with Package A and Package B. Denver Attainment/Maintenance Areas For CO Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 2035 components within the Denver CO SIP would generate 24 percent fewer total emissions than are estimated for the baseline condition in 2005 (see Table 3.5-9Error! Reference source not found.). The 2035 design year total CO emissions for Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 • would range between 1204.84 to 1206.17, less than the Denver CO attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2021. A comparison shows that Package A and the Preferred Alternative within the Denver CO SIP area would contribute more CO emissions than Package B and Phase 1. This increase would be attributed in part to the commuter rail component associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative. 3.5.3.3 PROJECT-LEVEL CO ANALYSIS Carbon monoxide emissions rates have been steadily declining over the past 10 years due to improvements in vehicle engine emission controls, motor efficiency, and fuel composition. However, traffic volumes due to increasing population and travel trips are continuing to rise over time. Ambient monitoring levels for CO concentrations within the regional study area have remained below 9 ppm since 2005. The highest 2008 readings for 8-hour CO in the regional study area were 3.0 ppm, 2.7 ppm, and 3.1 ppm for monitors located in Fort Collins, Longmont, and Denver CAMP, respectively. Pollutant levels from CO emissions were estimated using CAL3QHC air quality dispersion modeling. This model is used to estimate CO concentrations at poorly operating signalized intersections to simulate worst-case localized air pollutant emissions at points where vehicles congregate, incorporating idling emissions and start-stop traffic conditions. High volume intersections and interchanges within the project area affected by Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 traffic conditions, and operating with unacceptable levels of • congestion (LOS D or worse) were selected through consultation with CDPHE-APCD, EPA, Air Quality 3.5.24 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. and FHWA for project-level "hot spot" analysis during the Draft EIS. Consultation was conducted with CD0T and CDPHE-APCD for the Final EIS. The same intersections were modeled since these remain the worst operating intersections: ► Harmony Road and 1-25 (Fort Collins SIP) ► Evans Bus Station at 31st Street and US 85 (Greeley SIP) ► Sugar Mill Transit Station at SH 119 and County Line Road (Longmont SIP) ► SH 7 and 1-25 (Denver SIP) ► Thornton Parkway and 1-25 (Denver SIP) In addition, modeling was conducted for a No-Action scenario (no improvements in Phase 1) to represent an interim year since improvements are not anticipated until 2035. Traffic volumes at these intersections are among the highest in their respective corridors and SIP areas. All of the above intersections experience current congestion at peak hours. These intersections and interchanges would continue to experience congestion in the future under the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, or Phase 1. Each location was modeled for the proposed 2035 traffic volumes, number of through lanes, turning lanes, and signalization. Motor vehicle emissions rates for 2005 were combined with projected 2035 peak-hour traffic • volumes at each intersection to utilize the highest emissions rate with the highest traffic volumes, to represent the worst-case modeling conditions for future years (Table 3.5-10). Inputs for the model included projected traffic volumes, motor vehicle emission rates, roadway geometries, traffic signal timing and worst-case meteorological conditions. The CDPHE-APCD provided the motor vehicle emission rates (composite running emissions and idle) using EPA's M0BILE6.2 emission factor model. Inputs for the M0BILE6.2 model included vehicle mix, running speeds, ambient temperature, and vehicle hot/cold start operating percentages. The CDPHE-APCD also provided idle motor vehicle emission rates using the M0BILE6.2 emission factor model and an EPA method for estimating idle emissions from composite emissions. Copies of this data are in the Air Quality Technical Addendum, Appendix A (Jacobs, 2011c). Worst-case meteorological conditions included low wind speed (1 meter/second) and atmospheric stability class D. The CAL3QHC model determines the worst-case wind direction by selecting the wind direction that results in the highest CO concentration at each receptor. Per EPA guidance, receptors were modeled 20 feet from the edge of the outside travel lane on the queue links at the selected intersections. Receptors located according to EPA guidance represent worst-case locations for modeling possible violations of CO standards. The highest modeled 8—hour average concentration was 8.4 ppm associated with the poorly operating intersection of Harmony and 1-25 in Fort Collins for the No-Action Alternative. This value is below the federal 8—hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. Therefore, since the project-level CO analyses resulted in no exceedances of the NAAQS at any of the identified interchanges and intersections representing the highest volume and worst operations within the regional study area, project-level conformity has been met for CO. • Air Quality 3.5-25 C `✓° r LC) CO CO N .N- N 'V (N O) O • (') C? +n N M O < O O O) N O 0 r O) (C) M y t a Cr)z N N O O r O O O If) co a O N M .. O - I- 0 `- N )-i O) W §- ,.) p 'x ≥ N S (O N ' N N- N N 1- C)) r0 N. LI C , R o r CO � O O N O O .- O L(7 M �r y ` O 10 CO (f) CO (N O O r O O O If) O o y � .d, N O N M N C E O .- c, r Ci =i CO N- N N CD O Co) 01 0 CO CD VI VI in O Q M M O O) N O O r O (f) co tie 0N COZ N N N N O O .- O O O r V r o a (? N r r O a a CO U) r CO 8 Co - N- N N N OO) r po e0 2 aD p co in O 0) O O) N O O r O 10 PI W V a ea 0) N M N N O O r O Q O to r M � a. 6 r r C o r .4- cl)cel ... � � 0 5 N W p≥ Co '4t or N O CCOO N N .- CO 0) 0 v uS �;, ,t in CO. Q •tt N O) O) N O O T- O in a+ a E Oato N- Z M N N O O r Ca 0 O oi r Q z-;it N Q r d r c., r c b 0 CU V ,= N- C) Co O) h. r r fd O Q co OO N O) M co ' O U") Co MI 02 � � N- M GO O) O) CO N O) Z r ' I N O O N O r r !N C') •U CO r st I- 4/ gi ccNI7 r r 0 g) . da .0m cu X Z O N Z Z O0 O)O N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z cu .- 0 a r r k7 A QN O. Er >-, w . et n coo c-.) r _ _ 4 p �" _ c T >' w d Q O a) 0 N U) N N 'O _--"' T A N C U W y CO (o T a) N m 4 r 43 y y �• N :C L •N d 0 (9 .E Q O OI ce) c > H c c > m >. m>. U • 7 1% N 2 OC O O . -c c c B 0 Q 0 'o 0 W 'O lLQ . - z > `. U v w 5 N A i �� ca y H Z t) ett a m 0 0 0 2 v v o '? o �' 0 00 OC Q o > W c> > z a < a m r �o �(. �i-:v. z • g CO cD 0 LC) cY) ch cr) O In r, v CO r C0 ch 0 0 r CD N 0 r o a in Co a CO N r CO N O 0 r 0 V- 0) y t N 0 z O C4 r) N N O O O O O O a m O. N N N O r r o 1 Lr, (i) ICI d I� w o C.1 a 0 Ln O Li" LO 10 LC) Cr) M 0) Ln N- ' 0 C) 0 r O) N r [--1 g 4.• in r L- r r co (0 0 C) r 0 V- N J ` O O ct N O O O O O O .- ..Imp E d • N N N 1.-- 0 Z c as o r mCO 0 0) r Tr Cr) Cr) O in N. 0 ro U) LC) Q t-- r r 0) CO 0 Cr) .- CO 0) N a) V a ` Z O N N O O O O O O a. M N CV td O r 0 r V ..r (1 .r.+ a 0 U) r 0 CO r` Cr) M - CO N. LO s- et e-' 000 C co ' N CO N p 00) '- CO Tr COQ) coA Yj N N G M N- N O O O 0 O O N W O. C'') N N O r O a7A. • • i,-,,- 3 C O M O CO CO 0) Ch 0 C'7 N N LLB To W0 LC) N 0) r CO0O Cq COCD ` eri O. 0 0 CD CO N O 0 r O CO ni ., as L , 0 Z co M N N O O O O O O Cr) Q cr N C� N N CD Z a O .- %-.7 V e0 d I. y C fil CD C') 0 N- V• N 0 0 N- CO r 0) N "iii O O Cr) LC) 0) 0 Tt 0O 0) r Nt CO cC 0 Q V- CO V: CO CO O C) N r 0 0 cri N O0 Z ui co N O O N O r r 0 N O r C0 d) m r r E C nt,�=rlI 0 7 m O N O) O rho O O Z c p < < C O N In < < < < < < < • co O N Z Z C LC) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z r2 Q • aE " a Ca Q � r a (/) N 'p ?^ T j„ a j.Co y fG O c) =co S 7' ,, o -v as 5 ate) 2 CO= v as ICJ fa -o 'E . 0 4i LL Q 3 U > o O Z U o O m O 0 O 88 o a`) L'? o °) o `o0 00 Q o Es a > c U > z 0. a4. < co .-�ovl.� w` � Z CO N C a E02 � v TO • `o E I, Tr O CO N co (11 N O) N O) U) n C) a X O y o0 c0 t0 I- 4 tf) f. 6 C0 c0 to LO I. N N.: co C° O C 0 t (1) N '"'' r—iW g P. Z co H a � co p4 a eo r E E E E E E E EEEEEEE E a a a a a a a a a a a a a a o � +-� p C") a a a a Cl a a a a a a a a a a a Z Z 3rn C) C) rn O) C) rn O) C) C) O) C) O) O) O) 0 t CO N C E 0 '2 3V Cu E 3 , co. co co to co to M to o co co .- co E o to .- O (Ni I• () N O w- O) oo c6 vs: N a .— a-- � O U V co a CO c EEEEE E E EEEEEEE E o .! a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 441 y0 a a a a a a a a a a a. a a a a i V to LO to u) to to to to to to to to u) to to T. ,U Z 0 7 Cr) M M CO C") Cr) M co c•) c+) r) r) el Cr) Cr) LI tap • u. M 0 Q G O a to v O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O to u) tf) O to to O O O O to to O U) t4 Ito co o to a) O) o N. CO c7 '- CM Co co Cfl V Y) E . N ti c O 0 N. r I• . N n M 3 t0 O CO CO to ' c0 co t• I.- co V' .N '-0 N � , cn a) ifi U) CO cn 7S C c C Q ≥ as c a LO N Q N 4 a) < m a) a co a) ) O 13 C O tT co ID 0 ,_ m CT @ CD N O O) `� CT a) ' CL 1- Q 15 Y CO ,a) E Y w a co 03 Y a)) E co Y ,� E U) co co a) c ccr) C 0) (n 2 i C) U O U d w al U O U L) 0 0 al C) O CD CO .c .C C 4 0 al (V L — al s- _ L cV al N — L c0 al i- 2' L -p Z a a as a aaa a a < a s as a a a a4a a Z 0 O V O m a -O 0 c "h N _ _ cV cV N in N C13 EE to to to to —' - ..S CO N N cv N 4 c C V a a p C -p O ,y 0 a1 by C C Cen '> cCV CCo CCV cCV C O co co co C1 V Lu f!1 N p 0 co co tV Cu —OOO 000 to to u) to Y '� " _� 3 W e) I Ce Cr CC U) COcC CC N N N N a a65 co 0. E _ CU C ; M C C C C CO R CC * •- C C C C O O O N Q V • O O O 0 cn to Cn to tV N co Cu «. .. .. V O U. 4 °. E E E E co cao caw cow I• I. N. N. EE E ' r E ,O O 0 O m cLV N CV CT, > (A > In D w 7 - 2 Z 2 Z c a� E,,, z I z z w D w D cn cn U) to cn CO Cl) 1- F • a Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.5.3.4 PROJECT-LEVEL PMlo ANALYSIS This section summarizes the results of two separate PM10 analyses. First, a qualitative analysis was performed for the portions of the project within the Denver PM10 maintenance area, where the Clean Air Act transportation conformity requirements apply. Second, a similar analysis was performed for elements of the project located outside of the PM10 maintenance area, for purposes of characterizing the likely impacts of these aspects of the project. PM f o CONFORMITY ANALYSIS The conformity analysis followed the guidelines presented in the Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Non-attainment and Maintenance Areas (2006). The following elements were included in the PM10 hot-spot analysis: ► Description of proposed project ► Description of the type of PM10 emissions ► Contributing Factors ► Description of analysis years ► Description of existing conditions ► Description of changes resulting from project • ► Description of analysis method chosen ► Professional Judgment of Impact ► Discussion of any mitigation measures ► Conclusion on how project meets 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123. The PM10 qualitative hotspot analysis was conducted for the worst-case transit station and parking facility within the regional study area (located within the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance area), along with the worst-case traffic location. Where regional SIP modeling exists, the analyses used comparisons of nodal emissions estimated values for future years. The commuter rail comparative analysis incorporated dispersion modeling and analysis undertaken for a nearby transit project. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) sourced emissions factors were used by that project. Description of Proposed Project A description of the North 1-25 project is provided in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, and Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered. The conformity regulations require a PM hotspot analysis for"projects of air quality concern," which are defined in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). This project is considered a project of air quality concern under 93.123(b)(1)(iii), "new bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location." • Air Quality 3.5.29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Description of the Type of PM,o Emissions The hot spot analysis was based on directly emitted emissions from vehicles, including tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. Re-entrained road dust is also addressed in this analysis as required by USEPA and FHWA guidance. Construction related PM1p emissions were not included in this hot spot analysis because these emissions would be considered temporary since construction on any one phase would last less than 5 years (40 CFR 93.123[c][5]). Secondary PMfo precursor emissions would be associated with regional impacts and, therefore, are not required to be included in the hot spot analysis. Interagency consultation was conducted in September 2004, July 2006, and March 2007 with CDPHE-APCD, EPA, FHWA, FTA, and CD0T/EPB. It was determined that a PM2,5 hot spot analysis would not be required since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are designated as attainment areas. Precursor emissions of PM2,5 include NO„ and V0C which were estimated for this project elsewhere in this document. Contributing Factors PM10 is one of the air quality criteria pollutants outlined in the CAA that is generated, in part, by motor vehicles. PM10 is a pollutant of concern in the Denver attainment/maintenance area. Although this analysis addresses emissions generated by mobile sources, area and point source PM10 emissions in the Denver area include the Denver International Airport, Buckley Air Force Base, a large oil refinery complex, four • power generation plants, and other industrial sources. Existing conditions of air quality in the project area are presented in Section 3.5.2. Emissions from mobile sources within the entire regional study area and the attainment/maintenance areas were estimated for existing and future conditions. The existing condition year(2005) is the year that the travel demand models were calibrated (see Travel Demand Traffic Technical Report (Jacobs, 2011) for more detail). Future emissions were based on anticipated traffic levels, traffic distributions, and speeds. Emissions levels included winter-summer seasonal influence, expected vehicle types, and traffic composition. Travel demand forecasting completed for the FEIS generated a calculation of vehicle-miles traveled for the regional study area (see Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts of this Final EIS). Some PM10 particles are formed by eroded natural surface rock and soil material and enter the air through a variety of actions including "entrainment" into the atmosphere by wind- blown dust. This is particularly important to the Denver Metro Area because it is situated within a low-lying basin where atmospheric temperature inversions trap entrained dust and other pollutants underneath a ceiling of overriding cold air. This frequent condition creates stagnant air within the Denver Metro Area and acts to concentrate pollutants. Counteracting this condition, Denver also experiences very strong westerly winds that effectively disperse pollutants. These same winds accelerate entrainment of exposed dust and sand. Particles from winter road sanding, brake and tire wear, pavement wear, and other vehicle degenerative processes contribute to PM10. Fugitive dust is one of the major contributors • of PM10 in the regional study area. Fugitive dust is mainly dust from roads, fields and construction sites. Mobile sources of fugitive dust includes road dust generated from Air Quality 3.530 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. vehicle entrainment of excess roadside sand, as well as non-roadway vehicle dust contributed from motorized vehicles that typically operate off-road, such as farming equipment, recreational vehicles, construction equipment, and airport vehicles. The primary vehicular emissions source of PM10 comes from diesel engines which are critical to both the transit and transportation freight industries. The CDPHE—APCD enforces several regulations through the auspices of the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to reduce particulate emissions from mobile sources as control strategies and contingency measures for non-attainment areas, including gas and diesel motor vehicle inspections and maintenance programs (Regulations 11 and 12) and street-sanding and sweeping standards to clean up winter sanding operations and excess roadside sand accumulations (Regulation 16). Description of Analysis Years The analysis year examined needs to be the year that the peak emissions from the project are expected. The current adopted transportation plans (20 years) in the Denver metro area and the north front range area are the DRC0G 2035 MVRTP, the NFR 2035 RTP and the UFR 2035 RTP. The Colorado PM10 maintenance plan presents emission inventories through 2030 which shows a trend of increasing mobile sources emissions. The maintenance plan does not cover years beyond 2030. However, based on the trend of emissions, it is assumed that emissions will 4111 continue to increase through 2035. Therefore, 2035 was selected as the year with peak PM10 emissions and the highest PM10 background concentrations for the PM10 hot spot analysis. Description of Existing Conditions The daily VMT for the existing conditions (2005) within the project area is approximately 30 million miles. A survey of PM10 levels recorded from monitoring stations within the regional study area for the years 2005 to 2008 shows that there have not been any exceedances of the annual or 24-hour PM10 NAAQS from monitoring stations within the Denver metro and northern Front Range areas. The annual average PM1p standard was revoked by the EPA in December 2006. Therefore, only the 24-hour maximum concentrations recorded at area monitoring stations in 2009 have been listed in Table 3.5-11. • Air Quality 3.5-31 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.5-11 2009 Maximum 24-Hour Particulate Matter Concentrations PMto Monitoring Station 24-Hour Std Maximum Monitored Commerce City 7101 Birch Street 150 96 Welby 3174E 78th Avenue 150 66 Boulder 2440 Pearl St 150 40 Longmont 350 Kimbark Street 150 38 Denver CAMP 2105 Broadway 150 62 Denver Municipal Animal Shelter 678 S Jason Street 150 53 Denver Visitors Center 225 W Colfax Avenue 150 56 Fort Collins 251 Edison Drive 150 61 Greeley 1516 Hospital Road 150 63 Source: EPA Description of Changes Resulting from Project Change of VMT: Daily corridor-wide VMT for the build alternatives would be similar, within 1 to 2 percent and would increase approximately 42 to 43 percent compared to existing 2005 conditions. The worst case daily traffic volumes along 1-25 for the build alternatives would range • between 246,400 and 253,500 vpd in 2035, at the southern terminus of the project near 1-25 and 84th Avenue. These traffic volumes are lower than those currently experienced at the interchange at 1-25 and 1-70, where violations of the NAAQS have not been monitored or modeled in the SIP. Change of LOS: Hot spots of PMfo generally occur where there is a high percentage of trucks in heavily congested areas. Even though traffic is expected to increase as a result of the proposed roadway improvements, the projected LOS would improve or remain the same within the regional study area compared to No-Action conditions due to expanded capacity and efficiency (see Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts for more information). Change of Vehicle Emissions: Overall vehicle emissions are shown in Table 3.4-5, Daily Region-Wide Total Mobile Source Emissions Estimates. Daily vehicle emissions of PM,() are higher for Package A and the Preferred Alternative compared to Package B and Phase 1. However, emissions from all of the build alternatives would be lower than existing 2005 emissions. Change of Re-entrained Dust Emissions: According to Chapter 13.2.1 of AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, road re-entrained dust emissions are a function of road silt content, average weight of vehicles, and VMT. Uncontrolled and controlled dust emissions were calculated for the No-Action, Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1. Total VMT for each alternative within the study area were used for the calculations. In addition, default values for other inputs such as silt content, vehicle weight, and control efficiency were obtained from the AP-42 Fifth Edition. As shown in Table 3.5-12, fugitive dust emissions would be approximately 0.01 percent higher for all build alternatives compared to the • No-Action Alternative. Although dust emissions are anticipated to be slightly higher compared to the No-Action Alternative, the increase is not expected to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS. Air Quality 3.5-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Note that the total emissions are representative of the study area to show a worst case scenario. However, the controlled emissions would be lower since regulation 16 only controls fugitive dust emissions within the DRCOG PMM° maintenance area. Table 3.5-12 Fugitive Dust Emissions Alternative Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions (tons/day) (tons/day) No-Action 90.5 76.1 Package A 91.1 76.6 Package B 90.9 76.4 Preferred Alternative 91.2 76.6 Phase 1 91.1 76.5 Description of Analysis Method Chosen Consultation with CDPHE-APCD, EPA, and FHWA , CDOT/EPB, and FTA was conducted in September 2004, July 2006, and March 2007, and determined that the project-level hot spot analysis would be conducted at a worst-case transit station parking facility within the regional study area and a comparative analysis for the proposed bus and rail maintenance facilities located outside of the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance area. • The following two methods were chosen for the PM10 hot spot analysis as outlined in Section 4.1 of the March 2006 USEPA/FHWA guidance: air quality studies for the proposed project location and comparison to another location with similar characteristics. The intention of these project-level qualitative analyses is to assess whether the project would be likely to cause or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations (40 CFR 93.116). Air Quality Studies for the Proposed Project Only the southernmost segment of the 61-mile long regional study area, including Package A commuter rail, Package B new BRT-express lanes, Preferred Alternative express and commuter bus, Phase 1 commuter bus, and station facilities associated with each package, is located in the Denver attainment/maintenance area for PM10. For the sections of 1-25 within the PM10 modeling domain, the grid cells with the maximum modeled 24-hour PM10 concentrations were selected to represent the worst-case PM10 concentrations within the project corridor. The project-level analysis did not include fugitive dust or construction-generated emissions. Road re-entrained dust emission is a function of road silt content, average weight of vehicles, and VMT. Because only VMT would change as a result of the build alternatives, fugitive dust from roads would be proportionate to VMT. All of the build alternatives would increase road re-entrained dust by approximately 42 percent compared to existing levels, but only 0.01 percent compared to the No-Action Alternative. • Air Quality 3.5.33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Worst-Case Transit and Parking Station The predicted highest-volume transit station with the largest associated parking lot occurs at the SH 7 BRT station in the morning peak hours. This site is expected to have a maximum idling congregation of four express buses at any one-peak hour in Package B and eight express buses during any one-peak hour in the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1. There would be four peak hour commuter buses with Package A and Package B. The site would accommodate 180 parked vehicles under Package A as a commuter parking lot; 469 parked vehicles under the BRT station parking in Package B; and 280 parking spaces each with the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1. Average individual bus idling times are approximately 40 seconds per stop. The maximum number of buses coincident to one parking station at any one peak hour occurs in the peak hours when feeder and mainline 1-25 bus headways are shortest. Transit headway refers to the frequency of circulating buses in any one direction on a transit route. A 30-minute headway would be equivalent to two buses per hour. The analyses did not include fugitive dust pollution. Only tailpipe emissions were analyzed. Traffic accessing the parking facility is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during peak morning hours. Level of service in the afternoon peak hours is expected to operate less adequately (LOS D). Passing and parking traffic volumes are listed in Table .3.5-13. Table 3.5-13 Characteristics of SH7 BRT (or Express Bus) Station and Parking Facility 2035 Peak Hour Preferred No-Action Package A Package B Phase 1 • Alternative Idling BRT/Express Bus NA NA 4 volume (#of buses) 8 8 Parked vehicles 0 180 469 280 280 Internal parking travel (VMT) 0 74 266 128 128 Parking access and pass-by vehicles (VMT) 5,685 5,715 5720 5720 5720 There are no PM10 monitoring stations located near the SH 7 BRT (or express bus) station and parking lot. The Colorado SIP for PM10 Revised 2005 Summary of Dispersion Model Results was used to formulate a comparison between total emissions model grid cell data at the SH 7 BRT (or express bus) station and parking site (Grid Cell No.155) and at a known similar RTD commuter park-n-Ride facility at the Thornton Parkway (Grid Cell No.125)for purposes of assessing whether the new facility would likely cause or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations (40 CFR 93.116) over the project timeline (see Table 3.5-14). The Denver area PM10 maintenance plan dispersion modeling incorporates both area-wide analysis and hot spot analyses to determine regional PM10 concentrations. Grid cells at the northern periphery of the modeling domain evaluate an area approximately one kilometer by one kilometer in size and include many more emissions than just the featured sites. • Air Quality 3.5-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E15 • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-14 Comparison of PMlo Dispersion Model Data at SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Lot [B-T1 Component] and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility Total Concentration Location Description Grid Cell NAAQS (6th highest value) Number (pg/m ) (pg/m ) 2030 1-25 and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility 125 150 103.13 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Facility 155 150 89.42 *6th highest modeled values are used to determine compliance with the PM10 NAAQS VMT comparisons for the two sites show that, in the year 2030, the total VMT would only increase 0.007 percent due to the new SH 7 facility. Based on the modeled values from the PM10 maintenance plan, presented above, a 0.007 percent increase in emissions would clearly not be sufficient to cause either of these locations to exceed the 150 ug/m3 NAAQS. Although emission rates will continue to decline or level off between current conditions and the design year 2035, VMT will continue to rise. Therefore, the maximum expected emissions would be in the year 2035 which are demonstratively below the NAAQS of 150 pg/m3. Professional Judgment of Impact Based on the PM10 maintenance plan modeling results and the comparison to another location with • similar characteristics to the project, the project is not expected to cause an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS as a result of implementation of Package A, Packable B or the Preferred Alternative. In addition, regional PM10 modeling was conducted by CDPHE-APCD. Concentrations of PM10 within the regional study area for Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would be 3.629, 3.574, 3.625, and 3.577 tons/day, respectively. Modeling was also conducted by CDPHE- APCD for the attainment/maintenance areas. The 2035 total PM1p emissions within the Denver attainment/maintenance area for Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would be 2.915, 2.913, 2.912, and 2.912 tons, respectively. The emissions would be less than the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance plan emissions budget attributed to mobile sources for 2020 and well below the PM10 NAAQS. Therefore, regional and attainment/maintenance area emissions would be well below the PM1r° NAAQS and the emissions budget as a result of this project. Discussion of Mitigation Measures The results of the hot spot analysis concluded no exceedances to the PM10 standard are likely as a result of the Preferred Alternative or Phase 1 improvements. However, best management practices (BMPs)will be implemented to reduce air quality effects. Details of the regional PM10 control measures are presented in the Air Quality Technical Report Addendum, Section 5.0 Mitigation Measures (Jacobs, 2011c). In addition, the following BMPs will be implemented to reduce PM emissions. ► Routing existing traffic away from populated areas (e.g., truck restricted zone) ► Replace a significant number of older buses with cleaner buses (e.g., those meeting 2007 heavy-duty diesel standards, as practical, hybrid-electric vehicles, etc.) • ► Prepare street cleaning and site watering plans to be followed during construction Air Quality 3.5.35 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • CDOT has also developed an Air Quality Action Plan which will generate programmatic emission reduction mitigation solutions statewide. Most of these programs are planned. However, two pilots testing effectiveness of particulate emissions reduction programs are in progress: diesel particulate matter reductions through an Off-road Diesel Vehicle Retrofit Demonstration Project installing test maintenance vehicles with DOC filters and particulate emissions reductions through Engines Off! Colorado a statewide outreach program to provide communities, individuals and local governments with web-based idling restriction strategies, emissions reduction education, and idling ordinance tool-kits. Conclusion on how project meets conformity regulations for hot-spots (40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123) Based on the analyses discussed above, the lack of monitor violations or exceedances, the North 1-25 corridor project is not anticipated to cause any new or worsen the existing violations of NAAQS. The Denver metro area is currently in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS; thus, this project, by definition, will not delay attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, the project meets the conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.116 and 91.123 for PM1o. PM10 ANALYSIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT NOT SUBJECT TO CONFORMITY Comparison to Another Location with Similar Characteristics The Berthoud Rail Maintenance Yard and Greeley Maintenance facility are located outside of the PM10 maintenance area. Therefore, conformity does not apply. However, these sites were • used for the following analyses to report likely PM10 effects for purposes of this Final EIS. Rail Hot Spot Analysis The North Fort Collins and Berthoud Rail maintenance facility were used in the comparative analysis conducted for the Draft EIS. However, the North Fort Collins rail maintenance facility is not included in the Preferred Alternative and therefore will not be assessed in this analysis for the Final EIS. The Berthoud Rail maintenance facility is assessed and emissions are compared to the FasTracks Fox North commuter rail maintenance facility. The Berthoud Rail commuter rail maintenance yard was delineated to a conceptual level of design. Although yard site functions and general operational capacities have been identified, site specific track layout and rail operations and repair schedules have not yet been defined. Emissions that would occur for the future years of the Preferred Alternative were estimated using the operational data for DMU trains. Each DMU train car would be individually powered by multiple onboard engines (three heavy duty diesel engines per train car). Emissions were calculated using the total miles traveled per DMU train, the number of cars per train, and the number of trains entering and exiting the facility per day. Emission factors used for each DMU engine were obtained from the RTD Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) EA that was prepared in July 2009. Emissions factors used in the RTD CRMF EA were derived from USEPA's MOBILE6.2 program for heavy-duty diesel trucks. This analysis was based on directly emitted PM10 emissions from tailpipe, break wear, and tire wear. Re--entrained road dusts were not included in the analysis, assuming that the operation of DMU and vehicles within the facility would not cause significant fugitive dust emissions. Air Quality 3.5-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-15 summarizes the maintenance yard operations for the Berthoud Rail yard. The emissions generated at this site are well below the PM10 NAAQS for the maximum predicted 24-hour and annual emissions levels. Therefore, it is unlikely that emissions from this facility would cause or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations. Table 3.5-15 North I-25 Commuter Rail Maintenance Yard VMT Number of Diesel Cars Number of Engines Rail Rail Per Cars Total Yard Type Pull- Pull- Idling Pull- Pull- Idling Pull- Pull- Idling Emissions in out in out in out Berthoud DMU 0.6 0.6 N/A 22 22 67 3 3 3 0.080 Package A Berthoud Preferred DMU 0.6 0.6 N/A 22 22 67 3 3 3 0.080 Alternative Note: Emissions calculated for pull-in, pull-out,and idling activities only. Comparison of the Berthoud Rail yards to the Fox North Rail yard shows similar function, but a much smaller operating engine fleet as tabulated in Table 3.5-16 The emissions generated at the Fox North facility would be well below the PM10 NAAQS for the maximum predicted 24-hour and annual emissions levels. Therefore, emissions generated at the proposed Berthoud yard • would be less than the NAAQS and would be unlikely to cause or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations. Table 3.5-16 Comparisons of Commuter Rail Maintenance Yards Engine Yard Functions Rail Yard Rail Fleet Ground and Conclusion Type Size Size Operations (acre) Fox North DMU 84 36 Similar Emissions are below 24-hour and annual Rail Yard NAAQS levels for PM10 Berthoud DMU 6-8 58 Similar Emissions would be less than Package A Fox North Yard Berthoud Emissions would be less than Preferred DMU 6-8 58 Similar Fox North yard Altemative Greeley Commuter Bus/BRT Maintenance Facility The proposed commuter bus operations and maintenance facility proposed at 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley would accommodate covered storage, repair and inspection of the bus fleet consisting of 38 buses for Package A US 85 commuter service, 43 total buses for Package B bus rapid transit and feeder bus service, 41 buses for the Preferred Alternative, and • 37 buses for Phase 1. Air Quality 3.5-37 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The site is estimated to be 4.6 acres of service buildings, administration offices, employee services, tire and parts storage, parking, water quality facilities, on-site fueling centers, areas for vehicle cleaning, paint and body shops, and repair bays. The entire 2 acre open yard area would be paved and have multiple access points. The area surrounding the proposed 31st Street and 1st Avenue bus maintenance yard is commercial and undeveloped land. The Preferred Alternative includes bus service from Greeley on both 1-25 and US 85. The Preferred Alternative has one route that serves the South Transit Center in Fort Collins that requires four fleet buses (the remainder of the routes serves only the 1-25 corridor). Given these service patterns, it was recognized that the Greeley location for the bus maintenance facility would generate less out of direction travel for buses to and from the service facility. Therefore, due to less out-of-direction travel with the Greeley location compared to the Fort Collins site, the Preferred Alternative includes the Greeley site for a bus maintenance facility. Commuter Bus and BRT Hot Spot Analysis The PM10 monitoring stations located near the proposed Greeley maintenance facility recorded maximum 24-hour PMfo concentrations of 96 pg/m3 in the past 10 years. Because the Greeley monitoring station is outside the PM10 Maintenance Plan modeling domain, projection of a 2035 PMfo concentration was not interpolated from Denver area data. The Greeley commuter bus and BRT maintenance yard was delineated to a conceptual level of • design. Although yard site functions and general operational capacities have been identified, site specific circulation, storage and repair schedules have not yet been defined. A relative comparison of facility bus fleet and site size at each facility was used to indicate whether the proposed maintenance facilities would be likely to generate more or less emissions than a similarly functioning bus maintenance facility located at Commerce City within the Denver PfS/110 attainment/maintenance area (see Table 3.15-17). The Colorado SIP for PMfo Revised 2005 Summary of Dispersion Model Results was used to formulate a comparison using total emissions model grid cell data for the area of the Commerce City maintenance facility (Grid Cell No.96). The modeled grid data is used to establish emissions concentrations associated with a larger, modeled bus maintenance facility within the PMfo attainment/maintenance area. The Commerce City site is located in a highly industrialized area. The regional PMfo modeling grid point includes emissions generated from other sources than vehicular mobile sources, such as industrial and urban area generators, and therefore provides a more conservative reference to compare to the Greeley site. • Air Quality 3.5-38 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 3.5-17 Comparisons of Physical Attributes of the Commuter Bus Maintenance Facility in Commerce City to Greeley Bus and BRT Maintenance Facility Bus Yard Functions Comparative Maintenance Facility Bus Type Fleet Ground and p Size Size Operations Emissions Estimate Commerce City Standard Diesel Emissions are some (Commuter and Commuter Bus 118 14 acres Similar of the highest within Regional Bus Service) and Diesel Coach the conformity modeling area. Greeley Emissions are Package A(commuter Standard Diesel estimated to be 68% bus)or Package B Commuter or 38-43 4.6 acres Similar less than the (BRT) Diesel Coach Commerce City facility. Greeley Maintenance Emissions are Facility Standard Diesel estimated to be 69% Preferred Alternative Commuter or 37 4.6 acres Similar less than the (commuter bus and Diesel Coach Commerce City Express Bus) RTD Facility Greeley Maintenance Emissions are Facility Standard Diesel estimated to be 65% Phase 1 Commuter or 41 4.6 acres Similar less than the (commuter bus) Diesel Coach Commerce City RTD Facility • Total PM1p emissions for the Commerce City site were projected in the SIP for the year 2030 (see Table 3.5-18). This site is located within the PM10 maintenance area, in an area with high background concentrations of PM1o.The bus parking area being examined for the North 1-25 EIS project is not within the PM1c maintenance area and it is within an area with low background concentrations of PM1o. In addition, the fleet size at the Commerce City site is significantly larger than what is proposed for the build alternatives. Therefore, concentrations predicted in the SIP for the year 2030 for the Commerce City site are sufficient to show that there will be no exceedance of NAAQS in Greeley by the year 2035 as a result of the build alternatives. • Air Quality 3.5-39 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.5-18 Comparison of Commerce City RTD and Greeley Maintenance Facilities Total PMta Location Description Grid Cell NAAQS PM" Concentrations (6th highest value) Number (pg/m ) (pg/m3) 2030 Commerce City Maintenance Facility 96 150 149.85* Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility (Proportional emissions) NA 150 57.29 Packages A and B Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility (Proportional emissions) NA 150 55.50 Preferred Alternative Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility (Proportional emissions) NA 150 62.66 Phase 1 *Total PM10 concentration projected for 2030 3.5.3.5 PROJECT-LEVEL MSAT ANALYSIS A basic quantitative analysis of mobile source air toxic (MSAT) emissions from the regional study area of the proposed project was completed using the latest version of the EPA's mobile emission factor model (MOBILE6.2) as discussed in Section 3.5.3.1 Regional Analysis. The local study area used for this traffic analysis includes all major roadways potentially affected by • the proposed new transportation facility. Specific emissions levels for each transit station along the BRT and feeder bus routes were not evaluated in this study. Project level MSAT analyses was conducted for commuter bus and BRT maintenance facilities using emission factors generated specifically for bus emissions through diesel research conducted by the California Air Resources Board (Ayala, 2003). Overall VMT relationships among packages were utilized to estimate future trends in MSAT emissions. Table 3.5-19 describes the MSAT emissions associated with Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1. The build alternatives would generate between 1.3 percent to 1.5 percent higher emissions than the No-Action Alternative in the year 2035. The MSAT emissions in the year 2005 base case were much higher than any of the build or No-Action alternatives in the year 2035. This is reflective of the overall national trend in MSATs as previously described. • Air Quality 3.5-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-19 MSAT Emissions (tons per year) by Package 2005 2035 Pollutant Existing No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Phase 1 Alternative Vehicle VMT 76,951,721 135,156,908 135,478,050 135,272,142 135,414,740 135,370,346 (Daily) Acetaldehyde 279.59 129.21 131.765 131.4 131.765 131.765 Acrolein 22.63 10.95 11.315 11.315 11.315 11.315 Benzene 1103.395 513.19 514.65 513.92 514.285 514.65 1,3-Butadiene 135.78 58.035 59.13 59.13 59.13 59.13 Diesel 525.965 37.595 39.785 39.42 39.785 39.42 Particulates Formaldehyde 480.705 235.425 241.995 241.63 241.63 241.995 Total Emissions 2548.065 984.405 998.64 996.815 997.91 998.275 (Tons/year) Regardless of the alternative chosen, MSAT emissions would be lower than present levels in the future year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce • annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent between 1999 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great that MSAT emissions in the regional study area would be lower in the future in all cases. When evaluating the future options for upgrading a transportation corridor, the major mitigating factor in reducing MSAT emissions is the implementation of the EPA's new motor vehicle emission control standards. Substantial decreases in MSAT emissions would be realized from a current base year(2005) through an estimated future year. Accounting for anticipated increases in VMT and varying degrees of efficiency of vehicle operation, total MSAT emissions were predicted to decline approximately 61 percent from 2005 to 2035. The MSATs from mobile sources, especially benzene, have dropped dramatically since 1995, and are expected to continue dropping. In addition, Tier 2 automobiles introduced in model year 2004 would continue to help reduce MSATs. Diesel exhaust emissions have been falling since the early 1990s with the passage of the CAAA. The CAAA provided for improvement in diesel fuel through reductions in sulfur and other components. The Urban Air Toxics Pilot Program in Denver monitored three locations, all of which are within the regional study area: the downtown Denver CAMP, Swansea Station located at 4650 Columbine Street in metro Denver, and Welby Station located near 78th Avenue and Steele Street in the heart of the Platte River industrial district. Although not all MSATs were monitored at these sites, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde were sampled during the period of May 2002 through April 2003 and were detected 90 percent or • more of the time at all three monitoring locations. Air Quality 3.5-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Calculated regional MSAT emissions associated with Package A, Package B, Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 would be 14.24, 12.4, 13.5, and 13.87 tons per year (tpy), respectively, more than the No-Action Alternative by the design year of 2035. Decreases from the base year would be substantial even with the associated increase in VMT in the regional study area because the build alternatives would reduce congestion which in turn would reduce emissions. Some sensitive receptors do exist in the project vicinity, but their MSAT emissions exposure would decrease by the 2035 design year and beyond due to implementation of EPA's control measures. Sensitive receptors include homes, schools, churches and community centers. Summary of MSAT Analysis Findings Localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the roadway sections with the highest VMT. Potential impacts from MSATs are greatest near highly developed residential areas and major intersections. In general, emissions would be higher (compared to No-Action) as roadways move closer to receivers. However, with implementation of the build alternative (higher speeds and less congestion), emissions would be lower. On a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, would cause region-wide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than today. Summary of MSAT Analysis: Package A—Air quality emissions from Package A commuter rail and bus service would be incrementally neutral. Diesel emissions generated by rail locomotion (DMU) and diesel-operated transit bus engines are anticipated to be less than current operating levels due to introduction of low-sulfur fuels and Tier 3 and 4 diesel engine • emission controls. Transit service would remove an estimated 6,100 vehicles daily from the roadway network in the year 2035. The commuter bus and feeder systems would provide roughly 1,600 daily riders with service between various northern Front Range sites to Denver and DIA. However, the reduction associated with vehicles removed from the roadways by Package A transit options would account for approximately 0.01 percent of total regional study area VMT. Summary of MSAT Analysis: Package B—Air quality emissions from Package B BRT and feeder bus service would occur from diesel emissions generated by buses running in the dedicated transit lane. Diesel emission levels would be anticipated to be less than those currently experienced on buses in use in the regional study area, due to introduction of low- sulfur fuels and Tier 3 and 4 diesel engine emission controls. Transit service would remove an estimated 10,200 vehicles daily from the roadway network in the year 2035. However, the reduction associated with vehicles removed from the roadways by Package B transit options would account for approximately 0.02 percent of total regional study area VMT. Preferred Alternative Air quality emissions from the Preferred Alternative express bus service and commuter rail and bus service is incrementally neutral. Diesel emissions generated by rail locomotion (DMU) and diesel-operated bus engines are anticipated to be less than current operating levels due to introduction of Tier 3 and 4 low-sulfur fuels and diesel engine emission controls. Transit service would remove an estimated 11,500 vehicles daily from the roadway network in the year 2035. However, the reduction associated with vehicles removed from the roadways by the Preferred Alternative transit options would account for only approximately 0.02 percent of the total • regional study area VMT. Air Quality 3.5-42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Phase I Air quality emissions from Phase 1 commuter bus service would occur from diesel emissions generated by buses running in the dedicated transit lane. Diesel emission levels would be anticipated to be less than those currently experienced on buses in use in the regional study area, due to introduction of Tier 3 and 4 low-sulfur fuels and diesel engine emission controls. Transit service would remove an estimated 6,300 vehicles daily from the roadway network in the year 2035. However, the reduction associated with vehicles removed from the roadways by Phase 1 transit options would account for 0.01 percent of the total regional study area VMT. 3.5.3.6 LOCALIZED EFFECTS OF COMMUTER RAIL AND BRT STATIONS Commuter rail and BRT or express bus stations would result in local increases of some pollutants due to increasing emissions from transit vehicles themselves and from automobile, truck and bus traffic accessing the stations. These emissions would be greater than with the No-Action Alternative at these particular locations, but in no cases would there be exceedances of the NAAQS. Table 3.5-22 to Table 3.5-23 show the stations with residential or other sensitive land uses that could be affected by these localized increases in emissions as a result of the build alternatives. • • Air Quality 3.5-43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.5-20 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package A Transit Station Location Sensitive Land Uses in the Vicinity Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Rail Station: Residential, church and educational land uses Mason and Cherry Streets within 600 feet. CSU Commuter Rail Station: Church and college residential and uses within 600 South Mason Street between West Laurel Street feet of the commuter rail. and Old Main Dr. South Fort Collins Transit Center Commuter Rail Commuter rail station would be 500 feet from Station [A-H2 Component]: residential areas. US 287 and Harmony Road North Loveland Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from 29th Street and US 287 residential development and 600 feet from school and church facilities. Downtown Loveland Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 700 feet from N. 4th Street and Cleveland Avenue (US 287) residential, school, community health, and church facilities. Berthoud Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from US 287 and Mountain Avenue (SH 56) residential land uses. North Longmont Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from SH 66, between US 287 and N. 115th Street residential land uses. Longmont at Sugar Mill Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 600 feet, 1,000 feet Three sites are under consideration: and less than 100 feet respectively, from residential The first site is south of Sugar Mill Road, north of land uses. • Ken Pratt Boulevard, and west of N. 119th Street. The second site is on north side of Sugar Mill Road. The third site is at County Line Road and SH 119. 1-25 and WCR 8 Commuter Rail Station: No sensitive land uses in close proximity. Nearest 1-25 and WCR 8 sensitive land use is 2,300 feet from site. Fort Collins Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility: Commuter rail facilities would be within 500 feet Vine Drive and Timberline Road from residential, church and health facilities. Berthoud Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility: Scattered residential land use within 100 feet of the CR 46 and US 287 maintenance facility. No other sensitive land uses in area. Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and D Street A residential area and community facility. South Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from US 85 and US 34 interchange on the southwest closest residential land use. Most sensitive land use comer of 26th Street and 9th Avenue areas are located more than 1,100 feet from site. Evans Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from US 85 and 42nd Street residential areas and church facilities. Platteville Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and SH 66 sensitive land use areas. Fort Lupton Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 850 feet from US 85 just south of 14th Street sensitive land use areas. Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility: Commuter bus facilities would be 700 feet from 31st Street and 1st Avenue residential areas and church facilities. • Air Quality 3.544 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-21 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package B BRT Station Location Sensitive Land Uses in the Vicinity South Fort Collins Transit Center BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be 500 feet from US 287 and Harmony Road residential areas. Harmony Road and Timberline BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be 300 feet from Harmony Road and Timberline closest residential areas. 1-25 and Harmony Road BRT Station: No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. I-25 and Harmony Road Nearest residential development 2,000 feet from site. Windsor BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be 300 feet from 1-25 and SH 392 residential areas. Crossroads BRT Station: No sensitive land use areas within 0.5 mile There are two sites: proximity. Site O is northeast of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard. Site M is located southwest of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard US 34 and SH 257 BRT Station: No residential areas in close proximity. US 34 and SH 257 West Greeley BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be 100 feet from US 34 (Business Loop)and 83rd Avenue residential areas. • Greeley Downtown Transfer Center BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be greater than Downtown Greeley between 9th Avenue and 1,000 feet from residential areas. 8th Avenue on 7th Street Berthoud BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be 600 feet from 1-25 and SH 56 residential areas. Firestone BRT Station: Commuter BRT facilities would be less than 1-25, south of SH 119 300 feet from residential areas. Frederick/Dacono BRT Station: No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. 1-25, 0.5 mile north of SH 52 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station: Both commuter BRT facilities would be less than Two sites: 300 feet from the closest sensitive land use. Site E Is east of 1-25 and 0.5 mile north of SH 7 Site C is located on the southwest corner of the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange Fort Collins BRT Maintenance Facility: Commuter BRT facilities would be less than Portner Road,just north of Trilby Road 100 feet from residential areas. • Air Quality 3.5-45 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.5-22 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by the Preferred Alternative Transit Station Location Sensitive Land Uses in the Vicinity Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Rail Station: Residential, church and educational land uses BNSF and Maple Street within 600 feet. CSU Commuter Rail Station: Church and college residential and uses within Mason Street south of University Avenue and 600 feet of the commuter rail. north of West Pitkin South Fort Collins Transit Center Commuter Rail Commuter rail station would be 500 feet from Station [1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60]: residential areas. Mason Street and West Fairway Lane North Loveland Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from BNSF and 29th Street residential development and 600 feet from school and church facilities. Downtown Loveland Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 700 feet from BNSF and approximately 6th Street residential, school, community health, and church facilities. Berthoud Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from East of BNSF and north of SH 56 residential land uses. North Longmont Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from East of BNSF and north of SH 66 residential land uses. Longmont at Sugar Mill Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 1,000 feet from North of alignment and south of Rogers Road. residential land uses. 1-25 and WCR 8 Commuter Rail Station: No sensitive land uses in close proximity. Nearest 1-25 and WCR 8 sensitive land use is 2,300 feet from site. • Berthoud Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility: Scattered residential land use within 100 feet of the CR 46 and US 287 maintenance facility. No other sensitive land uses in area. Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and D Street residential area and community facility. South Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from US 85 and US 34 interchange on the southwest closest residential land use. Most sensitive land use corner of 26th Street and 9th Avenue areas are located more than 1,100 feet from site. Evans Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from US 85 and 42nd Street residential areas and church facilities. Platteville Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and SH 66 sensitive land use areas. Fort Lupton Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 850 feet from US 85 just south of 14th Street sensitive land use areas. Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility: Commuter bus facilities would be 700 feet from 31st Street and 1st Avenue residential areas and church facilities. 1-25 and Harmony Road Express Bus Station: No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. I-25 and Harmony Road Nearest residential development 2,000 feet from site. Windsor Express Bus Station: Commuter express bus facilities would be 500 feet located southeast of 1-25 and SH 392 from residential areas. Crossroads Express Bus Station: No sensitive land use areas within 0.5 mile Site M is southwest of 1-25 and Crossroads proximity. Boulevard US 34 and SH 257 Express Bus Station: No residential areas in close proximity. • US 34 and SH 257 Air Quality 3.5-46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-22 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by the Preferred Alternative (cont'd.) Transit Station Location Sensitive Land Uses in the Vicinity West Greeley Express Bus Station: Commuter express bus facilities would be 100 feet US 34 (Business Loop)and 83rd Avenue from residential areas. Berthoud Express Bus Station: Commuter express bus facilities would be 600 feet 1-25 and SH 56. from residential areas. Firestone Express Bus Station: Commuter express bus facilities would be less than 1-25, south of SH 119. 300 feet from residential areas. Frederick/Dacono Express Bus Station: No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. 1-25, 0.5 mile north of SH 52 1-25 and SH 7 Express Bus Station: Both commuter express bus facilities would be less Site C is on the southwest corner of the 1-25 and than 300 feet from the closest sensitive land use. SH 7 interchange Table 3.5-23 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Phase 1 Transit Station Location Sensitive Land Uses in the Vicinity Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and D Street A residential area and community facility. South Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from • US 85 and US 34 interchange on the southwest closest residential land use. Most sensitive land use corner of 26th Street and 9th Avenue areas are located more than 1,100 feet from site. Evans Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from US 85 and 42nd Street residential areas and church facilities. Platteville Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and SH 66 sensitive land use areas. Fort Lupton Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 850 feet from US 85 just south of 14th Street sensitive land use areas. 1-25 and Harmony Road BRT Station: No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. 1-25 and Harmony Road Nearest residential development 2,000 feet from site. West Greeley Express Bus Station: Commuter express bus facilities would be 100 feet US 34 (Business Loop)and 83rd Avenue from residential areas. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center Express Bus Commuter express bus facilities would be greater Station: than 1,000 feet from residential areas. Downtown Greeley between 9th Avenue and 8th Avenue on 7th Street Firestone Express Bus Station: Commuter express bus facilities would be less than 1-25, south of SH 119. 300 feet from residential areas. 1-25 and SH 7 Express Bus Station: Both commuter express bus facilities would be less Two sites: Site E Is east of 1-25 and 1/2 mile north than 100 feet from the closest sensitive land use. of SH 7 Site C is located on the southwest corner of the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange • Air Quality 3.5-47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.5.3.7 INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable and can be linked together and extended to estimate further consequences. The most apparent link to air quality is incremental population growth, land use, and development changes caused as a result of the North 1-25 corridor project. These growth and development changes would affect traffic and traffic patterns which would then affect air quality. In areas of anticipated transit oriented development, air quality would be anticipated to improve due to more efficient travel patterns. This improvement would be more noticeable with Package A and the Preferred Alternative than Package B and Phase 1. Another indirect air quality effect could be the continued conversion of agricultural land use which is the dominant source of ammonia along the Front Range (see Figure 3.5-3). This land is being converted to residential and commercial uses which would lessen agricultural sources of nitrogen deposition effects to the Rocky Mountain National Park and other sensitive environments in the future. Ammonia emissions from mobile sources increase due to VMT increasing in the corridor and emissions rates from mobile sources (in terms of ammonia per mile of driving) also increase slightly. Ammonia is a by-product of catalytic converter systems on vehicles to reduce NO), emissions. Therefore, as more on-road and non-road vehicles are equipped with catalytic converters, ammonia emissions from the average vehicle will increase somewhat. Package A and the Preferred Alternative are estimated to have higher VMT compared to Package B or Phase 1 (see Table 3.5-4). Therefore, since these alternatives would have more on-road and non-road vehicles likely to be equipped with catalytic converters, ammonia emissions are • anticipated to be marginally higher for Package A and the Preferred Alternative, as listed: ► No-Action 858.1 tons per year ► Package A 871.1 tons per year ► Package B 865.8 tons per year ► Preferred Alternative 872.8 tons per year ► Phase 1 870.0 tons per year These emissions do not include any benefit from regional transit improvements planned by RTD and included with Package A, Package B, the Preferred Alternative, and Phase 1 nor do these emissions assume any market penetration of hybrid vehicles or other advanced technologies between now and 2035. Non-road sources of nitrogen are estimated to decrease an average 61 percent or over 12,000 tons per year for NO, and 11 tons per year for ammonia, over this same time period (Houk, 2007). The overall decrease in total nitrogen emissions would contribute to the RMNP goal of reducing nitrogen deposition rates by the year 2018, although the transportation emissions of ammonia would increase in the future since increases in VMT are linked directly to increased ammonia emissions. 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures Regional and local agency strategies that could be used to reduce criteria pollutant and MSAT • emissions, especially diesel particulate matter from existing diesel engines, include but are not limited to: tailpipe retrofits, closed crankcase filtration systems, cleaner fuels, engine rebuild and Air Quality 3.548 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. replacement requirements, contract requirements, anti-idling ordinances and legislation, truck stop electrification programs, and aggressive fleet turnover policies. Implementation of a vehicle purchase/recycle program would also help to reduce air pollution within the regional study area by reducing highly polluting vehicles off the road. Air quality impacts are not anticipated to result from this project. The following mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate potential air quality emissions from commuter rail: ► New commuter rail, BRT, commuter, and feeder bus vehicles will be required to meet Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards (see Section 3.5.3.1). ► Alternative bus fleet vehicle selections will be investigated for more energy and emissions efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, electric buses, etc. The following mitigation measures are recommended for construction activities associated with any of the build alternatives: ► An air quality mitigation plan will be prepared describing all feasible measures to reduce air quality emissions from the project. CDOT staff must review and endorse construction mitigation plans prior to work on a project site. ► Acceptable options for reducing emissions could include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, and • after-treatment products. ► The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. ► Idling time will be minimized to 10 minutes—to save fuel and reduce emissions. ► An operational water truck will be on site at all times. Water will be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts off site. ► There will be no open burning of removed vegetation. Vegetation will be chipped or delivered to waste energy facilities. ► Existing power sources or clean fuel generators will be utilized rather than temporary power generators. ► Operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours will be scheduled whenever reasonable. ► Obstructions of through-traffic lanes will be minimized. A flag person will be provided to guide traffic properly minimizing congestion and to ensure safety at construction sites. These improvement measures would be enacted along with the project phases (see Section 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed Evaluation) for which the measures are relevant. The CDPHE-APCD enforces several regulations through the auspices of the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to reduce particulate emissions from mobile sources as control strategies and contingency measures for non-attainment areas, including gas and diesel motor vehicle • inspections and maintenance programs (Regulations 11 and 12) and street-sanding and sweeping standards to clean up winter sanding operations and excess roadside sand accumulations (Regulation 16). Air Quality 3.5-49 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Non-Transportation Related Mitigation According to EPA, it is important to reduce both NO and NH3 emissions. However, a reduction of 1 ton of ammonia is more effective than a 1-ton reduction of N0x. While there are more NO„ emissions along the Front Range and NH4 and NO3 contribute approximately 50 percent to the mass of nitrogen deposited at monitoring stations within the RMNP, a 1-ton reduction of ammonia should have a greater benefit. As discussed in the Air Quality Technical Addendum, Sections 3.4.5 and 4.3.9 (Jacobs, 2011 c), ammonia emissions are generated mostly from agricultural livestock and crop production. Although there are no agricultural uses associated with this project, implementing best management practices (BMPs) for agricultural production could help to reduce ammonia emissions. The following improvement measures were identified which could be applicable to other agricultural projects in the area that others could implement to help reduce ammonia emissions within the regional study area: ► Choose a nitrogen fertilizer appropriate for a given cropping system that will have the lowest nitrogen volatilization on the soil type to which it is applied. ► Incorporating fertilizer or manure as soon as possible into the soils will greatly reduce ammonia volatilization, minimize the loss of ammonia, and make more applied nitrogen available for plants. ► Properly store and manage commercial fertilizer to minimize emissions of ammonia from leaks, spills, or other problems. ► The use of feed additive and supplemental hormones in animal production has proven to • greatly improve nutrient utilization, resulting in more efficient milk and meat production. Use of these products may decrease nitrogen excretion per day and/or reduce the total number of days on feed, thereby reducing overall nitrogen excretion and subsequent ammonia volatilization. ► Ammonia volatilization occurs soon after manure is deposited on barn floors. BMPs should be implemented such as scraping and flushing the floors and alleyways, drying manure and cooling barn temperatures, installing filters/scrubbers on air exchange systems, etc. ► Areas such as lawns, open spaces, parks, and golf courses require large amounts of water as well as significant amounts of fertilizers to help them stay green. Therefore, appropriate fertilizers should be applied and BMPs for re-treatment of wastewater run-off should be implemented. • Air Quality 3.5-50 • N oRTi I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.6 NOISE AND VIBRATION This section describes the analyses performed to assess existing and potential future impacts from noise and what's in Section 3.6? vibration from both traffic and rail transit 3.6 Noise and Vibration to properties (i.e., "receivers") near the 3.6.1 Methodology project corridors. The purpose of the 3.6.2 Affected Environment analyses is to determine whether any 3.6.2.1 Traffic Noise Measurements 3.6.2.2 Rail Noise Measurements receivers near the corridors would be 3.6.2.3 Existing Traffic Noise impacted by either noise or vibration from 3.6.2.4 Existing Traffic Vibration the project alternatives according to 3.6.2.5 Existing Rail Noise CDOT, FHWA, or FTA guidelines. More 3.6.2.6 Existing Rail Vibration details on the analyses can be found in 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences the noise and vibration impact 3.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.6.3.2 Package A assessment addenda (FHU, 2011a); Harris, Miller, Miller& Hanson 3.6.3.3 Package B 3.6.3.4 Preferred Alternative [HMMH], 2011). 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures 3.6.4.1 Non-Barrier Traffic Noise The objectives of the noise and vibration Mitigation Evaluation analyses were to assess project-related 3.6.4.2 Traffic Noise Barrier Evaluations noise and vibration at properties near any 3.6.4.3 Rail Noise and Vibration proposed improvements or substantive Mitigation Evaluations • changes and to determine whether 3.6.4.4 Impacted Receivers After g Recommended Mitigations impacts are present or may be present in 3.6.5 Construction Noise the future. The analyses were based on 3.6.6 Summary noise levels in A-weighted decibels (dBA) and on vibration levels in vibration decibels (VdB). The main focus of the traffic noise and vibration analyses is 1-25 because the alternatives being evaluated in this Final EIS included substantive roadway changes only along 1-25 between US 36 and SH 1. Other potential traffic noise sources relevant for each alternative were also considered as appropriate, such as commuter bus service and traffic accessing transit stations. The focus of the rail transit noise and vibration analyses was the potential commuter rail corridor between Fort Collins and Thornton (Section 2.2.2). For planning purposes, diesel multiple units were assumed as a vehicle technology for the interlined North Metro/North 1-25 corridors. Since the time of analysis, the North Metro Corridor has identified electric multiple units for its vehicle technology. In recognition that technology is evolving rapidly, vehicle technologies will be reassessed prior to implementation of North 1-25 commuter rail, to identify a technology that is suitable for both corridors and therefore interoperable. Different train technologies have different noise and vibration characteristics, such as from train acceleration. Therefore, if a technology other than diesel multiple units is ultimately identified, impacts (including noise and vibration)will be reassessed for the commuter rail vehicle technology identified at that time. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-1 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.6.1 Methodology The traffic and rail analyses consisted of a combination of field measurements and calculations of future conditions. The analyses for traffic and rail were performed following different procedures (FHU, 2008b; HMMH, 2008), as summarized below. Traffic noise and vibration analyses were performed according to CDOT procedures (CDOT, 2002a). When applicable, FTA procedures (FTA, 2006a)were followed to evaluate noise impacts from traffic to transit stations or maintenance facilities. The main traffic noise sources analyzed were: ► roads that would be built or reconstructed under any of the alternatives ► roads where traffic volumes would be substantively changed by the alternatives ► other major roads adjoining the changed roads within the regional study area as needed for technical/modeling reasons FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 software (FHWA, 1998)was used to model traffic noise levels at more than 600 points that represented noise-sensitive properties within approximately 500 feet of project roads. Impacts from traffic noise were assessed either by comparing the measured and modeled traffic noise levels to CDOT's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or through FTA procedures, as • appropriate. CDOT's NACs (Table 3.6-1) are based on the one-hour average sound level (Led). Land Use Categories A and E are either not present or not analyzed within the project area and were not considered further. Under CDOT guidelines, traffic noise levels equaling or exceeding the NAC are viewed as noise impacts, which trigger an evaluation of traffic noise mitigation measures. A "substantial" traffic noise increase (when the future noise level is expected to increase by 10 dBA or more over existing levels) is also considered a noise impact, also leading to evaluation of noise mitigation actions. Assessment of impacts from traffic vibration is described in Section 3.6.2.5. The rail transit noise and vibration analyses were carried out in conformance with procedures prescribed by FTA (FTA, 2006a). The highest level of analysis under the FTA process (i.e., "detailed" analysis) was followed. FTA noise criteria use either one-hour averaged noise levels (abbreviated Led or Leq(h)) or 24-hour averaged noise levels (Ldn). The Ldn is defined to include a 10 dBA penalty for noise between 10 PM and 7 AM. FTA groups noise-sensitive land uses into the following three categories: ► Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use, recording studios, and concert halls. ► Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. ► Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category • includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading Noise and Vibration 3.6-2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation transportation_ material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds, and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included. Table 3.6-1 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) Land Use CDOT NAC Description Category (Lai Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the A 56 dBA preservation of those qualities is to continue to serve its intended (Exterior) purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks, or open spaces that are recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. 66 dBA Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, B (Exterior) churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks. 71 dBA Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in categories (Exterior) A and B above. D None Undeveloped lands. E 51 dBA Residences, motels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, (Interior) libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. • Source: CDOT, 2002. The noise level thresholds used to determine transit noise impacts are variable, depending on existing noise exposure, as illustrated in Figure 3.6-1. There are two levels of impact associated with the FTA noise criteria: ► Moderate Impact: In this range of noise impact, the change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. In this transitional area, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These factors include the existing noise level, the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise sensitivity of the affected properties, the effectiveness of possible mitigation measures, community views, and the cost of mitigating the noise. ► Severe Impact: Project-generated noise in the severe impact range can be expected to cause a significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise and represents the most compelling need for mitigation. Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there are truly extenuating circumstances which prevent it. There are also separate FTA criteria for ground-borne noise, i.e., the "rumble" that can be radiated from room surfaces in buildings due to ground-borne vibration. Because airborne noise often masks ground-borne noise for above ground (i.e., at-grade or elevated) rail systems, ground-borne noise criteria are primarily important with subway operations where • airborne noise is not a factor, which is not the case with this project. Noise and Vibration 3.6-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. 1 Finally, the FTA vibration impact criteria are based on land • Y p use and train frequency 2 ( FTA, 2006a). The vibration criteria are rather technical and are therefore discussed in detail in 3 Rail Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (HMMH , 2008). Briefly stated, FTA has 4 established a criterion for detailed vibration analyses of residential buildings with nighttime 5 occupancy at 72 VdB , measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range from 6 8 Hertz (Hz) to 80 Hz. Figure 3.6-1 Transit Noise Impact Criteria 80 85 75 - 80 g 70 75 > 0 65 Severe Impact 70 m N• y 60 65 a o _ W D Moderate w a) -1 55 Impact 60 z � z � a 50 55 a 0 Note: a _ No Impact Noise exposure is in terms 45 - of Leg (h) for Category - 50 1 and 3 land uses. Lin for Category 2 land uses. 45 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Existing Noise Exposure (dBA) Source: FTA, 2006. 3.6.2 Affected Environment There are a number of receivers along both the road and rail corridors (Figure 3.6-2) of the EIS alternatives that could be impacted by noise or vibration . Potential impacts from noise or " vibration were evaluated according to the methods described in Section 3.6. 1 . Along 1-25 between SH 1 and 136th Avenue, there are dispersed residential and business properties with some clusters of developed properties. The Mountain Range Shadows residential development located south of SH 392 is one of the larger neighborhoods near 1-25, while the majority of other developed properties are scattered throughout the northern project area . At the south end of the project area between 136th Avenue and US 36, there are numerous densely populated residential and business areas along both the east and west sides of 1-25. Noise and Vibration 3.6-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-2 Noise Sensitive Areas along Project Corridors LEGEND i Developed Area along Railroad • Developed Area along 1-25 ti ..•.. \ • Cities & Towns .N.. .. t853 in Regional Study Area :7 \1 Av Study Corridors f /s# Highways f 1 Fort ' ollins /\/ Arterial Roads ' \, 0 City Boundaries A .j - 141 :` ! 257 , I 1 irnnaffi Eom I • voranco • - 1 49aR, t ---1--- Greeley ', I-., 34 j. 1 \ GOrdGriot.Ci 34 Loveland � -�... i E y i j I . Lo Sal / Campion AntO m -r- - — i 6t) Far ,o 9 Milian 8`S / Li- - . _ 5� Gicrik I / / its_ _ " .6 Plc!..vile , I I I .ngmont 1. i - - , ,, Ion. , ILf Vairn.vQ 1 / OF Inv Ian.> I Mia m% e• ©rreaaril: -1-41.1.‘c a II 9 _ Q �Dacano Fort 2 s, - G unkorrol I % I) ' W c--- ' Watla+nkari l t�Boulder I . on ...\ 1,,., }QD Lohyoka Nv l ._. - _ ' , illit lie ----,.. 1-' ' - • ,,, Britt, MO i. Po ' i , 0E air -}o r •� I ,�6} Mar*a _ / 7 A.., .tit0\ Tkondn r r. fie 41 72 - r I T�l 1~ -* ; ' Denver 70.77,....,....c.NT. i I a lii: . 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ - t /' i.r ii i ii Miles North ..% I IIISource: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-5 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • A number of traffic noise barriers (Figure 3.6-3) have been built in the project area along 1-25. There are several constructed walls in the southern region of the project between US 36 and 120th Avenue. In addition, there are five earth berms along the 1-25 corridor, as shown on Figure 3.6-3. Along the proposed rail corridor, there is a range of adjoining property uses. Much of the corridor abuts undeveloped or agricultural land with dispersed residential properties and neighborhoods in some areas (Figure 3.6-2 or Figure 3.1-2). Some of this area is developing quickly, however, into primarily commercial properties. The rail corridor intersects substantial portions of highly developed areas in several cities and towns, including Fort Collins, Loveland, Campion, Berthoud, and Longmont. In many of these areas, residences are very near the project rail corridor and at-grade rail crossings. The affected environment for traffic and rail noise and vibration in the project area has been characterized through a combination of measurements and modeling, as described in the following sections. 3.6.2.1 TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENTS Measurements of existing traffic noise levels (Table 3.6-2) were performed at 16 locations in the project area in 2005 or 2006. The measurements consisted of 10-minute measurements at 13 locations and 24-hour measurements at the three remaining locations. The measurements were spread over a variety of locations in the project area adjacent to 1-25 (Figure 3.6-4). Measured noise levels at six of the monitoring locations equaled or exceeded the applicable • CDOT NAC, which indicated that these areas are currently impacted by traffic noise (Table 3.6-2). The measured noise levels for these locations are denoted in bold in the table. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-3 Existing Noise Barriers along Project Corridor --‘,.„4., 287 ,r-I-� A LEGEND _ T r Pierce Existing Barrier 1 [[[ i { -I Berm O Cities & Towns ► Fort Gollinsi __ e. $ ��' i . . Regional Study Area Ault T 114 AV Study Corridors � 257 I • i — 1 /e/ Highways 1 ! '1 Tim n aah "./ Arterial Roads I ..._.alscvcrance Eboun I , 4 ; f O City Boundaries ! 287 • L- ivitiecif 1/41 j lucern, j 392 1 r I 1 r.-.,, I -Iey Greele,hiy ‘; t • • Garden Ci 1 , (! - Loveland • - Berm 1 J 1 / Evsn-• I 120th Ave. I. Sall . :;' 1 Campion ' 0 thns a - /60 thou . ' 56 0 Milliken 85 j ' Gilcrc4t _ ---i Berm I i 0104th Ave. I I I •a'' .- ttte1k Lr igmontIIIS '® • ! lone J 4 lroflmor0 I °Firc tcr,e taFri:di.r,cl, t ,I a — 4 — ©Dacono Fort Lupto - 52 0 ---Th \ 84th Ave . Erie I 76 ,_-___ Berm ] 0 Wittenberg I O [ hye : wwI I t u 'ilket— Berm mot . • -, 7 ii ev • � 4IV � ♦ v f Eacdokrt—r,-- ' Broom fi•I .� ♦ � • a ..�__ 93 N �♦♦'n4y grenn i> '‘ 4 ♦�♦ ♦s , 1 em / 2 E---- r 1 ! 'ti 0 1 2 3 4 5 j - - . _ .. iii iJ Miles North '; - ' Denver . '�'0 Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.6-2 Existing Traffic Noise Measurement Results Location Location Description Land Use CDOT NAC Measured Number Category* (dBA)* Letl(dBA) 1 Fort Collins soccer fields B 66 69 2 Mountain Range Shadows neighborhood B 66 76 3 Johnson's Corner Campground B 66 74 4 Home along Weld County Road 46 B 66 62 5 Coyote Run neighborhood B 66 57 6 Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area B 66 69 7 St. Vrain State Park B 66 66 8 Willowbrook Park B 66 62 9 Businesses near SH 52 C 71 66 10 Near SH 7 interchange D None 50 11 Summit View Apartments(behind wall) B 66 62 12 Summit View Apartments (beside wall) B 66 72 13 Near former University of Phoenix(behind wall) C 71 62 14 Near former University of Phoenix (beside wall) C 71 67 15 Near Wagon Wheel park-n-Ride D None 62 16 13000-block Grand Circle neighborhood B 66 66 • *See Table 3.6-1. Source: FHU field data, 2005-2006. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-4 Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations LEGEND 'I lest Noise MeasurementsI el Traffic Noise Location (Level [dBAJ) ii --- O Rail Corridor Noise Location (Level [dBAJ) •e "' Weil'ngton �,��•% 13 v Cities & Towns \--(12 /' �.• J Regional Study Area -1,8 7 i at— Location #1 (69) \ Al Study Corridors LT;144�6y) If o,e.c;• /v/ Highways I -F \• Fort Collins "/ Arterial Roads LT-13 (7;2)•-.. •,; • r4191-----/ 4 Local Streets j ._a Ad: ; di City Boundaries V-5 ' I Z +, l^ r i - mrNih. � Seve�a�ice L.7Rir LT-12 (58) ' l i j I.�" . L i L LV rdsa i Location #2 (76) : ' Lucern. ,i-FP 392; L 11 (6b)T ' ___. It l'al • � I � i �^� r-_Greeley � 1 . ,T-4 (61 .' T - r— 1 I 1 t w! -`-,+rr¢ - Loveland • -4-- Location #6 (69) ,,%ri°n`:,• 1. 34 v4. -- - Location #3 (74) - -fFva"' . i I - 1--- ---- LT-9 (61 / (- / LT-8 (63)i Campion • ..�� ,'. ,ile •/' C — . 60 1 85 /f V-3 �' .�,iiou - .� 9 Mil AVIi Location #4 (62) , / LT-7,(i1 ) I i f-- Location #5 (57)' i LT-5 (74) Mead. ; ,i ss T=1 70i 'iatt N & , V-2 r.,. . •' ongmont N 4- Location #7 (64) LT-4 (77 ' l )L i �a " • rrr , L i f t vubma, Q , 1 / ST-2 (61 ) i ae*tone , /r . Wet = t d,iick I ! ± :e -�� Location #9 (66)S. TI7 ----- • i -. Location #10 (50) 76 -�. _ I 1 1 e • Boulder 2:(.5.9) i Li/114 j • ,ri'r f r Location #16 (66) D yetn B'wi1 d ' •• - Location #8'(62) ...N\ 93 ~, $ 36 1 "''"`' I`FLocation#13 (62) & #14 (67) ,• - 1 ' Locati n#11 (62) &'#12 (72) Location #15(62) r I i — \ _ --oes.5 si i ! t _______ L i . r 7 Denver- i 0 2 4 6 8 10 j � I ' I Miles North • � , 1L ' : I Source: FHU and HMMH field data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.6.2.2 RAIL NOISE MEASUREMENTS Fourteen sites, designated as LT-1 through LT-14, were selected for long-term (24-hour) monitoring and four sites, designated as ST-1 through ST-4, were selected for short-term (one-hour) monitoring (Figure 3.6-4). Results of these 2006 measurements are summarized in Table 3.6-3. Based on the average measured train noise levels, the noise exposure in Ldn from current freight train operations at a distance of 100 feet from the track was estimated to be approximately 60 dBA in areas where train horns are not sounded and approximately 72 dBA in areas near grade crossings where horns are sounded for trains in both travel directions. Where train horns are sounded in only one direction of train travel, the Lan at 100 feet was estimated to be 65 dBA, assuming that the horn is not sounded for the single nighttime train. This provides a conservatively low estimate of the existing noise for purposes of the noise impact assessment (Figure 3.6-1). The total existing noise environment along the rail corridor was established by combining train noise (adjusted for distance) with background ambient noise from other sources (e.g., road traffic, aircraft, general neighborhood activities). The results of the noise-monitoring program indicated that the background Ldn (i.e., without trains) generally ranged between 50 dBA and 60 dBA, depending on the location along the corridor. 3.6.2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE Existing traffic noise was calculated based on traffic models which include existing roadways, • interchanges, and frontage roads near noise receivers and existing (2005) traffic volumes. These calculations have also been compared to the actual noise measurement data to make sure there is an accurate reflection of the existing noise. More than 600 total (residential and commercial) points were used in the noise models (FHU, 2011a). In some cases, a single point in the model represented several nearby and similar receivers/properties where distance from the roads and geography were similar. Modeling results are presented in Appendix C. From the modeled points, 496 receivers are calculated to have existing traffic noise levels above the respective NAC during the afternoon peak hour. Of the 496 impacted receivers, 388 are Category B properties (residential) and 108 are Category C properties (commercial). The impacted areas are shown in Figure 3.6-5 and summarized in Table 3.6-4. It should be noted that noise levels at approximately 30 Category B modeled locations without existing barriers currently are at or above 75 dBA (FHU, 2011a), which is a severe impact (CDOT, 2002a). In general, these locations are homes within about 150 feet of 1-25 without any intervening barriers and are spread throughout the corridor. 3.6.2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VIBRATION There are no FHWA or CDOT requirements regarding traffic-induced vibration. Studies assessing the impact of operational traffic-induced vibrations have shown that both measured and predicted vibration levels from traffic were less than any known criteria for structural damage to buildings (FHWA, 1995). Often, normal indoor activities, such as closing doors, have been shown to create greater levels of vibration than highway traffic. As such, vibration • from highway traffic was not a major concern for this EIS and was not examined in this analysis. Noise and Vibration 3.6-10 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-3 Rail Noise Measurement Results Noise Level E Ldn(dBA) o c o Location 2 �. Ev .E (north to Location Description m south) c 3 « o o Leq(dBA) 2 H g R t Z t6 V! WI d 3 l0 bee 401 N.Timberline Road, Unit#178— LT-14 Fort Collins N/A 24 -- 63 -- (near potential maintenance facility site) LT-13 635 Mason Street—Fort Collins 80 24 72 60 (track in median of street) LT-12 328 Albion Way—Fort Collins 150 24 58 56 -- LT-11 4355 Filbert Drive—Loveland 120 24 63 51 -- LT-10 1246 N.Arthur Avenue—Loveland 50 24 68 58 -- (track in cut) LT-9 5105 S. Iowa Avenue—Campion 120 24 63 53 -- LT-8 1220 N. 4th Street— Berthoud 180 24 63 50 -- (near potential maintenance facility site) LT-7 208 3rd Street—Berthoud 80 24 61 50 -- • LT-6 1375 S. Larimer County Road 15—Berthoud 90 24 59 52 -- (120 feet from road; track in cut) LT-5 1556 Centennial Drive—Longmont 50 24 73 51 -- LT-4 514 Atwood Street—Longmont 80 24 77 55 -- (track in median of street) LT 3 4871 Weld County Road 7—Erie N/A 24 -- 56 — (100 feet from road) LT-2 4647 Chia Court—Dacono N/A 24 -- 59 — (near unused track) LT 1 15930 Jackson Street-Brighton N/A 24 -- 54 - (near unused track) 2639 Cedar Drive at N. Garfield Avenue- ST-4 Loveland N/A 1 -- 59* 61 (near potential station site) Peakview Meadows(SH 287 at Turner Ave.)— ST-3 Berthoud N/A 1 -- 59* 61 (near potential station site) Weld County Road 1 at Great Western Drive— ST-2 Longmont N/A 1 -- 59* 61 (near potential station site) ST-1 SH 119 at Fairview Street—Longmont N/A 1 -- 68* 70 (170 feet from highway) --=Not measured 'Estimated level N/A=Not applicable Source: HMMH field data, 2006. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.6-5 Existing Traffic Noise Impacted Receivers LEGEND 1 iii 1 a Impacted Category B Receptor --- _ a Impacted Category C Receptor 1 ti •` 85 0 Cities & Towns7 'L Regional Study Area • �` 4 ,/" . ®/ SH1-SH14 Study Corridors j• ,`-� 33 Category B Ier4 %J ? 17 Category C /\/ Highways I Fort Collins . / I \--FI /\/ Arterial Roads I * -; ea 0 251 q. City Boundaries ' I . \ • I i► _�SH14-SH60 i 92 Category B 287 • i _ L_ 33 Category C ti i _ . 1 Lamm ' i , I it : Greeley !Is 34r‘....1 1 , ,.� •; Lov lan..: Garden c• \- 34 , , 1 ' l�r 1 La 501 • l ` Campion rf6Are .. n i / -rte., FF Vvt Bot a ' 0 Milian 85 ' % • / • 156 • ;4, • • 1 i SH60-E-470 Gi/ a t i ,27 Category B /i lit • 149 Category C ' IIII I . I. - atlrvile ii, i Ii. Longmont , 1 t j innkied -i i � 4olm•r0 • • '• Firer sane , • h t r#—ti �(East redorid ; i .� • I .7Z '� • a�no • Fortis.• Gunbarrel r/ 11 ga I- Eris • 0 I1 I Wtlbnbep ; IsBoulde I • . 1 - y.__.( r Ear 1 Irr f 1 'N. i E-470—US36 ,, 36 . - Na - 236 Category B t ti 19 Category C stir• .µ 1 r (-a it 1 ./ .---- - ---- -- - - -- - i / f 1 Denver• f1—� -_-_ 1 25 ' - - • ® a 1 , 0 2 4 6 8 10 = --. `ta- �•- In Miles Norrn •.�.✓ /�' t �r`r �t► JI -- Mop Mp Oocum+m t2.1 Noti Imp.cwa Rrplra.f.11.m.tj 9/72010 Source: FHU project data, 2010. III Noise and Vibration 3.6-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-4 Number of Properties Currently Impacted by Traffic Noise Road Component Number of Impacted Number of Impacted Category B Receivers Category C Receivers Between SH 1 and SH 14 33 7 Between SH 14 and SH 60 92 33 Between SH 60 and E-470 27 49 Between E-470 and US 36 236 19 Total Impacted Properties 388 108 Source: FHU project data, 2010. 3.6.2.5 EXISTING RAIL NOISE The FTA noise evaluation protocol is based on comparison of existing noise levels to projected noise levels from the proposed project (FTA, 2006a). Under the protocol, a rail transit noise impact occurs when the predicted project-generated noise level increase relative to the existing noise level is too large (Figure 3.6-1). There are not specific noise levels used by FTA • to define noise impacts universally, as there are with the CDOT/FHWA protocol (Table 3.6-1). Because the determination of impacts depends on the change in noise levels, it is not possible or appropriate to assess "existing" noise impacts from rail transit using FTA procedures. While the FTA protocol stipulates that there are no impacts under existing conditions (and the No-Action Alternative), the existing noise exposure at the residential areas along the rail corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont is relatively high from BNSF freight train noise. In this area, the existing Ldn typically ranges from 65 dBA to 75 dBA at homes close to the tracks. The highest noise levels occur at locations near grade crossings where the train horns are routinely sounded. 3.6.2.6 EXISTING RAIL VIBRATION To characterize the existing baseline vibration conditions at sensitive receivers along the rail corridor, a field measurement program was performed in 2006. The measurement program consisted of ground vibration propagation tests as well as vibration measurements during train operations in representative areas along the proposed rail transit alignment. Five sites, designated as V-1 through V-5, were selected to represent the range of soil conditions in areas along the proposed transit corridor (Figure 3.6-4). Ground vibration measurements were made at various distances from the BNSF tracks during train operations at V-2 through V-5 to document existing train vibration levels along the corridor. The results are summarized in Table 3.6-5. Overall, the measurements suggest that existing ground-borne vibration levels from trains operating along the BNSF track between Longmont and Fort Collins are likely to be perceptible at buildings located as far away as • 100 to 150 feet from the track. Noise and Vibration 3.6-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.6-5 Vibration Measurement Data for Freight Trains •cg Maximum Vibration Velocity Site `o d > = Level (VdB) at Distance (North `m o o c.= o Description a m in a u to E o .00 = f c 45- 70- 95- 120- 145- South) c c E E a 65 90 115 140 165 Z ft ft ft. ft. ft S. of Horsetooth Rd. V-5 Fort Collins 3 66 36 North 82 74 71 68 66 Railroad Ave. and E. 8th St. V-4 Loveland 3 86 18 South 76 72 69 69 62 Third St. and Capitol Ave. V-3 Berthoud 2 2 22 South 78 73 70 72 67 Atwood St. and 6th Ave. V-2 Longmont 3 45 11 North 70 64 59 59 58 Note: Site V-1 is not near freight rails. Source: HMMH field data, 2006. 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences Four alternatives are being evaluated for this Final EIS: the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative. Each alternative was evaluated for noise and vibration impacts (FHU, 2011a; HMMH, 2011). Depending on the alternative, some project • area roads may be widened or realigned resulting in traffic closer to adjoining properties. Increased traffic volumes, increased traffic speeds, or different road alignments may lead to impacts from traffic. Rail transit would be added with Package A or the Preferred Alternative, which may cause impacts from rail along the existing corridors or may introduce impacts from rail into new corridors. The important new noise and vibration sources or changed conditions that were the focus of the noise and vibration analysis included: ► Road design changes in the 1-25 corridor (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) ► Traffic volumes on 1-25 (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) ► Rail transit equipment and operations with the freight rail operations (Package A and the Preferred Alternative only) ► Traffic volumes on roads connecting to 1-25 from commuter buses, feeder buses, etc. (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) ► New transit and maintenance facilities, parking lots, and access roads (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) Some other sources were considered but found not to be important. For example, CDOT requires analysis of noise impacts if a project would make major physical changes to a road (CDOT, 2002a). Small changes, such as addition of traffic control devices, do not require noise • analysis. Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative all would make major changes by widening roads in the 1-25 corridor. Noise and Vibration 3.6-14 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Outside the 1-25 corridor, minor proposed changes to the project area roads that may affect noise or vibration conditions would be installation of queue jumps for buses at select intersections and addition of commuter/feeder bus traffic on the existing roads. The queue jumps would be small changes within the existing road right-of-way and would not cause a substantive change in traffic noise, so the queue jumps are inconsequential for noise impacts. The loudest noise scenario for additional bus traffic on any project area road would be six buses per hour (three buses in each direction), which is a trivial amount of traffic relative to the volumes that already would be on these roads. The additional bus traffic would not have a material effect on traffic noise levels, so bus traffic noise was eliminated from detailed examination as well. Therefore, project area roads outside the 1-25 corridor, such as US 85, US 287, and SH 119, were not subjected to detailed traffic noise analysis because the proposed alternatives would not materially change noise conditions on these roads. However, new transit facilities (bus or rail) and new access roads to these facilities that were part of the alternatives were examined for noise impacts regardless of location within the regional study area because these facilities could be substantial changes at the local level. For the detailed analyses, future noise and vibration levels were evaluated for areas near the road and rail corridors in the project area for each alternative. The analyses for the alternatives assessed whether future levels near the project corridors would exceed the relevant CDOT, FHWA, or FTA criteria (Section 3.6.1). If future noise or vibration impacts were identified, mitigation measures were considered and evaluated following the relevant CDOT, FHWA, or • FTA guidelines. As previously described, many sensitive areas exist along the corridors in the project area (Figure 3.6-1). Noise and vibration results for these areas are presented below and impacts are summarized in Section 3.6.6. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C. 3.6.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Only potential impacts from road traffic are relevant for the No-Action Alternative; no changes to rail facilities would be made. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration would not be a major concern. Therefore, only potential road traffic noise impacts (Appendix C) are relevant for the No-Action Alternative and are discussed below. Results for this alternative for year 2035 (Figure 3.6-6)would be similar to existing conditions results. Traffic noise patterns would be similar to existing conditions with noise levels pushed out a bit farther from the roads due to increased traffic volumes, so that impacted areas would be slightly larger overall. Areas impacted under existing conditions also would be impacted under this alternative. For the No-Action Alternative, it is calculated that 661 Category B receivers and 155 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Table 3.6-6). As noted in Section 3.6.3.5, existing noise exposure along the rail corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont is relatively high from existing BNSF freight rail noise. This would continue under the No-Action Alternative. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.6-6 Noise-Impacted Areas for the No-Action Alternative (Year 2035) 1 LEGEND o Impacted Category B Receptor ► ..-•-- -...� know, '%,,,,a Impacted Category C Receptor •� •1/46.,' ''.. 85c v Cities & Towns Lj Regional Study Area / r , I - ® 53 Category B pierce ^/ Study Corridors I - A I 8 Category C ~ Highways :fort Collinsi _ • i / Arterial Roads ""K •_-/� dp City Boundaries l 1 L 1 t3 .I a i- r •: in SH14-SH60 I - 1 101 Category B - i 1 I -- �•, - L- . 46 Category C • ; Lucarn• Lic • - r.--1 ` Greeley ' ' 7 . 34 k i ,� f _.'_L do:, land . ' Gardon ci• 34 1 - er. e La Sael•. _ 1 Campion e.n min ;;/ • L 'Sirs• ,e . ,.Q MI% n 85 JI ! e Gacrg/ SH60-E-470 i 29 Category B i 0 55 Category C ' ts ' ! ?f tte Milk P/441 Ion 1 __ I.. r 1� Volk,alb 1 � 4• '• 1 . - a 1. _ I ar aon a Niwol �f/ , r�(*rick 'ir Nf i �,p- ; .conc. Fort lap • '( ' ' �• 7 �Gunbartcl ! 0erw i / I I • - •7-- Watt nberg 11 i�Boulder � 1 gray:Am NU • , 1 Brit 7 * - % . t I / 1 T ; 6t i , "° re ram 478 Category B - r« 46 Category C t I ' 72 r- i • I / L.\ .... .. / (-1 Liti - . ' Denver . I ` _ _j r' 0 2 4 6 8 10 S l- ej ° t 1/4 �` f V Miles North ""f L rtela ‘ k. - y i_J • Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-16 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The residential areas calculated to be impacted are: ► Wellington East (Wellington) — 20 receivers ► Waterglen (Fort Collins)— 12 receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County)— 69 receivers ► Isolated/scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld counties—82 receivers ► Numerous neighborhoods abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster, and in Adams County—478 receivers In addition, portions of Archery Range Natural Area, Arapaho Bend Natural Area, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Golf Course are calculated to have traffic noise levels at or above the CDOT NAC for Category B. No receivers would be expected to experience a 10 dBA increase; the largest calculated increase would be 6 dBA. The farthest distance from a modeled road to a receiver impacted by traffic noise in year 2035 would be approximately 500 feet from 1-25. Table 3.6-6 Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts Number of Noise-Impacted Receivers • Highway (Category B /Cate•ory C) Segment ExistingNo-Action Package A Package B Preferred (2005) (2035) (2035) (2035) Alternative (2035) SH1toSH14 33/7 53/8 61 /8 61 /8 61 /8 SH 14 toSH60 92/33 101 /46 103/44 103/44 101 /44 SH 60 to E-470 27/49 29/55 31 /55 30/56 29/55 E-470 to US 36 236/ 19 478/46 478/46 491 /55 488/54 Total 388/108 661 /155 673/153 685/163 679/ 161 Source: FHU project data, 2010. 3.6.3.2 PACKAGE A Both road and rail noise and vibration are relevant for Package A. Each of these two travel modes are discussed separately below. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration is not a major concern and is not discussed further. Traffic Noise For convenience, this discussion is divided into highway traffic noise based on the FHWA process and bus transit noise based on the FTA process. • Highway Noise. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C. For Package A, 673 Category B receivers and 153 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Figure 3.6-7), which represents 10 more receivers than for the No-Action Noise and Vibration 3.6-17 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Alternative (Table 3.6-6). Traffic noise impacts are summarized by project segment in Table 3.6-6.The greatest number of impacted receivers is in the southern end of the corridor, which is also where the greatest number of existing impacted receivers are located. All of the impacted receivers would equal or exceed the NAC; no impacts would result from a 10 dBA increase. Package A would impact the fewest traffic noise receivers of the build alternatives partly because some homes would need to be removed. Results for Package A are similar to the No-Action Alternative results for 2035. Even with the proposed roadway changes, many of the same receivers would be impacted. However, Package A is calculated to impact some different receivers due to wider roads and greater traffic volumes. A few receivers impacted under the No-Action Alternative would be removed under Package A, thereby reducing the number of impacted receivers in a few areas. Residential areas that would be impacted are: ► Wellington East (Wellington) —20 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Waterglen (Fort Collins) —20 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County)— 69 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Margil Farms (Mead) —7 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Singletree Estates (Mead)— 2 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) • ► Isolated/scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld Counties — 77 receivers (fewer than No-Action Alternative) ► Numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster, and in Adams County—478 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) In addition, portions of Archery Range Natural Area, Arapaho Bend Natural Area, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Golf Course would have traffic noise levels above the CDOT NAC for Category B. The farthest distance from a modeled road to an impacted receiver in year 2035 would be approximately 500 feet. Bus Transit Noise. A total of five commuter bus stations, six carpool lots, and one bus maintenance facility (Figure 3.6-8) were evaluated for noise impacts following FTA procedures (FTA, 2006a). The FTA screening process was the first step in the evaluations. The results from the screening analyses showed that three commuter bus stations (South Greeley, Evans and Platteville) required an FTA General Assessment—the other sites were found not to cause noise impacts based on the screening evaluation. The results were that the stations would not create a noise impact to the neighboring properties. Therefore, none of the proposed bus/carpool facilities were found to cause noise impacts. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-7 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package A (Year 2035) LEGEND , k a Impacted Category B Receptor •\ •—•- .•' • '. nkngt 1 '`.. L. 0 Impacted Category C Receptor ,•. '•�, 5 7 ; • Cities & Towns LCal . Regional Study Area T 61 Category B iorra /V Study Corridors4-4 8 Category C /\/ Highways Fort Collins ' "/ Arterial Roads ' -1-7—P,uR 257. t; O City Boundaries ; I i j i -_ ,mn th SH14-SH60 103 Category B ear i 287 _ , X44 Category C m` t Cacao 1 Greeley 34 - '�f •, f --I-L - -- -Lov land �___ c�rdan ci _ r I' 34 r •- .� Evan . I / - La S 4 ' Campion einsto n ,• • �� QMlikn 851 &utho . I 1 • i t SH60-E-470 cii • 31 Category B ,j Ill — 55 Category C ' Tat..m. •66 L• 'gmont I • lone. , . youth... • / Skiver:ton c • Ir huro� '� • arrodtrick 1 ;/ ii • w // I L f. $ l / ^I • wOacono Fort I.upt. ' .1' .—Ink I t�'1 Erie1 i • l 4 s ' ss O I t '�BOUldef 7 , ,� WatlenbcrQ 7- ' layette el*" i I • ilk -. Bright, . 7 gip:: --- • —i. • _ i / I . I , • %�; oo fib • • ~`� i. 36 9 Y E-470-US36 `~1 • No °l` 478 Category B f 46 Category C O 1 eLi e 1— . 1 - • Denver/ + 7 - . 0 2 4 6 8 10 ;� ' ._. I i i i Miles North .. , ) re' \. _ i _ 0 Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.6-8 Proposed Bus Transit Facilites for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alterntive JLEGEND I • Carpool Lots `~� ,.. riEIIin;l(pn -.., • Express Bus Station �., rr . \ ■ Commuter Bus Station , \, • Bus Maintenance Site / . I / :icrctr • Cities & Towns - J it .1.� i_Fort Collins! U Regional Study Area _ an l Study Corridors ' _I - 1 � Z ; /'s/ Highways 1 ' r "/ Arterial Roads I , 'Tim oak _ —y Ede ._; 0 City Boundaries I _ ! I__7ftw r a 1 L•cern 3y[ t : - _ if • a tGieele34 ( r—ti1 Loveland i F Garden SOuth I r • Greeley s�� / ' _ Campion ?An.to�rn l sc rth of , i O Milik n rs rJ •/ 1 I s l t i r / Gilcrp/t / / Mka3' — S. 0 Platteville i Longmont A t 1• loot ' Voumara Jr .�� `,Firc;tonc f rww J. l/ Niwot JFr..dtrick 1� ,,+�� r ___ V Dacoao Fort iupto ti 5 ` iS eGnaborrcl i I 11, J Ent I I GO ti VlarM Abe r7 (Boulder �- ► 1 I Nlis_.„.._ a l :.Ir... rr: `-`. I I •tea J Lv_a i?Yill< _ ----1. 6n�L r;, O N /,A } J /44 E.sda6c / 8r00 fin • / . r.....enThji 93 1 36 North 4,,,,, !/ 267 / i OTAornton % kinri- . t 4.. -- 1- \ - ./1. ,____s\� � 72 I . 1 l q / , �r 1 ir 1 Denver/-1,�..,_ /I = _ 0 2 4 6 8 10 _. -rri ;/.-- , /{ ill i Miles North L. I - rte± 1 v- 1 i . .._ _ -_ 1111 Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Rail Transit Noise and Vibration For convenience, this discussion has been divided into rail noise and rail vibration . Both are based on the FTA process. The Final EIS rail noise analysis follows recent guidance on train horns to use the minimum Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) horn level (96 dBA at 100 feet) rather than the maximum FTA horn level (84 dBA at 100 feet). This change was made after the Draft EIS because of policy clarification received from RTD and FRA for shared commuter rail corridors to use the minimum FRA standard horn level (96 dBA). This consistency was needed because Package A and Preferred Alternative commuter rail would tie into RTD commuter rail corridors. Rail Transit Noise. The assessment of noise impacts from commuter rail operations is based on a comparison of existing noise conditions with projected future noise conditions following the FTA land use categories. Projected noise exposures in Ldn at locations without obstructions near commuter rail operations as a function of distance are illustrated in Figure 3.6-9. This figure shows 75 MPH train speeds, which is a worst-case situation for the corridor, to ensure that potential rail noise impacts are not underestimated. Figure 3.6-9 Projected Package A and Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Noise Exposure at 75 MPH Train Speed Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure at 75 mph 80 75 70 - - 65 - - Q v 60 1 1 55 1 __ ` - - - 50 - 45 - 40 i I •I . . • r 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance from Near Track (feet) Without Horns — • - . With Horns Source: HMMH project data, 2010. Comparisons of existing and future noise levels are presented in Table 3.6-7 for residential and other sensitive locations along the rail alignment. Based on a comparison of the calculated project noise level with the impact criteria, Table 3.6-7 includes an inventory of the number of residences that would be impacted for each area along the corridor. The results indicate that Noise and Vibration 3.6-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.6-7 Summary of Residential Noise Impacts from Package A and Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail Dist.to Train Total Noise Total Number of Noise Near Speed, Noise Level Impacts2 Track(ft) (mph) Level' Increase' Moderate Severe Fort Collins: 61-594 23-35 65-78 2-3 81 57 CR44 to Fort Collins DTC 44-2603 20-253 61-753 6-203 6 Schools 5 Schools3 1 Church3 CR38 to CR44 65-459 35 61-73 2-4 205 19 1403 353 623 163 1 Church3 CR34 to CR38 220-660 30-35 58-64 3-4 3 0 Loveland: CR28 to CR34 382-462 60 59-60 3 7 0 29th St to CR28 86-543 35-65 59-69 2-5 147 57 US 34 to 29th St 41-449 20-44 61-77 2-9 51 45 3163 32-353 573 133 1 Church3 CR18 to US 34 42-553 20-45 62-81 2-5 88 35 III 244-4603 353 57-613 13-173 2 Churches3 CR14 to CR18 58-515 35-75 59-72 2-4 34 18 Berthoud: CR10 to CR14 80-391 48-75 60-69 2-4 15 6 134-1733 753 60-623 19-213 2 Schools3 Spartan Ave to CR10 68-387 20-46 57-71 2-6 173 51 Wilfred Rd to Spartan Ave 106-454 54-60 59-69 3-4 5 1 CR2 to Wilfred Rd 163-453 61-65 59-65 3 3 0 Longmont: SR66 to CR2 170-835 20-65 58-66 3-6 5 1 36-623 32-35 58-78 3-8 395 238 Mountain View Ave to SR66 175-2483 353 61-633 17-193 1 Church3 1 School3 30-698 33-35 57-82 2-7 242 151 Martin St to Mountain View 88-2623 353 64-713 16-233 1 Park3 1 School 1 Church3 CR1 to Martin St 276 59-65 64 2 1 0 CR7/SR119 to CR1 0 0 0 0 0 0 . CR18 to CR7/SR119 133-382 67-75 59-64 3-8 15 2 Noise and Vibration 3.6-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-7 Summary of Residential Noise Impacts from Package A and Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail (cont'd) Dist. to Train Total Noise Total Number of Noise Near Speed, Noise Level Impacts' Track(ft) (mph) Level' Increase' Moderate Severe Erie: SR52 to CR18 55-318 75 59-63 3-7 10 1 CR10 to SR52 201-451 50-75 59-62 3-6 7 0 Brighton: CR6 to CR10 104-317 40-60 62-67 3-8 7 15 CR2 to CR6 488 50 58 4 1 0 1,495 697 Total: 9 Schools 6 Schools 6 Churches 1 Church 1 Park ' Noise levels are based on Ldn and measured in dBA,except for land use category 3 which are based on peak-hour Laq. 2 All impacts are residential unless otherwise noted. 3 Values are for land use category 3 receptors. Noise levels are based on Leg and measured in dBA. • Source: HMMH project data, 2010. moderate noise impact is predicted at a total of 1,495 residences along the project rail corridor and severe noise impact is predicted at 697 residences, due primarily to train horn noise. In addition, several Category 3 properties would be impacted. Impacts are scattered throughout the corridor, but are also clustered in Longmont. Rail Vibration. The approach used for assessing vibration impact generally follows the approach used for assessing noise impact, except that existing vibration levels are not considered when evaluating impact (FTA, 2006a). For residential buildings with nighttime occupancy, the criterion for the detailed FTA analysis is a maximum vibration velocity level of 72 VdB, measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range from 8 Hz to 80 Hz. The same receivers used for the rail noise analysis were evaluated for the vibration impact assessment. The projected maximum overall ground vibration levels from commuter rail operations in various parts of the corridor are shown in Figure 3.6-10 as a function of distance for the maximum train speed of 75 MPH. This train speed is consistent with the rail noise analysis and ensures that potential impacts are not underestimated. The residential criterion for an FTA general assessment (75 VdB) is also shown. These results indicate that for maximum train speed operation, ground-borne vibration impact would typically be expected to occur at residential buildings located within 40 feet to 80 feet from the track, depending on location in the corridor. • Noise and Vibration 3.6.23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.6-10 Projected Package A and Preferred Alternative Com •g muter Rail Ground Vibration Levels at 75 MPH Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure at 75 mph 80 75 70 65 - - 60 c - _ J � 55 — — • 50 - 45 40 t i t • 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance from Near Track (feet) isWithout Horns - • - - With Horns • Source: HMMH project data. 2007. Detailed projections of future vibration levels are presented in Table 3.6-8 for residential locations along the rail alignment where impacts are anticipated . Based on a comparison of the predicted project vibration level with the FTA impact criterion , results also indicate the number of residences where vibration impact is predicted for each residential area along the corridor. Results indicate that vibration impact is projected for a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track, consisting of 14 residences in Loveland and 26 residences in Longmont. 3.6.3.3 PACKAGE B Only potential impacts from road traffic are relevant for Package B; no rail facilities are included. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration would not be a major concern . Therefore, only potential road traffic noise impacts are relevant for Package B and are discussed below. For convenience, this discussion has been divided into highway traffic noise based on the FHWA process and bus transit noise based on the FTA process. Highway Noise. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C . For Package B, 685 Category B receivers and 163 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Figure 3.6-11 ), which represents 32 more receivers than the No-Action Alternative (Table 3.6-6). Of these 848 impacts, 847 would result from reaching the NAC and one Category C receiver would increase by 10 dBA over existing conditions. Traffic noise impacts are summarized by project segment in Table 3.6-6. As with Package Al the majority of these impacts would occur in the southern end of the corridor. Noise and Vibration 3.6-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Results for Package B are similar to the No-Action Alternative results for 2035. Even with the proposed roadway changes, many of the same receivers would be impacted. This is largely because both alternatives focus on the 1-25 corridor. However, Package B is calculated to impact more receivers due to wider roads and greater traffic volumes. More receivers along 1-25 would be impacted primarily because of additional travel lanes. A few of the receivers impacted under the No-Action Alternative would be removed under Package B, thereby reducing the number of impacted receivers in a few areas. Table 3.6-8 Summary of Residential Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts Without Mitigation for Package A and Preferred Alternative Distance to Train Maximum Vibration Level Total Location along Rail Nearest Speed (VdB re 1 pin./sec) Number of Alignment feet (MPH) Vibration Track (feet) Predicted FTA Criterion Impacts Loveland: CR28 to CR34 0 0 0 0 0 29th St to CR28 111 45 72 80 8 US34 to 29th St 39 35 75 80 4 CR18 to US34 80 35 74 80 2 CR14 to CR18 0 0 0 0 0 Longmont: • SH66 to CR2 0 0 0 0 0 Mountain View Ave to SH66 36 35 78 72 21 Martin St to Mountain View 30 35 82 72 5 CR1 to Martin St 0 0 0 0 0 CR7/SH119 to CR1 0 0 0 0 0 CR18 to CR7/SH119 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 40 Source: HMMH project data, 2010. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 3.6-11 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package B (Year 2035) 4, LEGEND a Impacted Category B Receptor a Impacted Category C Receptor iscwI ,• re lows -`,4�N 85 ~�0 Cities & Towns SH1-SH14 `4 L. . I Regional Study Area I r �� 61 Category B .... it me /V Study Corridors ; { 8 Category C \ "Le/ Highways -Fort Collinsl : ti r l _ .4 t /�/ Arterial Roads 1 - �` Aak �. 14-i 0 City Boundaries i = 2 _ I _ - rma L SH14-SH60 -_ ' ' 103 Category B I ' - 287 , _ 44 Category C , i -.. ' Lv cc :,,,-r • I t • I i t r ,, ; — _ t r I- Greeley 34 _�`I - i ! I i ".___ ' Gordoni �. ; -- .1 -1-, Lov, land r ,� en ! 34 0. 1 sw • La $ap Compion ohn;j i- •♦ / 1_1 Bcr", j I Q�MI5kkto 85 , / i 1 SH60-E-470 tilt't i r 30 Category B ,' i a 56 Category C ' 0! I '1 ,............... ..,,_ 5lattevillc .r ' IL• gr font-- i;_i. ilia i p ' lone' I. r, t volknare 1 • • , i t ' rcs ton c i Niwot { r�Frede rick 14 unbind �Docono Fort Lupt 5 I f/ I19 ♦ : i .. Elie i . • l a i 'do ttenberg ; �aBoulder Ir { ' Citayett .14w1f. ) 1 , Brit `:•� - i_ , - ' ' Eosd rlhn . , own fi•Id ••4 t E-470-US36 93 is No. h ert4 `!36 ` • i _ • _ 491 Category B ' ra e 55 Category C - r -1-- �' ` / r ' enve�» -7-6 j sit {_ I 0 2 4 6 8 10 ® ..�.� 4 II `••l ---i.. —1 ;� Miles North '+ { ' r .. , • Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-26 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The residential areas that would be impacted are: ► Wellington East (Wellington)—20 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Waterglen (Fort Collins) —20 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County)—69 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Singletree Estates (Mead) —2 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Isolated/scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld Counties— 83 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County—491 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) In addition, parts of the Archery Range Natural Area, Arapaho Bend Natural Area, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park, Adams 12 North Stadium, and Thorncreek Golf Course would have traffic noise levels above the CDOT NAC for Category B. The farthest distance from a modeled road to a receiver impacted by traffic noise in year 2035 would be approximately 525 feet from 1-25. • Package B would impact the most receivers from traffic noise of all the alternatives. This is primarily because it would result in the most vehicles traveling on the widest 1-25 profile at the highest speeds, thus producing more traffic noise. Express Bus Noise. For Package B, a total of 12 express bus stations, 6 carpool parking lots, and 1 bus maintenance facility (Figure 3.6-8), and the associated access roads were evaluated for noise impacts following the FTA procedures (FTA, 2006a). The FTA screening process was the first step in the evaluations. The results from the screening analyses showed that none of the proposed bus/carpool facilities were found to cause noise impacts, therefore, noise mitigation considerations are not necessary. 3.6.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Both road and rail noise and vibration are relevant for the Preferred Alternative. Each of these two travel modes are discussed separately below. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration is not a major concern and is not discussed further. Traffic Noise. For convenience, this discussion is divided into highway traffic noise based on the FHWA process and bus transit noise based on the FTA process. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-27 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Highway Noise. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C. For the Preferred Alternative, 679 Category B receivers and 161 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Figure 3.6-12), which represents 24 more receivers than for the No-Action Alternative (Table 3.6-6). Traffic noise impacts are summarized by project segments in Table 3.6-6. The greatest number of impacted receivers is in the southern end of the corridor, which is also where the greatest number of existing impacted receivers is located. All of the impacted receivers would equal or exceed the NAC; no impacts would result from a 10 dBA increase. Residential areas that would be impacted are: ► Wellington East (Wellington) —20 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Waterglen (Fort Collins) —20 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County)—69 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Isolated/scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld Counties— 82 receivers (fewer than No-Action Alternative) ► Numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster, and in Adams County—488 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) In addition, portions of Archery Range Natural Area, Arapaho Bend Natural Area, Big • Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park, Adams 12 North Stadium, and Thorncreek Golf Course would have traffic noise levels above the CDOT NAC for Category B. The farthest distance from a modeled road to an impacted receiver in year 2035 would be approximately 500 feet. Bus Transit Noise. A total of five new commuter bus stations, 12 express bus stations, six carpool lots, one bus maintenance facility (Figure 3.6-8) and associated access roads were evaluated for noise impacts following FTA procedures (FTA, 2006a). The FTA screening process was the first step in the evaluations. The results from the screening analyses showed that three commuter bus stations (South Greeley, Evans and Platteville) required an FTA General Assessment—the other sites were found not to cause noise impacts based on the screening evaluation. Results from the general assessment indicated there would be no noise impacts to nearby homes. Therefore, bus transit would not cause traffic noise impacts, and no noise mitigation considerations are necessary. Rail Transit Noise and Vibration For convenience, this discussion has been divided into rail noise and rail vibration. Both are based on the FTA process. The Final EIS rail noise analysis follows recent guidance on train horns to use the minimum FRA horn level (96 dBA at 100 feet) rather than the maximum FTA horn level (84 dBA at 100 feet). This change was made after the Draft EIS because of policy clarification received from RTD and FRA for shared commuter rail corridors to use the • minimum FRA standard horn level (96 dBA). This consistency was needed because Package A and Preferred Alternative commuter rail would tie into RTD commuter rail corridors. The findings for the Preferred Alternative are identical to those for Package A (Section 3.6.3.2). Noise and Vibration 3.6-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-12 Noise-Impacted Areas for Preferred Alternative (Year 2035) t C LEGEND 1 1 a Impacted Category B Receptor �_,�,.._ z � \ a Impacted Category C Receptor .�'�� "'�Q`°" ��. 1• `' '85 0 Cities & Towns 1' Regional Study Area 4f ® SH1-SH14 f Mk 61 ^/ Study Corridors 8 CategoryB pierce, ' C ` /4/ Highways I- \vackeil ..Rost_= •o iiis! _ ' /\/ Arterial Roads CI _„� i c -. e . , AM It Q City Boundaries ( I -L- : :_ 1 I. r' r r=' tm. L. SH14-SH60 1 i � ` 1 101 Category B E_ i ' . 1• 287 44 Category C t t Luce rn 392. . ` � � r �. . - G!eeley .t.....:.- ......"=_,.... I i 263 34 .C.1 .�' do:, land Garden t:i• i_tr 34 i _- sw f 1 . La Sai.. Campion car. ohnc•: a f- Berth• ,� ' , Q Ntlik n 85 j L / i SH60-E-470 G t Ill • 29 Category B l T. " ' 1 St 29 Category C ' T cars --I • aete Wile 166 ,, 1 , L. gmont I if, it L .. ;a.' .1 ' • Ion • v • 1 f t1---r4ollm arQ 1 41/4 ' - Firestone I/ Niwot _ �•. aFrede rick i • I it Iliell-- u n barrellel ' • v 0 7 i i ^—, - Wattcnbcrg , .' Boulderr { �� • — i i L!Fay Nvt ettc i . fi L� ' E-470-US36 ótt%*t%` 36 , "° '' x488 Category B Div bogy 54 Category C : 72 F-- I- ' �� _ 7 / • .- mow __ F . _ • r1 - t Denver�f� 1 is • __ 0 2 4 6 8 10 S t � ` 0 I , , Miles , �''_'". ' fir"'--' 1 1' North - . '.( _ .) ::\ It : .7 —1-1 J ti Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Rail Transit Noise. The assessment of noise impacts from commuter rail operations is based on a comparison of existing noise conditions with projected future noise conditions following the FTA land use categories. Projected noise exposures in Ldn at locations without obstructions near commuter rail operations as a function of distance are illustrated in Figure 3.6-9. This figure shows 75 MPH train speeds, which is a worst-case situation for the corridor, to ensure that potential rail noise impacts are not underestimated. Comparisons of existing and future noise levels are presented in Table 3.6-7 for residential and other sensitive locations along the rail alignment. Based on a comparison of the calculated project noise level with the impact criteria, Table 3.6-7 includes an inventory of the number of residences that would be impacted for each area along the corridor. The results indicate that moderate noise impact is predicted at a total of 1,495 residences along the project rail corridor and severe noise impact is predicted at 697 residences, due primarily to train horn noise. In addition, several Category 3 properties would be impacted. Impacts are scattered throughout the corridor, but are also clustered in Longmont. Rail Vibration. The approach used for assessing vibration impact generally follows the approach used for assessing noise impact, except that existing vibration levels are not considered when evaluating impact (FTA, 2006a). For residential buildings with nighttime occupancy, the criterion for the detailed FTA analysis is a maximum vibration velocity level of 72 VdB, measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range from 8 Hz to 80 Hz. The same receivers used for the rail noise analysis were evaluated for the vibration impact assessment. The projected maximum overall ground vibration levels from commuter rail operations in • various parts of the corridor are shown in Figure 3.6-10 as a function of distance for the maximum train speed of 75 MPH. This train speed is consistent with the rail noise analysis and ensures that potential impacts are not underestimated. The residential criterion for an FTA general assessment (75 VdB) is also shown. These results indicate that for maximum train speed operation, ground-borne vibration impact would typically be expected to occur at residential buildings located within 40 feet to 80 feet from the track, depending on location in the corridor. Detailed projections of future vibration levels are presented in Table 3.6-8 for residential locations along the rail alignment where impacts are anticipated. Based on a comparison of the predicted project vibration level with the FTA impact criterion, results also indicate the number of residences where vibration impact is predicted for each residential area along the corridor. Results indicate that vibration impact is projected for a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track, consisting of 14 residences in Loveland and 26 residences in Longmont. 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures The results from noise measurements and modeling for the Final EIS indicate that many receivers would be impacted by noise or vibration from each of the alternatives. Therefore, noise reduction actions for the impacted areas were investigated (CDOT, 2002a; FHWA, 1995; FTA, 2006a). It is important to note that impacted areas are not guaranteed mitigation measures under either the CDOT or FTA guidelines, but mitigation measures for the areas • must be evaluated. Noise and Vibration 3.6-30 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Noise and vibration impacts from the alternatives affected multiple geographic areas and multiple land uses. Several types of mitigation were considered. Noise barriers are a common mitigation action and were evaluated. There currently are several noise mitigation barriers (installed by other projects) within the 1-25 corridor. Other kinds of mitigation also were considered. The overall feasibility and reasonableness of noise reduction actions that provide a minimum acceptable mitigation benefit for the impacted receivers were evaluated and these actions were then either recommended or not. For convenience, the mitigation discussion is divided between road actions and rail actions. 3.6.4.1 EXISTING NOISE BARRIERS There currently are several traffic noise barriers in the project area (Figure 3.6-3) primarily south of E-470. These barriers are comprised of both berms and walls. The walls consist of both older"first generation" CDOT wooden walls and newer masonry walls. The barriers were included in the traffic noise modeling for the Final EIS and the model results showed that the existing barriers are effective at reducing traffic noise to the homes behind the barriers. There are two important considerations within the Final EIS regarding the existing barriers: new construction from the project that would require removal of an existing barrier, and the fate of deteriorating existing walls not touched by new construction. First, if any of the existing barriers must be removed for construction, the removed barrier would be replaced with an equivalent or better barrier as part of Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative. Second, the wooden CDOT barriers along 1-25 are deteriorating and their long-term effectiveness is in doubt. Therefore, any of the CDOT wooden barriers remaining in the project • corridor at the time of construction of this project would be replaced, but only if Package B or the Preferred Alternative are identified. The details of a replacement barrier would be determined during final design of the construction element relevant to the barrier. It is important to understand that these barrier replacements would not be new noise mitigation actions because the old barriers are products of previous projects. Barrier replacement is considered to be the restoration of infrastructure disturbed by construction. Therefore, the feasibility and reasonableness of replacement barriers was not evaluated for this project. 3.6.4.2 NON-BARRIER TRAFFIC NOISE MITIGATION EVALUATIONS CDOT guidelines require the evaluation of several mitigation options other than noise barriers. For reasons described below, barriers appear to be the only viable mitigation action and were the only mitigation evaluated through modeling. Traffic management measures, such as lane closures or reduced speeds, could reduce noise but do not appear to be reasonable for the roads of primary interest to the project. One of the reasons for the road improvements in the regional study area is to enhance intra-regional and inter-regional traffic flow. 1-25 is a major regional and national highway and closing lanes would conflict with its function. While reducing vehicle speeds could reduce traffic noise, it would not be consistent with the function of an interstate highway. Changes in horizontal alignments of the roads near the impacted receivers could reduce noise • but have limited possibilities. This action would require snaking I-25 around current developed areas; however, removing unnecessary curves that reduce the safety of a high-speed interstate highway is one of the project goals for 1-25. Also, many of the impacted Category B receivers are in areas that are developed on both sides of 1-25, limiting possible horizontal Noise and Vibration 3.6-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • realignments. Moving 1-25 horizontally away from some impacted receivers could reduce traffic noise in those areas but could transfer the impacts to other neighboring areas or require disruptions of adjoining property uses. Wholesale relocation of 1-25 from its current corridor would have profound cost, environmental, and functional ramifications, so horizontal relocation of 1-25 for noise reduction is neither feasible nor reasonable. Changes in vertical alignments could reduce noise. Changes in vertical alignments were included for some parts of some alternatives in the project area. For example, the current elevation profiles would be reversed at the SH 56 and SH 402 interchanges with 1-25. However, wholesale changes in corridor road elevations could have secondary impacts on connecting or adjoining roads that would not be reasonable or desirable. In summary, vertical elevation changes were evaluated, but vertical realignments just to reduce traffic noise are not feasible or reasonable. Noise buffer zones could reduce noise. Many of the newer developments along 1-25 include these, but many of the older residential areas do not. Often, past development has occurred purposely near the roads for access, which left little or no space for a buffer. In many places, there generally is little available undeveloped land along the project roads that could be used for a noise buffer zone or a vegetative planting area that would provide substantial noise benefit. Pavement types and surfaces can affect traffic noise. Research efforts to learn more about the long-term noise benefits of different pavement types and surface treatments are ongoing. Quieter pavement types could be preferred for the project if and when the requirements for • safety, durability, and other considerations are met. However, they cannot be used as a mitigation action under the noise reduction evaluation because they are not a "permanent" solution to tire noise. 3.6.4.3 TRAFFIC NOISE BARRIER EVALUATIONS In addition to the existing barriers, noise barriers in some new areas could be appropriate for an alternative. To permit the evaluation of potential noise barriers, computer models of barriers protecting the impacted areas were developed and the models were re-run to assess barrier effectiveness (FHU, 2011a). Each potential barrier was assessed for effectiveness and feasibility. CDOT's goal for noise barrier benefits is a reduction of 10 dBA with a minimum reduction of 5 dBA. If the minimum parameters for an effective barrier were met and the barrier was feasible, the barrier was evaluated through a reasonability assessment according to CDOT guidance (CDOT, 2002a). The feasibility and reasonableness of each barrier determined whether the barrier has been recommended for the project. The locations evaluated for new noise barriers are shown in Figure 3.6-13. Typical barrier locations would be on road right-of-way, but off right-of-way locations (farther away from 1-25 and on someone else's property) were also evaluated where physical conditions warranted additional investigation (FHU, 2008b). In instances where only part of a neighborhood would be impacted by noise, barriers benefiting the entire neighborhood were evaluated for thoroughness. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-13 Locations of Traffic Noise Barriers Evaluated LEGEND L a Potential Noise Barrier L 0 Cities & Towns • f".s,wmngtm Wellington East �� /. +�� Regional Study Area !"• •N 4 w Study Corridors ./. t /N/ Highways i Picrea 14. /N/ Arterial Roads I - i { ,4____��--�Waterglen I Fort Collins! _.._ Z City Boundaries l ` +'I 0 k �! Auk Q l - r "Li � Eo I '"�Scvcroncc 1 II ? :. 1 I _.__t ' L.n.....-.., P 1_� 1 _ t - IL Mountain Range Shadows;^ 1 392 r - }.- _ t •• Greeley ‘......-_,F63 r- fi j 34 t `�Larimer County Road 20E ri -- , —1-1 -- Lovelandk I �... I r Campion ." Johnson's Corner i..4 s'° 60 as..., l Li Bcrte a,Mlik In 85 % }I ilj � ,. . Gilcr�.t S ' Margil Farms r Mt4-11 _ :i / j i"1 Si ng letree Estates I r Longmont II- -ISt. Vrain Park( z , I • WelduoC my Road 22/20.5 / OFfrr ton c 1 y /13 fJiwot �/) OFredcriek 1 11' unborn] ODacono Fort Lup 5 + ./ - l / aIA Eric r - t a 61 i cluder I it toy ettc Nul 1 'r eVr.%.. 6 _ F ��Thorncreek Village i I ra--ifl + _ �.� • 4.-- Stone Mountain Apartments -93 A±!*tGreens of Northglenn Badding Reservoir r' d are . 4t7t id \ `, ,-j , '_.I Brittany Ridge -.:_.. _, i Li 4 ' Denver 70 i I J 1 . 0 2 4 6 8 10 -- • ! �� 2 4 ` Miles North i-N- t• _....0 _ -...1_1- -/- if Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-33 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • It is important to note that the noise barriers could be either earth berms or constructed walls because either material could be effective. Berms can be very effective but occupy considerably more space than comparable walls. Throughout the project area, the impacted receivers tend to be rather close to the project roads. This usually makes earth berms impractical or impossible choices for the noise barriers. Barriers more than 25 feet tall were not considered due to the impractical structural requirements. The topography of the corridor plays a very important role in the overall noise environment and in noise mitigation results. Physical placement of a barrier is a consideration. The preferred barrier location is on CDOT right-of-way for several reasons. In some places in the project area, the land adjoining CDOT right-of-way may be generally incompatible to convert to noise mitigation uses, such as a park or wildlife area. Also, there would be long-term ownership, access, maintenance, and cost concerns for CDOT if a barrier is placed on someone else's property or if more property needs to be acquired just for a barrier. Nevertheless, placement of traffic noise barriers off CDOT right-of-way may be possible in select situations (FHU, 2008b). CDOT guidelines state that a traffic noise mitigation action is unreasonable if the cost-benefit is more than $4,000/receiver/decibel of noise reduction (CDOT, 2002a). This is based on an assumed cost of$30/square foot of barrier. However, cost-benefit is not the only consideration for reasonableness (CDOT, 2002a). Isolated receivers (e.g., dispersed homes) are a special case worth noting. For a barrier protecting a single receiver to be reasonable, the barrier size could be no more than approximately 670 square feet if it reduces noise by 5 dBA or no more than about • 1,300 square feet if it reduces noise by 10 dBA. It is a rare situation where barriers of such small sizes provide that much noise reduction. Therefore, it is usually not reasonable to construct barriers for isolated receivers. Barriers for two example locations were evaluated to represent this entire group (Table 3.6-9). Results of the feasibility and reasonableness evaluation are shown in Table 3.6-9. The noise barriers summarized below were located on CDOT property, generally at the edge of the road right-of-way. Some but not all of the barriers evaluated are recommended for construction for some of the alternatives at this point in time (Table 3.6-9). Traffic noise barriers were assessed to be feasible and reasonable for the following locations and are therefore recommended for construction (Table 3.6-9): ► Wellington East— Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative ► Mountain Range Shadows— Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative ► Thorncreek Village— Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Stone Mountain Apartments— Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Greens of Northglenn — Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Badding Reservoir extension — Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Brittany Ridge extension — Package B and the Preferred Alternative • Noise and Vibration 3.6-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-9 Traffic Noise Mitigation Barrier Summary w 4. « N w v Nm m C' -a Noise Impacted a► 0>,--... C m 1) c Category B a, m . a 0 o Comment Area = ` H yOD C d d O d LL d .` m m c..) tY ce Wellington East 10-12 1000 1,900 3-12 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for all build alternatives. Cost-benefit and recent Waterglen 10-18 2400 4,200 3-9 Yes No No construction of homes were found to be unreasonable. Mountain Range 12 2500 2,400 3-7 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for all build Shadows alternatives. Near LCR 20E 14 470 18,000 0-11 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to be prohibitive. Johnsons 10 675 8,300 8 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to Corner Camp. be prohibitive. Margil Farms 16 2200 7,500 3-5 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to be prohibitive. Singletree 16 3200 41,000 3-5 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to Estates be prohibitive. III St.Vrain 14 2700 75,000 5 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to State Park be prohibitive. Near WCR 22 12 550 16,500 6 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to be prohibitive. Near 16 675 27,000 6 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to WCR 20.5 be prohibitive. Thorncreek 14 1850 3,800 4-7 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Pkg. B and Village Preferred Alternative. Stone Mountain 14 1300 1,300 3-10 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Pkg. B and Apts. Preferred Alternative. Greens of 10-12 600 1,100 3-8 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Pkg. B and Northglenn Preferred Alternative. Badding Recommended for Pkg. B and Reservoir 12 900 4,100 3-8 Yes Yes Yes Preferred Alternative. extension Brittany Ridge 12 1000 3,000 3-7 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Pkg. B and extension Preferred Alternative. Isolated An example of an isolated receptor#1 10 720 31,000 7 Yes No No receptor. Cost-benefit was (Wellington) calculated to be prohibitive. Isolated An example of an isolated receptor#2 8-12 550 24,000 7 Yes No No receptor. Cost-benefit was (SH7) calculated to be prohibitive. *Assumes cost of$30/square foot of barrier surface. Source: FHU project data, 2010. III Noise and Vibration 3.6-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The locations for these recommended noise barriers are illustrated in Figure 3.6-14 through Figure 3.6-19, respectively. The design requirements for noise barriers in a given location may vary by alternative because of differences in road designs. These recommendations are based on the current project road designs. The recommendations are all for barriers within road rights-of-way. If the final designs in the future differ from that assumed in these evaluations, corresponding adjustments to the mitigation evaluations may be required. More details on the noise barriers can be found in Traffic Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Addendum (FHU, 2011a). 3.6.4.4 RAIL NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION EVALUATIONS Potential mitigation measures for reducing commuter rail noise and vibration impacts are described below. Rail Noise Possible rail noise mitigation actions include the following: ► Limiting Use of Train Horns. The FRA has issued new regulations (FRA, 2006) regarding safety at railroad crossings, which would apply to the portion of the North 1-25 alignment shared with BNSF freight operations. These regulations may affect noise impacts to sensitive receptors near grade crossings. An option for reducing such impacts under the FRA regulation would be to establish "quiet zones" at grade crossings. In a quiet zone, • train operators would sound warning devices (e.g., horns) only in emergency situations rather than as a standard operational procedure because of safety improvements at the at-grade crossings. Establishing a quiet zone requires cooperative action among the municipalities, CDOT, and FRA. The municipalities are key participants as they must initiate the request to establish the quiet zone through application to FRA. To meet safety criteria, major improvements are typically required at grade crossings. These may include modifications to the streets, raised medians, warning lights, four-quadrant gates, and other devices. The current assumptions for Package A and the Preferred Alternative are that these safety devices would be included to allow local municipalities to apply for a quiet zone if they desire. The FRA regulation also authorizes the use of automated wayside horns at crossings with flashing lights and gates as a substitute for the train horn. While activated by the approach of trains, these devices are stationary at the grade crossings, thereby limiting the horn noise exposure area to the immediate vicinity of the grade crossing. In the event that it is not possible to eliminate the train horns, reduced sound emission horns can be considered. Although the establishment of quiet zones or the use of wayside horns would be very effective noise mitigation measures, considerable design analysis and coordination efforts with the BNSF Railroad and local communities along the corridor would be required. ► Noise Barriers. This is a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface transportation sources. The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are that: (1) the barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight between the sound source and the receiver, (2) the barrier must be of an impervious material with a minimum surface density of 4 lb/sq. ft., and (3) the barrier must not have any gaps or holes between the panels or at the bottom. Many materials meet the requirements, so the barrier • type is usually dictated by aesthetics, durability, cost, and maintenance. Noise barriers for commuter rail systems typically range in height from 8 to 12 feet. Noise and Vibration 3.6-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill - information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6 14 Recommended Noise Barrier near Wellington - . -�* LEGEND ' 1 a Potential :edam— jjj4 I Possible Road Changes , / 1 II 4" . , 1 dm I / / e 104aN 'Jr - .., • - r V. Ir y� �J'! A, +t" Ion •�J.?`1� r� l 9 Ism Ea'st`�� r ' i' ` , • Wellington I ;1 .�-:n. iii i�4 s- YL _ - I / I .. .1 0 st ,,,,- c . ‘ • ri. _ Clack 1 12 `� ' '.in ;', •. // , , . ..; ii. '..Op I" -- - ACgliTill a- ii tramcar•.i.� err _ _ _ - ri „,, , ..„ ?jiffs 1JL it ,,r at:.it. , , .,.., ,, ,, ., _, , .. !--• • . , ,,,,„:. .,*air., . E.,. ,,,, ..,. .. d ,cs., A ./ i. . , 0 250 500 ,!? ''. // %., ' . : 1. _ lir Feet „ ,, � _f 1 r - $•' • I. -+-� , sria5ie� �.• 1• ^S. I / it e a - .arc- ® .�. - • Source: FHU project data, 2010. 0 Figure 3.6-15 Recommended Noise Barrier near Mountain Range Shadows r ills - Ill' I' - - - -- ■ - • t.ti. it ', •,•, 'y 4 t 1 ay a % , , Y'. it LEGEND .. a Potential Bamer i I Possible Road Changes e. _ 4 i• �, • I'' M7 •. I t.::1t ' ` .�. . writ._ .• .. i L- r 1`', _ i -_` eke'" ' .. Mountain,, � ' / ; ' . p Range �I. •' li - . . Shardows C . I' ; , • � 1 .. • a , �' ill i t . � rte• .� . i' i 11 � nig&r t ri I � � . rl s $ II _ '� f L 1 . 4 . ' 4- s: s... ti f s.Tki,... t • , . ill . 0 250 500 '7 Ii I ! •-- �o Feet tai ` s ` t ^'111 P Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.6-16 Recommended Noise Barrier near Thorncreek Village l LEGEND IP is. ,= $ -4'4/ -,, . Potential Barrier , 4 �• ,s. 112 IPossible Road Changes ii• •~ , i• / • �� `/ .,ate a 7ipi • lit ii al 1 le ‘Haler et I \ Th•rncr t •''t�. ' wfir 'r A. 1 \ VIII tilt A. '; 1;" d.• r '6, i tt �� ( • t al r V ..� L`y• , in. % . wk. AA, ' "Li. -A\e';': 11•1 \, - :N. s E4. 1 , r 10 �� • 0 250 500 - s. ., ,4 t t, • Feet .. -.b L Source: FHU project data, 2010. 0 Figure 3.6-17 Recommended Noise Barriers near Community Center Drive ! A. a 1 6 / dt, tit c' .e,r LEGEND .. • • iibtots, ) �. . ^ a Yg. : 'INqSI a Potential Barrier .1 f ( r „ ' '; "� y a Existing Berner c� :� h I ; r ir� T ► up In I i Possible Road Changes a , 1 (�I N ` ,, .- ` • �II 1 .� r,, 1r I , Stone Mountain /A la, \ , • } 1-1 . Y' l- ,q �i rP�f f'�e` • l " ! Ap•'artments ` * . ;,1 • (� •lid :lc:,n* a L.01 �.cisjimazadaiF-. 'r_s P 1._.#7,. •.' .rte 'j ^4 �' '-� •� _ _ • 7 .iiiiid g . i si‘1:-''_ I t II : flt '''' Il.....z ' 0."44eat,oki- ..\ rA\ it. 4 I r .-I I ' " le yep' . \4*" ---- \.. I �, 6� �'► ,y �:;•� 1 't eric, I1f Yini sa�� tit L • i ' i? i• : c• ' i ',•i. 3-a 'v r t ♦ T r • i f i '' ~ • 1' / .. ...4 . IF.......ala 1,1..1* ; ll •L i let # . .r, t it. , , Cgt—f c. t Vilk` ,....,... • a. •Illrr • r•400 01.1• , : .^ }d.ith•I nno ^� 0 250 500 �!�!t•. # ,P.}. �'- - r. ;4 • _ r� 1 r s �� 1 Feet - _ a __ , r:,"n • i � - .1, 'C'%S /• , l: • �, 1 C .J , i4. III _ T _ :tau Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-18 Recommended Noise Barrier near Baddin : Reservoir I LEGEND , -. , .. • ! -J , ■ .III ; I r ^ r_ r i "' .1 !� ; '• ! I', r it: _ . Potential Barrierii ` ii„ Existing Barrier `4 r r`et ft L/ Ns • ' - - Sti. I Possible Road Changes : S s -.'� �r V) w, 1 , . k - / .ii/ 14 ,. '4 4` 14- ' �� I ri ."......-a..... 1' w i.�' . . r - I. *4 > 'ti/ >a f/' t • •` It . 4 P' tr\ :C ► I 1'1 A gi f 1r :W • •� * '4/ . • !'x; ,�'!' • Y' t 11 . r _ } .1 - Ii;P 1 li 14 -& t.' It .44t <ie 'tti jiii 4 '�- s " ,/ �•�.• ' , 4 ` -Ili, ia - 'YL•,.'- .y _ I 'INI t ^"Ir1 1 '' q• r let E.it 1. J � �,ails I i .. , ' '4• C"'• r 1 t. :try _ * . , e . + l ,' 'r ' -t. - s 98th Ave. ; . ,. 4 ! ..,' 1 •.may l, 1,.6. 1 I• -• � `- :� . 6� - = ':P '� 1 t r, A.A. • e ? IPI 44. Badding J V it L. - 1 �. ., . Reservoir I ail ts 1. - _ t 0 250 500 4--` i I Feet }. ,� 4 k,, •,4 l - At M.„„ , . .l . ' i - I ..: • 11 ' 1 --- - . Source: FHU project data, 2010. Ill Figure 3.6-19 Recommended Noise Barrier near Brittany Ridge • LEGENDr7. I '' 4, ,.1. ffi rat '' r • i "• - , -;,,i-. �.*rl_ A-0,-. '`• d .n,_ ,• , c a Potential Barrier r. • tt _ I . t rSaCrlfO Pi it 1 w •' r� ! a Existing Barrier ;' C �'p t �, 1 ''t� • K� I� �— �� ; '.ti . • Possible Road Changes le -„...-----_,Cr .� re, �► k i _ r ••`�_�J� + i _ . 1 r lot ! r • _ t •�•..• Y• • e: Silk- ipr� ` I, . — ^ t . - _' - a nil . '_}1�: `�.• .,j4` �'� lk- . ,, Fr r j , . r L • tit I'3, �y�' ( . IfillrisliWrir-ftipUltr.w II p. .— ' "' i . - t r s r 1 r . x- r-f ;- • ...ilat yY t r'7!".. . I t !till pixel el I _.,* 1 .- I. --. to 1Y .. .'r ir r t_; , I ' (— .' - -,—�__ er v c , ' c l i Brittany , 1 r i°,! s , �.: �♦ +� �' r Ridge T , . r • . 3 \ - :if a, ./ . . '' ` T ••• � .1�l • L ,s" r dt� !y' t � 1- .. 7ti t - . • - 1 i - or • I " 4 • IIMI b. .{+� F ��fr'�►' i-� � t}Kr `ji �" g se •�I`�.tI ' ! ' ' 1 41 '4.- 4 il 4' • )- --tr lit • - - *AY' ,.. _�_,-1 ' � �\� , % eat ,. I 0 250 500 s, = — 16�` '' %«1 ' ' ' r ' ?�:e ,- A Feet :.,,; a eiri i I �' ' l\Qt; — % , k'` a IIIr Sr; ti. Source: FHU project data, 2010. Noise and Vibration 3.6-39 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Building Insulation. Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings has been widely applied around airports but has seen limited application for transit projects. Although this approach has no effect on exterior noise, it may be a choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable, and for buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements in building sound levels (e.g., 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer of glazing to the windows, sealing any holes in exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and providing forced ventilation and air- conditioning so that windows do not need to be opened. ► Special Trackwork at Crossovers and Turnouts. Because the impacts of rail wheels over rail gaps at track-turnout locations increases airborne noise by about 6 dBA, turnouts can be a major source of noise impact. If turnouts cannot be located away from sensitive areas, special rail treatments, such as spring-rail, flange-bearing, or moveable-point frogs may be used in place of standard rigid frogs. These devices allow the flangeway gap to remain closed in the main traffic direction and reduce rail wheel noise. FTA guidelines state that in implementing noise impact criteria, severe impacts should be mitigated if at all practical (FTA, 2006a). At the moderate impact level, more discretion can be used and other project-specific factors should be included in considering mitigation. These factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-to-indoor sound insulation and the cost- effectiveness of mitigating the noise. However, FTA also states that there is a stronger need for mitigation if a project is proposed in an area currently experiencing high noise levels (e.g. with Ldn above 65 dBA) from surface transportation sources. Areas along the project corridor from Fort Collins to Longmont meet this condition. In these areas, the existing noise exposure • is dominated by existing freight train and horn noise, with Ldn levels typically ranging from 65 dBA to 75 dBA. In such cases, FTA indicates that impacts predicted in the moderate range should be treated as if they were severe in terms of mitigation. In view of the above considerations, most, if not all, of the predicted rail noise impacts should be mitigated. The results of the noise analysis suggest that the most effective mitigation measure would be to eliminate all train horn noise near residential areas by establishing quiet zones at 64 grade crossings. It is estimated that this mitigation measure could eliminate noise impacts at all but 21 residences along the project corridor, so quiet zones are the preferred mitigation for train noise. Package A and the Preferred Alternative include enhancing each at- grade crossing such that an application for a quiet zone could be made by the local government. Other less effective mitigation approaches include the use of wayside horns and minimizing train horn noise emission. It should be noted that at locations where the noise impact is dominated by train horns near the numerous grade crossings (which is most of the corridor), noise barriers are not likely to be reasonable and feasible and are not considered to be an appropriate noise mitigation approach. Besides the large barrier heights that would be required, barrier effectiveness would be limited due to the required gaps at each grade crossing. In addition, noise barriers would generate secondary (e.g. visual) impacts and would not likely be acceptable to the neighboring community. However, noise barriers would be practical and effective for mitigating the 21 residual impacts after the implementation of quiet zones. As shown in Table 3.6-10, a total of 2,400 lineal feet of 12-feet high noise walls could eliminate noise impacts at the remaining locations. Potential noise mitigation measures will • need to be further evaluated during project design to determine feasible and reasonable approaches. Noise and Vibration 3.640 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation. transportation_ Table 3.6-10 Potential Rail Noise Barrier Mitigation Locations Side of Barrier Length Number of Location along Alignment Residences Track (feet) Protected 29th St. to CR28 (Loveland) East 1,300 14 CR14 to CR18 (Campion) East 500 2 SH52 to CR18 (Frederick) West 600 5 TOTAL: 2,400 21 Source: HMMH project data, 2010. Vibration Beyond ensuring that the vehicle wheels and track are well maintained, there are several approaches that can be considered to reduce ground-borne vibration from commuter rail operation, as described below: ► Ballast Mats. A ballast mat consists of a pad made of rubber or rubber-like material placed on an asphalt or concrete base with the normal ballast, ties and rail on top. The reduction in ground-borne vibration provided by a ballast mat is strongly dependent on the frequency content of the vibration and design and support of the mat. ► Tire Derived Aggregate (TDA). Also known as shredded tires, a typical TDA installation • consists of an underlayment of tire shreds or chips wrapped with filter fabric, covered with ballast. Tests suggest that the vibration attenuation properties of this treatment are midway between that of ballast mats and floating slab track. While this is a low-cost option, it has only recently been installed on two U.S. light rail transit systems (San Jose and Denver's Southeast Corridor) and its long-term performance is unknown. ► Under-Tie Pads. This treatment consists of resilient rubber pads placed underneath the ties. Although tests using the Amtrak Acela high-speed train indicated that such pads under the concrete ties provided significant vibration attenuation over a wide frequency range, experience with this treatment is limited. ► Floating Slabs. Floating slabs consist of thick concrete slabs supported by resilient pads on a concrete foundation; the tracks are mounted on top of the floating slab. Most successful floating slab installations are in subways, and their use for at-grade track is rare. Although floating slabs are designed to provide vibration reduction at lower frequencies than ballast mats, they are extremely expensive. ► Special Trackwork at Crossovers and Turnouts. Vehicle wheels hitting rail gaps at track turnout locations increases ground-borne vibration by about 10 VdB, so they are a major source of vibration impact when located in sensitive areas. If turnouts cannot be located away from sensitive areas, an alternative is to use special rail treatments, such as spring- rail, flange-bearing, or moveable-point frogs in place of standard rigid frogs at turnouts. These devices allow the flangeway gap to remain closed in the main traffic direction and reduce vibration. ► Property Acquisitions or Easements. Additional options for avoiding vibration impacts • (and noise impacts) are to purchase residences likely to be impacted by train operations Noise and Vibration 3.6.41 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • or to acquire easements for such residences by paying the homeowners to accept the future train vibration conditions. These approaches are usually taken only in isolated cases where other mitigation options are infeasible, impractical, or too costly. Vibration impacts that exceed FTA criteria are considered to be significant and to warrant mitigation, if mitigation is reasonable and feasible. To evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation for the project, typical vibration reductions for the potential mitigation measures were applied, on a one-third octave frequency basis, to the projected ground vibration spectra at locations where vibration impact is anticipated. The results indicate that using special trackwork at the turnout locations listed in Table 3.6-11 could eliminate 13 of the 40 projected vibration impacts. The installation of 4,100 lineal feet of TDA (shredded tires) beneath each of the tracks at the locations listed in Table 3.6-12 could eliminate the remainder of the projected vibration impacts. TDA would be the most effective mitigation measure, but it is estimated that ballast mats could eliminate all but four of the remaining impacts. These measures will need to be further investigated during project design to evaluate their true feasibility. Table 3.6-11 Potential Special Trackwork Vibration Mitigation Locations Location along Alignment Survey Station Location 29th Street-CR 28 (Loveland) 1969 CR 18 - US 34 (Loveland) 1851 Wilfred Rd. —Spartan Ave. (Berthoud) 1445 • Martin St.—Mountain View Ave. (Longmont) 1074 Source: HMMH project data, 2010. Table 3.6-12 Potential Track Vibration Isolation Mitigation Locations Location along Alignment Survey Station Length Location (feet) US 34 to 29th Street (Loveland) 1918— 1922 400 US 34 to 29th Street (Loveland) 1889— 1894 500 CR 18 to US 34 (Loveland) 1832— 1836 400 Mountain View Av. To SR 66 (Longmont) 1097— 1101 400 Mountain View Av. To SR 66 (Longmont) 1057— 1069 1,200 Mountain View Av. To SR 66 (Longmont) 1007— 1015 800 Mountain View Av. To SR 66 (Longmont) 999— 1003 400 TOTAL: 4,100 Source: HMMH project data, 2010. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-42 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.6.4.5 IMPACTED RECEIVERS AFTER RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS For a noise or vibration mitigation action to be recommended, it must be both feasible and reasonable according to the evaluation guidelines. In many of the areas with traffic noise impacts, effective noise barriers were not feasible or the cost-benefit value for an effective barrier was prohibitive (Table 3.6-9). Therefore, not all impacted areas have been recommended for noise mitigation. The recommended mitigation actions would serve to reduce noise and vibration impacts for each of the EIS build alternatives (Section 3.6.3). The results differ between the alternatives for a number of reasons, including: ► Different road designs within the same alignment ► Different traffic volumes and speeds ► Different vertical road profiles ► Inclusion of transit rail impacts The recommended mitigation actions would not eliminate all of the calculated noise impacts; some noise impacts would remain. These remnant noise impacts are described below for each of the Final EIS alternatives. No-Action Alternative • The No-Action Alternative does not include any new noise mitigation actions, so there would be no change in the traffic noise impacts (Section 3.6.3.1). The same 661 Category B receivers and 155 Category C receivers would still be impacted by traffic noise. Package A Alternative Several highway traffic noise mitigation actions are recommended for Package A along 1-25 north of SH 7 (Section 3.6.4.3). The recommended mitigation measures would reduce traffic noise levels below the NAC for these receivers: ► Wellington East—20 Category B receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows— 30 Category B receivers An estimated 623 Category B receivers and 153 Category C receivers would still be impacted by traffic noise. Package A also includes transit rail noise and vibration impacts. The preferred mitigation actions of quiet zones, noise barriers, special trackwork and TDA (Section 3.6.4.4) would eliminate rail noise and vibration impacts from: ► Noise— 1,495 receivers ► Vibration —40 receivers Therefore, with the identified mitigations, no receivers would be impacted by rail noise • or rail vibration. Noise and Vibration 3.6-43 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Alternative Several noise mitigation actions are recommended for Package B (Section 3.6.4.3). The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the traffic noise levels below the NAC for these receivers: ► Wellington East—20 Category B receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows —30 Category B receivers ► Thorncreek Village — 30 Category B receivers ► Stone Mountain Apartments — 56 Category B receivers ► Greens of Northglenn —24 Category B receivers ► Badding Reservoir extension — 9 Category B receivers ► Brittany Ridge extension — 12 Category B receivers An estimated 504 Category B receivers and 163 Category C receivers would still be impacted by traffic noise. Preferred Alternative Several highway traffic noise mitigation actions are recommended for the Preferred Alternative (Section 3.6.4.3). The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the traffic noise levels • below the NAC for these receivers: ► Wellington East—20 Category B receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows — 30 Category B receivers ► Thorncreek Village — 30 Category B receivers ► Stone Mountain Apartments — 56 Category B receivers ► Greens of Northglenn — 24 Category B receivers ► Badding Reservoir extension — 9 Category B receivers ► Brittany Ridge extension — 12 Category B receivers An estimated 498 Category B receivers and 161 Category C receivers would still be impacted by traffic noise. The Preferred Alternative also includes transit rail noise and vibration impacts. The preferred mitigation actions of quiet zones, noise barriers, special trackwork and TDA (Section 3.6.4.4) would eliminate rail noise and vibration impacts from: ► Noise — 1,495 receivers ► Vibration —40 receivers Therefore, with the identified mitigations, no receivers would be impacted by rail noise or rail • vibration. Noise and Vibration 3.644 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.6.4.6 STATEMENT OF LIKELIHOOD The locations where noise impacts were predicted to occur are presented in Section 3.6.3. Based on the noise abatement studies accomplished thus far, CDOT and FHWA intend to install new highway traffic noise abatement measures in the form of barriers at seven locations illustrated in Figures 3.6-14 to 3.6-19. These barriers were found to be both feasible and reasonable in the studies accomplished thus far. These preliminary indications of likely abatement measures are based upon preliminary designs for barrier costs of$30 per square foot that will reduce the noise level by at least 5-7 dB(A) for the numbers of residences described in Section 3.6.4.5. If it subsequently develops during final design that these conditions have changed substantially, the abatement measures will be reassessed in accordance with the latest applicable guidance. A final decision regarding installation of the abatement measure(s)will be made upon completion of the project's final design and the accompanying public involvement processes. In a similar manner, CDOT and FHWA intend to establish quiet zones at 64 grade crossings for commuter rail based on the rail noise abatement analyses accomplished thus far (Section 3.6.4.4). The quiet zones will require lead involvement by the various local governments that control the various streets that cross the commuter rail corridor. These agencies have indicated support, but complete participation by the local agencies cannot be guaranteed at this time. To supplement the quiet zones, CDOT and FHWA intend to construct three noise walls along the rail corridor (Section 3.6.4.4). These commitments would be finalized during final design through various intergovernmental agreements. If it subsequently • develops during final design that conditions have changed substantially, the abatement measures will be reassessed in accordance with the latest applicable guidance. A final decision regarding installation of quiet zones will be made upon completion of the project's final design and the accompanying public involvement processes. If in the end, local governments do not want to pursue quiet zones, CDOT and FHWA commit to mitigating the noise impacts by other means, including building noise walls following FTA guidelines for mitigating the rail noise. Vibration impacts from commuter rail have been identified for several locations (Section 3.6.4.4). CDOT and FHWA intend to eliminate these impacts through the strategic use of special trackwork and tire-derived aggregate (TDA) in the construction of commuter rail line. The final decision on the best methods to eliminate the rail vibration impacts will be made at final design. 3.6.5 Construction Noise Adjoining properties in the project area could be exposed to noise from construction activities from the build packages. Construction noise differs from traffic and rail noise in several ways: ► Construction noise lasts only for the duration of the construction event, with most construction activities in noise-sensitive areas being conducted during hours that are least disturbing to adjacent and nearby residents. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-45 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Construction activities generally are of a short-term nature and, depending on the nature of the construction operations, could last from seconds (e.g., a truck passing a receiver) to months (e.g., constructing a bridge). ► Construction noise is intermittent and depends on the type of operation, location, and function of the equipment, and the equipment usage cycle. Construction noise is not assessed in the same way as operational traffic noise; there are no CDOT NACs for construction noise. Construction noise would be subject to relevant local regulations and ordinances, and any construction activities would be expected to comply with them. Construction noise impacts would be somewhat limited because the majority of the corridors do not abut residential areas. To address the temporary elevated noise levels that may be experienced during construction, standard mitigation measures would be incorporated into construction contracts, where it is feasible to do so. These would include: ► Exhaust systems on equipment would be in good working order. Equipment would be maintained on a regular basis, and equipment may be subject to inspection by the project manager to ensure maintenance. ► Properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers would be used where appropriate. ► New equipment would be subject to new product noise emission standards. ► Stationary equipment would be located as far from sensitive receivers as possible. • ► Most construction activities in noise-sensitive areas would be conducted during hours that are least disturbing to adjacent and nearby residents. 3.6.6 Summary A number of noise and vibration impacts were calculated for the alternatives (Section 3.6.3). Potential mitigation actions for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative impacts were evaluated (Section 3.6.4). From the feasibility and reasonableness evaluations for the barriers, traffic noise barriers are recommended for the following locations: ► Wellington East— Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative ► Mountain Range Shadows — Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative ► Thorncreek Village— Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Stone Mountain Apartments— Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Greens of Northglenn — Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Badding Reservoir extension — Package B and the Preferred Alternative ► Brittany Ridge extension — Package B and the Preferred Alternative • Noise and Vibration 3.6.46 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The identified mitigation measures for Package A and the Preferred Alternative transit rail impacts are quiet zones at the rail crossings, three noise barriers, four areas of special trackwork and 4,100 lineal feet of TDA. Quiet zones are the best and preferred train horn mitigation because quiet zones would eliminate the noise source. The direct involvement and sponsorship of local government agencies is required for quiet zone implementation, and they must apply to the PUC for quiet zone approval. CDOT and FHWA cannot guarantee such local government agency actions; however, CDOT and FHWA anticipate that local government agencies will agree that quiet zones will be beneficial and be willing to sponsor the required PUC applications. If for any reason, one or more quiet zones cannot be implemented, the recommended mitigation would change to additional noise walls for those locations along the rail corridor, per the FTA guidelines. These results are preliminary and based on specific project designs and assumptions. If the designs in the future differ from those used in these evaluations, corresponding adjustments to the mitigation evaluations may be required. Consideration of the placements of noise barriers will continue through the final design of the identified alternative. Mitigation actions for transit rail will also require further consideration if Package A or the Preferred Alternative are identified because the preferred mitigation actions will require the involvement of several local governments. These recommended mitigation actions would not eliminate all the predicted impacts, • therefore, some residual noise impacts would remain (Section 3.6.4.5). This is due primarily to the closeness of many receivers to 1-25 and to the presence of many isolated receivers for which mitigation is not feasible and reasonable. Similar traffic noise results were produced by the alternatives because the road alignments and profiles would be very similar. Only Package A and the Preferred Alternative have rail impacts and the results are identical for the two alternatives. In the order of increasing noise and vibration impacts, the ranking of the alternatives (without mitigation) are: No-Action Alternative, Package B, Package A, and the Preferred Alternative. • Noise and Vibration 3.647 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Noise and Vibration 3.6-48 Hello