The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20083465.tiff North NORmh25r EIS 4e . _ 2 h information . cooperation. transportation . p r a ft EllVligliifiElit8 . ifil) dCt _ - P -_-Cr--' - t _. . y(. •74 -..... T_ - !Nei r "SW J l 1�♦ , `,-•AS IIIPP Stdtg gig [it - ...• .- - . , . ' at III . ay _ f „t,a 11J r, .r i � 1h• 16 .. mac. 1 ;It H R t , '.•_.,y •t ��. 1. �I Is ; ! _ ti tes.----..s 1 *PCT.' , i1p -- . t, Ai, ^ ''yy w ...�/ + •«�- i lt/ / C �� _�..^. .-1• -.. �j>•^lR 1. • y�',• �,. i r- .1 r � 'Y -.S:... r.3 arsavoffiir_ .,yam • 6,' �`t4 r_ •I, . ,, ES ;S ',.• ! •:.l r1? •.• rVle I" Ire V a [ li lill\6 t E 2 o 1 2 .....•�....ww i.... ** *** DOT *'ItFTA •* NA •-• /t+ r Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Tron:po•tat:on 1 Federal Highway aCtObei r ? [] [ig vAdministration O003 .✓ 3(......1L0 5--- Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 ' ' : October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 OF 2 APPENDIX A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPENDIX B AGENCY COORDINATION APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION ► Land Use ► Environmental Justice ► Noise ► Wildlife ► Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • • Table of Contents THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK � NORTH1-25 qiillAL EIS MIL information . cooperation . transportation . APPENDIX A Public Involvement • • • APPENDIX A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This appendix contains the following project documents, listed in the order they are presented. ► CDOT press releases (3) ► Invitations to open house public meetings (5) ► Newsletters (6) ► Fact Sheet ► Form letter sent to organizations for outreach on environmental justice ► Household Travel Survey mailed to 10,000 homes ► Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners ► Summaries of public meetings (28) ► Minutes of 52 meetings with the Regional Coordination Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee (a list of those meeting dates appears in Table 8-1) ► Agency letters and minutes (52) ► Local Agency Trail Concurrence Letters (5) Chronologies of the letters and minutes are listed below by local and regional agency for reference. Letters between the 65th Colorado General Assembly and CDOT • March 31, 2006 Letter asking CDOT to keep Exit 254 open April 12, 2006 CDOT Response letter to Representative Jim Welker Regional Transportation District (RTD) December 3, 2003 CDOT invitation for representation on travel forecasting work group sent to NFRMPO, DRCOG, and RTD (see form letter in the DRCOG section below) December 17, 2003 Letter from FHWA and FTA to RTD requesting them to be cooperating agency January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team February 2, 2004 Letter from RTD accepting FHWA invitation to be cooperating agency April 20, 2004 Meeting to discuss FasTracks implications May 4, 2005 Briefing of RTD Board member Lee Kemp on transit issues June 6, 2005 Meeting with RTD Board member Lee Kemp March 31, 2006 Meeting to discuss use of park-n-Rides and cost assumptions April 9, 2007 Coordination meeting between the NFRMPO and RTD May 14, 2007 Coordination meeting: NFRMPO and RTD North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) August 28, 2003 Meeting to discuss travel forecasting approach December 3, 2003 CDOT invitation for representation on travel forecasting work group sent to NFRMPO, DRCOG, and RTD (see form letter in the DRCOG section below) August 4, 2005 Coordination meeting • November 17, 2005 Coordination meeting February 27, 2006 Meeting to discuss the two DEIS build packages • March 3, 2006 Meeting to discuss results of Level 3 screening March 27, 2006 CDOT Park and Ride scoping meeting with county sheriffs (see minutes in the Ad Hoc Meetings section below) May 9, 2006 Meeting on commuter rail alignments May 15, 2006 Meeting to discuss land use and rail options March 1, 2007 Meeting with the MPO Planning Council and the new CDOT Executive Director April 9, 2007 Status meeting between the NFRMPO and RTD (see minutes in the RTD section above) May 14, 2007 Status meeting between the NFRMPO and RTD (see minutes in the RTD section above) Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) September 2, 2003 Meeting at DRCOG to discuss travel forecasting approach December 3, 2003 CDOT invitation for representation on travel forecasting work group sent to DRCOG, NFRMPO, and RTD January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team May 17, 2004 Presentation of Purpose and Need to the DRCOG TAC Ad Hoc Meetings with Multiple Local Agencies January 16, 2004 Meeting with Northern Colorado Communities planners and elected officials . September 23, 2004 CDOT invitation letters to Smart Growth Meeting sent to six counties and 28 cities and towns March 27, 2006 CDOT Park and Ride scoping meeting with NFRMPO and county sheriffs October 17, 2006 Meeting with Erie, Frederick, and Dacono on transit alignment and stations City and County of Broomfield March 8, 2006 Comment letter on the Level 3 packages March 30, 2006 Transmittal letter of requested local plans and concepts December 11, 2006 CDOT request to review technical memo on design assumptions related to local road crossings of 1-25 City of Fort Collins October 28, 2005 Meeting to discuss transit and station locations December 15, 2005 Meeting regarding viability of BRT on the BNRR freight tracks Town of Frederick August 10, 2006 Letter supporting Alignment S for commuter rail November 7, 2007 Response letter from CDOT • City of Loveland March 13, 2006 Meeting to discuss US 34 interchange planning May 31, 2006 Meeting to decide on US 34 interchange concept to advance in the DEIS City of Northglenn December 11, 2006 CDOT request to review technical memo on design assumptions related to local road crossings of 1-25 March 30, 2007 Meeting regarding potential impacts to Grant Park May 14, 2007 Meeting to discuss impacts to Grant Park City of Thornton December 11, 2006 CDOT request to review technical memo on design assumptions related to local road crossings of 1-25 July 18, 2006 Transportation Planning Manager's comments on rail alignment and station location Great Western Railway April 14, 2006 Meeting to discuss how various GWRR rail facilities relate to Package A May 15, 2006 Meeting to continue discussions on facilities and operations October 31, 2006 Meeting to discuss commuter rail possibilities, frontage road at-grade crossings, and the five GWRR crossings with 1-25 and the associated • frontage roads. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) March 18, 2005 Meeting with BNSF to discuss possible commuter rail corridors August 20, 2007 Transmittal of Level 3 Alternatives with Commuter Rail to BNSF Union Pacific Railroad September 26, 2006 Meeting with UPRR on the two locations of 1-25 and UPRR crossings • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • News From �• , OT The Colorado Department of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION +� %\.dot.stato.co.us December I,2005 Contact: Mindy Crane—(303)757-9469 Cell-(303)880-2136 ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY ARISES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE NORTH I-25 EIS Larimer and Weld Counties—As part of the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) has developed another forum for community members to become involved in the study process by creating Transit Stations Working Groups. "Currently, three transit alternatives are being studied in the North 1-25 EIS: Commuter Bus, Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)," said CDOT Project Manager Dave Martinez. "The working groups • recently organized will allow members of the community to discuss and share ideas regarding transit station locations, bike and pedestrian connectivity and maintenance facilities. We strongly encourage those who are interested to participate in one of the groups." Four North 1-25 EIS Transit Station Working Groups have been geographically established: North 1-25 (north of SH 66), South 1-25 (south of SH 66), US 287 and US 85. Community members who reside in or frequently drive any of these corridors are encouraged to participate. Below is a list of the upcoming meetings that will be held in December: North 1-25 group December 5, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. CDOT Region 4, 2207 E. Highway 402 US 287 group December 8, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Longmont Recreation Center, 310 Quail Road South I-25 group • December 12, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Frederick Town Hall, 401 Locust St. -more- "Taking Care To Get You There" US 85 group December 15, 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10th St. • Those who cannot attend any of the meetings can submit their comments on the project Web site by visiting www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ or calling 970-352-5455. ABOUT THE NORTH 1-25 EIS The north 1-25 corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years, with I-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. Traffic volumes and accidents have increased on 1-25 and parallel roadways; therefore, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements within this corridor has significantly increased over the years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), initiated the North I-25 EIS in 2003 to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins- • Wellington area to Denver. As one of the state's largest EIS studies, the North I-25 EIS study area spans seven counties and more than 30 communities. In order to include consideration of multimodal transportation alternatives, the study area extends from US 287 in the west to US 85 in the east. For more information on the North 1-25 EIS, visit the project Web site at vvww.cdot.info,'north i25eis/, or contact CDOT Public Relations Coordinator Mindy Crane at(303) 757-9469. ## # • "Taking Care To Get You There" News From The Colorado Department Plir• I OT • of Transportation imumass DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION we.dot.state.co.us December 2,2005 Contact: Mindy Crane: (303)757-9469 Cell: (303)880-2136 CDOT VISITS MORE COMMUNITIES FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE NORTH I-25 EIS Larimer and Weld Counties—The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) project team and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are taking a new approach to public meetings in order to enhance and encourage public participation in the EIS process. Since the study area spans a vast area that includes seven counties and more than 30 cities, CDOT and its partners have scheduled 12 town hall public meetings in January and February 2006, marking the fifth • round of public meetings since the EIS inception in 2003. "Public involvement at this stage of the study is very important, and we hope that by holding numerous meetings at convenient locations, more community members will be able to attend," said CDOT Project Manager Dave Martinez. "The project team will offer new findings in the North I-25 EIS, and we encourage the public to voice their opinions and needs of their communities." In this fifth round of public meetings, information will be shared regarding the results of the third level of screening. In this third level, eight alternative transportation packages were developed and evaluated and the packages that performed best will advance into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The results will be discussed at the town hall meetings, scheduled for the following dates and locations: January 23 250 11th St. Fort Collins Aztlan Center 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. January 26 112 E. Willow Thornton City Hall 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. January 25 9500 Civic Center Dr. Frederick Town Hall 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • January 24 401 Locust St. Windsor Community Center 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. "Taking Care To Get You There" January 30 4616 S. Shields Gilcrest Valley High School February 2 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 1001 Birch Street Loveland Public Library 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. 300 N. Adams February 15 • 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Southwest Weld County January 31 Building Mead Town Hall 4209 Weld County Rd. 24 %2 441 Third St. February 6 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center 651 10'"Ave. February 16 February 1 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Milliken Town Hall Longmont Museum 1 101 Broad St. 400 Quail Rd. February 7 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. Fort Collins Harmony Library ABOUT THE NORTH 1-25 EIS The north 1-25 corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years,with 1-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. Traffic volumes and accidents have increased on 1-25 and parallel roadways; therefore, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements within this corridor has significantly increased over the years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), initiated the North I-25 EIS in 2003 to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the I-25 corridor from the Fort • Collins-Wellington area to Denver. As one of the state's largest EIS studies,the North 1-25 EIS study area spans seven counties and more than 30 communities. In order to include consideration of multimodal transportation alternatives. the study area extends from US 287 in the west to US 85 in the east. For more information on the North I- 25 EIS, visit the project Web site at wvv w.cdot.Intl)inorth i25cis-, or contact CDOT Public Relations Coordinator Mindy Crane at(303) 757-9469. ### • "Taking Care To Get You There" • Y • 10 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kim Podobnik 303-689-0704 (office) 303-907-6110 (cell) The Colorado Department of Transportation is Listening PUBLIC INPUT IS CRITICAL TO STUDY EXAMINING IMPROVEMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN NORTHERN COLORADO LOVELAND, Colo.,Jan. 28,2004—Like most people,you have probably headed out of your neighborhood • one morning and been surprised to see that orange cones and"Road Work Ahead"signs have appeared seemingly overnight. Do you ever wonder how the decision is made to rebuild the road that takes you back and forth to work everyday? How can you have a voice in that decision? Now is your chance. The Colorado Department of Transportation will host open houses to take public input about which transportation options will most improve mobility and safety for those who travel 1-25 north of Denver. The open houses are part of a three-year study called the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This study is co-led by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with CDOT. When complete, the study will produce a draft EIS, a final EIS, and a Record of Decision. Initial open houses are scheduled for the following dates and locations: • Feb. 3,2004—4-7 p.m.—Greeley Recreation Center, 651 10"'Avenue,Greeley • Feb. 5,2004—4-7 p.m.—Southwest Weld County Services Building—4209 Weld County Road 24 '/2 • Feb. 10, 2004—4-7 p.m.—Lincoln Center,417 Magnolia, Fort Collins • -MORE- North I-25 Front Range EIS CDOT is Listening • Page 2 The public will have the opportunity to share their thoughts and feelings on how they envision the future of transportation along 1-25 in Northern Colorado. "Public input is one of the most important elements in this process,"said David M. Martinez, CDOT Project Manager for the North 1-25 Front Range EIS. "In order to make recommendations that best serve people commuting and traveling in Northern Colorado, we must hear from them as to which options most closely meet their needs." Anyone interested in this corridor is encouraged to attend the open houses. While the open houses provide important opportunities for citizens to learn about the project and provide comment,they are not the only means of communicating with the project team. Log on to the project Web site at www.i25northfortv.comleis/to submit comments electronically at any time. Comments can also be made via phone at(970)352-5455 or by U.S. Mail to the project office at: N. 1-25 Front Range EIS c/o CDOT Region 4 Engineering Office • 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 About the North 1-25 Front Range EIS: The EIS will explore regional transportation options mainly on 1-25 in Northern Colorado, and perhaps also US 85 and US 287. The eastern boundary of the study area will be the US 85 corridor, and the western boundary will be the US 287 corridor. The study will examine the effects various transportation improvements would have on the local environment, as well as the lives of residents and commuters. Engineers and environmental specialists will study a range of alternatives that address highway system connectivity, various forms of public transit, traffic demand/capacity, safety, improved levels of services, and solutions to problems with deteriorating structures and roadways. A"no-action"alternative is also being studied. For more information on the North 1-25 Front Range EIS, go to the study's Web site at \aww.i25northforty.comleis/or contact Public Outreach Manager Kim Podobnik at 303-689-0704. • f . a NORTH t-2'i' . Th• -' FRONT RANGE ` I y NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT "—'\ " .4 Northern Colorado's Growing Need. Public Open Houses The North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement invites you to 2004 a series of public open houses to help us plan for the future of transportation Tuesday,February along 1-25. 4-7 p.m.,come anytime Greeley Recreation Center Open Space.Mild weather.Good schools. 651 10th Avenue Northern Colorado is a wonderful place.Planning for the future will help us Illreeley preserve this character. Thursday,February 5,MI Anyone who has traveled I-25 through Northern Colorado has already experienced increasing congestion and decreasing safety.After 40 years,daily volumes of traffic 4-7 p.m.,come anytime on the highway now exceed what it was intended to serve.If no changes are made Southwest Weld County to the I-25 corridor,it is likely that travel times will double or even triple in the next Services Complex couple of decades. 4209 Weld County Rd 241/2 It's time to plan for a different future. Del Camino That's why the Colorado Department of Transportation,the Federal Highway Tuesday,February 10,2004 Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are studying options to 4-7 p.m.,come anytime improve mobility by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. Lincoln Center 417 West Magnolia The EIS,a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act,evaluates an Fort Collins area's social,economic and environmental characteristics.During the next three years, we'll be looking at ways to improve safety and mobility by building on alternatives developed in previous area transportation studies.The results of the EIS will identify the best alternatives for improving safety and mobility along I-25. The study will ��Federal Highway also evaluate the"no-action" alternative. �Adminislra ion We can't complete the study without you. Please attend one or more of our public open houses to share your thoughts on the future of transportation along this corridor.If you can't attend,submit your • comments at our Web site and register there to receive regular project updates. • For more information on the study or open house schedules,or to arrange • I OT for special accommodations or translation services,visit www.i25northforty. com/eis/,or call 970.352.5455. NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation.transportation. . Imagine the possibilities . The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is studying future transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. You are invited to a series of public open houses to help us plan for the future of transportation along 1-25. Many of you attended the previous round of open houses for the North I-25 EIS and gave us your opinions on the best solutions to the transportation challenges facing Northern Colorado. We've taken your comments into consideration and are initiating the process of developing the list of possibilities so we can come up with the best alternative. . Now we need your help again. You are invited to the next series of open houses where you can help us ensure the alternatives we're developing are the best ones for the future of transportation in Northern Colorado. If you haven't yet given your opinion, we extend a special invitation to do just that. This is the time to join the dialogue. We look forward to hearing your ideas about the possibilities. For more information on the study or open house schedules, or to arrange for special accommodations or translation services,visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, or call (970)352-5455 or (303) 779-3384. Public Open Houses Tuesday,June 22,2004 Thursday,June 24,2004 Tuesday,June 29,2004 Thursday,July 1,2004 Open House:4-7 p.m. Open House:4-7 p.m. Open House:4-7 p.m. Open House:4-7 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Evans Recreation Center Loveland Museum/Gallery Margaret W.Carpenter Lincoln Center,Columbine Multipurpose Room Auditorium Recreation Center,Room A Room 1100 37th Street 503 North Lincoln Avenue 11151 Colorado Boulevard 417 West Magnolia • Evans Loveland Thornton Fort Collins � ��ro �rA •. lit DOT tbFederal Highway el#Administration --- 1 1 I INORTIIjul HI-2S 144•information. cooperation. transportation. „ ' • III Your community. Your travel . Your future. Your ideas? Public Meetings The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is studying future Tuesday,October 19,2004 transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/ Presentation: Wellington area to Denver. You're invited to a series of public meetings to 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. help plan the future of transportation along 1-25. Small Group Discussions: p 8:30 p.m. More than 1,500 comments have been received from residents of Northern merce City Recreation Center Colorado since the North 1-25 EIS began in January 2004. Those comments have ,5t0 hipurpose Room 6060 E. Parkway Dr. helped shape a draft list of potential solutions for the region. You're invited to join Commerce City us to learn about the transportation improvements under consideration and how Thursday,October 21,2004 they might successfully address congestion and safety concerns in the study area. Presentation: To fully understand the transportation alternatives currently under development, 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. we ask that you plan to attend the entire meeting and participate in each of the Small Group Discussions: small group discussions. 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. A presentation will outline the types of technologies and alternatives being McKee Conference&Wellness Center considered. The project team will also share information about the criteria to Friends Room be used in evaluating alternatives in Level Two Screening and outline the 2000 Boise Ave. environmental data collection process. The small group discussions will provide Loveland you the opportunity to speak directly with those doing the research on how Tuesday,October 26,2004 each technology or alternative can work to improve the movement of people Presentation: and goods along the corridor. Topics for the small groups include: 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. • Commuter Rail and High Speed Rail Small Group Discussions: 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. • Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Lincoln Center,Columbine Room • Highway and Congestion Management 417 W.Magnolia St • Travel and Land Use Patterns Fort Collins For more information on the study or public meetings, or to arrange for Thursday,October 28,2004 Presentation: special accommodations or translation services, visit www.cdot.info/ �o to 6:15 p.m. northi25eis/, or call (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Tall Group Discussions: 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. _ Greeley Recreation Center,Room 101 ' . re 0OT 651 10th Ave. illf�Fed eral ti ighway Greeley wirAdministrahon �,,,,�„a,,,,,.,,e,,,,, NORTH 1-25 EIS 0,=.' information. cooperation. transportation. Su comunidad. Su viaje. Su futuro. LSus ideas? Reuniones Publicas La Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental (EIS,en ingles)de Ia 1-25 Norte esta Manes 19 de octubre del 2004 estudiando futuras mejoras de transporte a lo largo del corredor de Ia 1-25 Vistazo: none desde el area de Fort Collins/Wellington hasta Denver. Lo invitamos 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. a participar en una serie de reuniones pablicas para que nos ayude a Discusion en grupos pequenos: planificar el futuro del transporte a lo largo de Ia 1-25. 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. Commerce City Recreation Center Desde que comenzo el estudio EIS de la I-25 forte en enero del 2004,ya se han Multipurpose Room recibido mas de 1.500 comentarios de los residentes del forte de Colorado. Estos • 6060 E.Parkway Dr. comentarios han ayudado a redactar una lista inicial de las posibles soluciones Commerce City para en la region. Lo invitamos a participar en las reuniones para aprender como Jueves 21 de octubre del 2004 mejorar el transporte y como las tecnologias podrian ayudar exitosamente para Vistazo: reducir la congestion y aumentar la seguridad en el area de estudio. 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. Para entender adecuadamente las altemativas de transporte que ahora se estan Discusion en grupos pequenos: desarrollando,le pedimos que haga planes para asistir a las reuniones y que 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. participe en los pequenos grupos de intercambio de ideas. McKee Conference&Wellness Center El Vistazo incluira un bosquejo de los distintos tipos de tecnologias y altemativas Friends Room que se estan considerando.El equipo del proyecto tambien compartira la informacion 2000 Boise Ave. sobre los criterios que se usaran para evaluar las altemativas en el segundo nivel de Loveland selecciOn y sobre el bosquejo del proceso de compilaciOn de datos sobre el medio Manes 26 de octubre del 2004 ambiente.Los grupos de intercambio de ideas son la oport u idad que usted tiene Vistazo: para hablar directamente con aquellos que estan estudiando como cada 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. tecnologia y cada alternativa funcionara para mejorar el movimiento de bienes y DiscusiOn en grupos pequenos: personas a lo largo del corredor. Los temas para estos grupos pequenos son: 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. • Tren de pasajeros de alta velocidad Lincoln Center,Columbine Room • Transporte rapido de pasajeros por trenes y buses 417 W. Magnolia St • Regulacion del congestionamiento en las carreteras Fort Collins • Modelo de viaje y de use de terrenos Jueves 28 de octubre del 2004 Vistazo: Para mas informacion sobre este estudio o sobre el calendario de 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. reuniones pablicas,o para solicitar arreglos especiales o servicios de Discusion en grupos pequenos: traduccion,visite www.cdot.info/nothi25eis/,o Ilame al (970)352-5455 6:15 to 8:30 Greeley • Recrreaea tion • Center,Room 101 o al (303)779-3384. 651 10th Ave. Greeley , Pro r.o_ eOT Ili'FederalHighway 4lli Administration . m..ro„d...,�.,„„ y 4 H i. i .-s1 1 NORTH 125Pliql 1 EIS I � i . .Il a ormation. cooperation. transportation. I §U • ..'Wp 'Ji I' N s 1. Ilt. Which alternatives make the grade? You're invited to look over our report card on alternatives for the North 1-25 EIS. The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is studying future Public Meetings transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/ Wellington area to Denver. iesday,June 14: In Level 1 screening,each alternative was judged by its suitability to the en House:4-7 p.m.; corridor, its typical costs and its potential effect on environmental resources. In Project Presentation 6 p.m. Greeley Recreation Center Level 2, the evaluation criteria are more detailed: specific measures and travel 651 10th Ave.,Greeley analysis are being developed for each of the purpose and needs elements;costs Multipurpose Rooms 101 A,B,and C are being developed;and an inventory of environmental resources and potential impacts is underway. Thursday,June 16: We invite you to come learn the results of our Level 2 screening.Just like in Open House:#7 p.m.; school,each alternative will receive a report card explaining how it compared in Project Presentation 6 p.m. Fort Collins Lincoln Center the evaluation process. Alternatives will be graded on travel times,congestion 417 W.Magnolia,Ft.Collins relief,preliminary cost estimates and environmental impacts. Recommendations Canyon West/Columbine Rooms on which alternatives will be carried forward into more detailed evaluation will be presented. Tuesday,June 21: More important,we invite you to give us your thoughts and comments Open House:4-7 p.m.; about the alternatives that are being recommended for further development and Project Presentation 6 p.m. Loveland Police&Courts Building screening. 810 East 10th Street,Loveland So please plan on joining us at one of our next public meetings to help plan Conference Rooms North/South the future of travel along I-25. Thursday,June 23 For more information on the study or the public meetings, visit www. Open House:4-7 p.m.; cdot.info/northi25eis/or call (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. oject Presentation 6 p.m. ongmont Radisson Hotel& Conference Center 1850 Industry Circle,Longmont „ :,.,_ .,,,, .. Pro DOT — Silverthorne Ballroom "%Federal ighway -- �Adminlstrahon - ®,,,,,e„pfj,s,,,,,,,o„ 268B4 5/0 f j ykx i • v Public Meetings January 23 it Fort Collins Aztlan Community Center I 112 E.Willow St 5:00 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. January 24 Windsor Community Center 25011th St • Januam.to1:00p.m. Reaching Farther January 25 Frederick Town Hall 401 Locust St. 5:00 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. January 26 Thornton City Hall More public meetings on the North 1-25 EIS mean more chances for you to 9500 Civic Center Dr help decide the future of transportation in Northern Colorado. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. P January 30 If you've ever wondered what the future of transportation and transit in Gilcrest Valley High School Northern Colorado might look like,here's your chance to find out.Even better, 1001 Birch St it's also your chance to shape that future. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. January 31 The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)project team has just Mead Town Hall completed Level 3 of the EIS process.Eight alternative transportation 441 Third St. packages were developed and evaluated,and now we're ready to show you 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. the results.At the upcoming fifth round of public meetings,we will unveil the . February 1 packages that performed best,and which we would like to move forward into Longmont Museum 400 Quail Rd. the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. Before moving forward,we need your input.Please plan on attending one of February2 the 12 scheduled public meetings to explore,discuss and learn about the future Loveland Public Library of transportation in Northern Colorado. 300 N.Adams Ave. 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. The North 1-25 EIS study is one of Colorado's largest,spanning seven February 6 counties and more than 30 communities,extending from US 287 in the west Greeley Recreation Center to US 85 in the east. 651 10th Ave. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. For more information, visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ February 1 or call (970)352-5455 or(303) 779-3384. Fort Collins Harmony Library 4616 S.Shields St. 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. February 15 Southwest Weld County Building NORTH I-25 4209 Weld County Rd.24X 4:30 p.m.to 6:30 p.m. EIS February 16 information cooperation. transportation. Milliken Town Hall 1101 Broad St. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. • * , FTA m r� •OT . - US D,pommrnld I ;po'Faw' Federal Highway anm Ncnaiton NW Administration DEFINIMFNT0F TNANSP0NN1TION ; L L Reuniones publicas i • ;III � • 23 de enero Fort Collins Aztlan Community Center 112 E.Willow St. 5:00 p.m.a 7:00 p.m. 24 de enero Windsor Community Center 250 11 t Llegando aun mas lejos 11:00 a.m. a 1:(Hl p.m. 25 de enero Frederick Town Hall 401 Locust St. 5:00 p.m.a 7:00 p.m. Mas reuniones publicas del estudio EIS de la 1-25 Norte significan 26 de enero mas oportunidaes para que usted nos ayude a decidir el futuro del Thornton City Hall 9500 Civic Center Dr. transporte en el norte de Colorado. 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. Si usted alguna vez se pregunto cOmo sera en el futuro el transporte 30 de enero del norte de Colorado,incluyendo el transporte publico,ahora tienc una Gilcrest Valley High School oportunidad para saberlo.Aun mas,esta es su oportunidad para darle 1001 Birch St forma a ese futuro. 6:00 p.m. a 8:00 p.m. El equipo del proyecto de Declaration de Impacto Ambiental(EIS,en 31 de enero ingles)de la I-25 Norte ya complete)el Nivel 3 del proceso EIS. Se Mead Town Hall desarrollaron y evaluaron ocho paquetes de altemativas de transporte, y • 441 Third St. ahora estamos listos para mostrarlcs los resultados.En la siguiente serie 11:00 a.m.a 1:00 p.m. de reuniones publicas (la quinta),daremos a conocer los paquetes con 1 de febrero el mejor desempeno,que quisieremos incorporar en el Borrador de la Longmont Museum Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental(o DEIS,en ingles). 400 Quail Rd. 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. Pero,para hacerlo,antes necesitamos su opinion. Por favor,haga planes 2 de febrero para asistir a una de las 12 reuniones publicas para explorar,debatir y Loveland Public Library aprender sobre el futuro del transporte en el norte de Colorado. 300 N.Adams Ave. El estudio EIS de la I-25 Norte es el mayor de su clase en Colorado,ya que 7:00 a.m.a 9:00 a.m. abarca siete condados y mas de 30 comunidades,desde la US 287 al caste 6 de febrero hasta la US 85 al este. Greeley Recreation Center 651 111th Ave. Para mas information,visite www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. o (lame al (970)352-5455 o al (303)779-3384. 7 de febrero Pregunte por Kim Podobnik(habla espanol). Fort Collins Harmony Library 4616 S.Shields St 11:00 a.m. a 1:00 p.m. 1 5 de febrero NORTH 125 Southwest Weld County Building 4209 Weld County Rd.24% EIS 4:30 p.m.a 6:30 p.m. 16 de febrero information. cooperation. transportation. Milliken Town Hall • 1101 Broad St. 6:00 p.m.a 8:00 p.m. It**. wx,rwwOwwumn FTA Ur a .OT Federal Transit ell Federal Highway Anninicnation vAdministration OEP W TYFMOF TRANSPORTATpH NORTH I-25 Mg 1/ .,� t s°' r ' EIS • ' • information cooperation. transportation. Su comunidad . Su viaje . Sus opiniones . Venga a ver el alineamiento revisado del tren de pasajeros. El equipo del proyecto de la Declaracion de Impacto Ambiental (EIS,en ingles)del la I-25 Norte ha tenido en cuenta los comentarios recibidos con respecto a las altemativas para el hen interurban de pasajeros del estudio de la I-25 Norte. For eso,el alineamiento del tren de pasajeros en el Paquete A de la version inicial del EIS se ha extendido para incluir a las comunidades del stir del Condado Weld,potencialmente eliminando asi la necesidad de viajar primero a Boulder para it a Denver.El nuevo alineamiento sera evaluado en la version inicial del EIS y queremos sus comentarios. El alineamiento revisado del tren de pasajeros que se evaluara: • • Conectaria los pasajeros con las lineas de FasTracks en Longmont y Thornton. • Reduciria el tiempo de viaje a Denver. iComparta su opinion! • jTuvimos en cuenta las cosas correctas? • ',Hay otra informacion que deberiamos considerar porque afecta esta nueva conexion? El estudio EIS de la I-25 Norte ester estudiando las mejoras futuras en el transporte a lo largo del corredor desde Fort Collins!Wellington y hasta Denver,y desde la U.S.287 al oeste hasta la U.S. 85 al este. Para mas informacion sobre este estudio o sobre las reuniones poblicas,o para solicitar arreglos especiales o servicios de traduccion,visitar www.cdotinfo/northi25eis/o Ilamar al(970)352-5455 o al(303)779-3384. Public Meetings Monday, November 13,2006 Wednesday, November 15,2006 Open house: 6-8 p.m. Open house: 6-8 p.m. Northglenn Recreation Center Southwest Weld County Complex 11801 Community Center Drive 4209 Weld County Road 24 h • Northglenn Longmont ; • �� ioT Fe(i< ri H r1Fi,,uy m elleAdrvinutrut on , • it C NORTH I--25 / l EIS ig •information cooperation. transportation. - - ! •r • Your community. Your travel . Your opinions . Come see the revised commuter rail alignment. The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)project team has considered your input in regards to the commuter rail alternatives as it pertains to the North I-25 EIS.As a result,the commuter rail alignment in Package A of the Draft EIS has been extended to include the communities in Southwest Weld County and to potentially eliminate the need to travel through Boulder while heading to Denver.The new alignment will he evaluated in the Draft EIS and we want your comments. • The revised commuter rail alignment to be evaluated would: • Connect passengers to FasTracks rail lines at both Longmont and Thornton • Reduce commuter rail travel time to Denver Give us your opinions! • Did we consider the right things? • Is there information we should know that could affect the new connection? The North I-25 EIS is studying future transportation improvements along the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver,extending from U.S.287 in the west to U.S. 85 in the east. For more information on the study or public meetings,or to arrange for special accommodations or translation services,visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/or call(970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Public Meetings Monday, November 13,2006 Wednesday, November 15,2006 Open house: 6-8 p.m. Open house: 6-8 p.m. Northglenn Recreation Center Southwest Weld County Complex 11801 Community Center Drive 4209 Weld County Road 24/ • Northglenn Longmont Frrina rpFede.c, Hi sy d� „�,�,�I ��°, .. was f • Northern Colorado's Growing Need. • Anyone who has traveled 1-25 through Northern --..: Colorado has already experienced increasing congestion and decreasing safety.After 40 years,daily volumes of traffic on the highway now exceed what it was intended to serve.If no changes are made to the 1-25 corridor,it is likely that travel times will double NORTH 1-25 or even triple in the next couple of decades. FRONT RANGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT It's time to plan for different future. STATEMENT • T.J .y� NORTH 1-25 ' • Volume 1 - February 2004 EIS information cooperation. transportation. u . .. fir^, r. J w_et )a 's, _ €` A SLOPING DOCUMENT INTRODUCING THE NORTH I-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. What's Inside A Growing Need - .°a -- ft M-' Have a Voice es,040r Good Schools. Help shape the goals. 2 Mild weather. 'j k..._ ' `yl` e Need Your Help , u input is critical for us to Open space. team how communities in Regional Connections. —�, Northern Colorado envision 1 , 5'S, the future of transportation. 2 Northern Colorado is a Choices for the Future wonderful place.Planning ^� for the future will help us '' Environmental Impact Statements 7 e" preserve this character. take a comprehensive look at % many issues before submitting a Anyone who has traveled I-25 :b.emu'- .. - ?- recommendation.Learn about through Northern Colorado the process behind this EIS has already experienced increasing Administration and the FederalTransi and the subjects under study. 2 congestion and a growing concern for Administration are studying options t safety. After 40 years, daily volumes of improve mobility for local commuters a Contact Us traffic on the highway now exceed what well asthosetravelingbetweenneighborin, Find out how to make your it was intended to serve.If no changes are states and throughout the region.The ne) voice heard. 3 made to the I-25 corridor, it is likely that step,and one of the most critically needs Where and What travel times will double or even triple in toward addressing the futur t u r the next couple of decades. transportation needs of the region, i A map of the area we are underway: the North I-25 Environment proposing to study. 3 That's why the Colorado Department of Impact Statement. Transportation, the Federal Highway Project Timeline During the next three years,we'll look a A look at the various stages — ways to improve safety and mobity and phases of this EIS. 3 • . - ..' including those alternatives developed u -.y Story of the North Forty ' I previous area transportation feasibilit • grief review of the proposed `• •a. and investment studies.And,we'll make recommendation that best serves traveler study area and previous in Northern Colorado and throughout th transportation studies. 4 • __, region. / _ .1 -:1 III Choices for the Future Have a Voice For major transportation projects,the National Environmental Policy Act requires Ensuring the success of the North 1-25 EIS that a range of alternatives be considered and that their environmental impacts be requires a full and complete record of public analyzed.This type of study is required prior to the commitment of federal funds comments and feedback throughout the process. to any major project,or prior to any action taken by a federal agency that might This feedback will help shape the options and cause a significant impact on the environment. alternatives considered by the study. It will be The North I-25 EIS is led by two federal agencies,the Federal Highway available for reference when decisions are made Administration and the Federal Transit Administration,in partnership with about future projects.Your input will help ensure CDOT.Basic steps in this process include: that the best possible transportation improvements are made,and that they meet the challenges A.moping A public process to help define the purpose and need for the proposed faced by travelers in and through Northern action or project and to identify environmental issues that need to be studied. Colorado now and in the future. B. Data Collection Collecting transportation,environmental and land use data. This step will also include developing a tool for predicting future(year 2030)traveL We are committed to providing opportunity C.Development of Alternatives:Identifying a wide range of highway,transit and for frequent and meaningful public input at other types of alternatives,then narrowing these to the reasonable range of every step of the process.We resolve to foster alternatives for detailed study.This will include the"no-action"alternative. open lines of communication,develop mutually D.Analysis of Alternatives:Transportation,social,economic and environmental beneficial relationships,and act in a responsive impacts of a range of alternatives are studied in detail,and comparisons are made manner to all groups and individuals interested E.Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement A printed report for n this process. public review and comment is prepared documenting the need for the project, describing alternative courses of action,analyzing likely impacts from each Members of the public outreach team will accept alternative,and describing any steps to be taken to avoid impacts or minin • comments and feedback through the following harm to the environment. means: F. Public and Agency Review of the DEIS. Submissions to our Web site located at G.Preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement Documents the www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ prefei.ed alternative and provides response to comments that were made on Public meetings the DEIS. This will be followed by a Record of Decision(ROD). Letters H.Record of Decision Documents the decision and commits to mitigation of Comments made at small group presentations impacts by the lead federal agencies (i.e.,service clubs,environmental organiza- The DEIS will evaluate the impacts of various actions to the following lions,neighborhood associations,civic resources and cultural features: organizations,etc.) Displays/exhibits in public locations Land use Social,economic and environmental Booths at public events Relocation/right of way impacts to low income or minority Other events/opportunities to be determined Noise populations Air quality Public safety and security Floodplains Farmlands We Need Your Help Water quality/water resources Hazardous materials One of the most important elements of an EIS Wildlife and fisheries Archaeological properties Wetlands Historic properties process is drafting the Purpose and Need Threatened or endangered species Paleontological resources Statement.This statement outlines why the study is Pedestrian and bicycle facilities Visual quality necessary and what transportation issues currently Recreation Energy exist in the area.The definition of purpose and need Economics Parks,historic properties and is crucial to the subsequent development of project wildlife refuges. goals and then the development of possible trans- portation options to address those needs and goals. The analysis of direct impacts will include those associated with construction• Your comments are crucial. processes and operations.Not only will the direct impacts of various actions be studied,but also cumulative and indirect impacts and effects. LEGEND Study Area Bgbn Naar Sf. ' 1. W W _ a. -.. _ Wan P.,ic RAGS — MMntl PGYN.YROW 1� W GINROGS Hywy R .. , BtlYwdM / : . 'Yil (- 'YV 7 I .�z e , _, Contact Us ^' I, North I-25 EIS Project Office \ Y Phone: (970)352-5455 `.. Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ N Mail: CDOT Engineering Office 2207 E. Highway 402 - - Loveland,CO 80537 mil,ti t / Project Team t-' - i.. Jean Wallace, PE., L .— Federal Highway Administration; - .. -- - - John Dow, • Federal Transit Administration: / �iii ; PE,..- ^^ \----Q\----QDavid M. Martinez, CDOT Project Manager; ' Tom Anna.P.E. b; . '-,�.. Project Manager; •'1 - Gina McAfee,AICP, -_— , ••,,t," V Deputy Project Manager; Kim Podobnik,APR, "` �;r ••" 11 . :a\- Public Involvement Manager i NNNNNNG nNIT G GllEVIG [.PIEY.GNy GES5 PUG0 n::o Where and What The goal of the study is to evaluate alternatives to improve mobility for residents and commuters as they travel around Norther Colorado, to and from the Denver metropolitan area,and between neighboring states. It will also look at how people and goods travel through this area on their way to and from locations throughout the nation. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. Taking no action; 3. Transit options,including bus and rail technologies;and 2. Improvements to the existing highway network, 4. Constructing a highway on a new location. particularly I-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287; EIS Process N Is RECORD' SLOPING DATA DEVELOP EVALUATE PREPARE ce PREPARE -oh C a ;„ COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES ti ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIS gFINAL EIS a DECISION' co ci-ticunv A `* `IMP• & e m a 6 2 0 0 4. Iu 2ti40d Oe`5- ^r:I 2 0 0 6 I.2 0 0 7) • a 1 • The Story of the North Forty As the primary route between Northern Colorado and the In the late 1990s,CDOT,in conjunction with regional planning Denver metropolitan area,the I-25 corridor has experienced groups(North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality considerable growth over the years.People are increasingly Planning Council,Upper Front Range Regional Planning aware that demands on the existing transportation system are Commission,and Denver Regional Council of Governments), exceeding its ability to serve travelers efficiently.Along with undertook the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives increased traffic volume on I-25 and parallel roadways has Feasibility Study which included a study area from Denver to come an increase in accidents,resulting in a need to plan for Fort Collins.It evaluated an extensive range of alternative transportation improvements within the corridor. highway improvements,transit alternatives including passenger rail,and travel demand management programs.This study, In 1993,CDOT initiated an"Environmental Assessment"for published in March 2000,produced a Vision Plan that included improvements to enhance the capacity and safety of I-25 an inter-regional bus service,combination general purpose/ between State Highway 7 and State Highway 66.The study was high occupancy vehicle lanes,and passenger rail service. followed by a"Finding of No Significant Impact"in 1995 that enabled CDOT to proceed with a series of construction projects More recently,a number of studies have been conducted to that are still ongoing.The current construction activities establish planning guidelines for growth in segments of this between State Highway 7 and Weld County Road 16 were corridor,addressing both land use and transportation issues. addressed in these previous studies.Also addressed were the right-of-way acquisitions and utility relocations currently The initiation of the North I-25 EIS represents the next step in underway between Weld County Road 16 and State Highway evaluating and planning for improvements in this corridor. 66.These are being done in anticipation of future construction. • L£509 OD'puelano' ZOt'LMH'3 LOZZ • at?Iwo 8uiraaulSu3.LOQJ NORTH 1-25 • Volume 2 -June 2004 EIS information cooperation. transportation ,,,.......,,, A' North ink,_ , _ „3..,..,_.: .. . ,L, .....,.s. '°6 THE NORTH I-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT—STUDYING FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE FORT COLLINS/VVELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. What's Inside Purpose ..' Purpose and Need and Need y ' r r ., An important element of an EIS,The j t `at p ` 9' A critical part of framing the ! ,y' Purpose and Need frames the scope , x 9 issues under study for the +' �' . ,� • the study North I-25 EIS is developing a r - ,4 ^ + �,r Purpose and Need statement. sy, •,- > * ,fa!'4 Boiling it Down urp r S The process involved in selecting the Purpose and Need identifies r ;�'I i t� " . best options 2 the needs and frames the i a . 4 BAR search for solutions to address r" tlro° We Hear You those needs. It is used as a A brief summary of comments benchmark to screen possible received so far 2 transportation alternatives. ore We'll Come to You It is vitally important that a Our speaker's bureau is ready to Purpose and Need statement accurately describe the challenges related A draft Purpose and Need statement has meet with your group.Find out what to the transportation system in the been developed for the North I-25 EIS. we have to offer 3 region. It ensures that the issues and The Purpose and Need for the action Contact Us current conditions identified in the study currently states the following: Find out how to make your area are fully addressed by the altema- voice heard 3 tives selected during the EIS process. Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to improve Imagine the Possibilities mobility of persons, goods, services and Dates and locations for the next information between the Denver metro- .. round of public open houses 4 politan area and population centers I— along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins/Wellington area. r continued on page ai Boiling it Down — Alternatives Development • We Hear You and Screening The alternatives development and screening process starts with a broad range At deadline for printing this newsletter,the North of alternatives and conducts increasingly detailed evaluations of the alterna- 1-25 EIS Project Team has collected nearly 1,000 tives to refine and narrow the list of alternatives to a preferred option that best comments from the public.These comments have addresses the issues identified in the Purpose and Need. been collected at our first round of open houses in February 2004,through our Web site,via The initial list of alternatives will encompass a broad range of potential phort‘ e-mail and standard mail,as well as transportation improvements throughout the project study area. Potential comments voiced during our recent meetings with improvements include but are not limited to passenger rail,highway widening, small groups such as chambers of commerce, bus transit, and congestion management measures. In addition, a "no action" Rotaries and Lion's Clubs. alternative will be included. The "no action" alternative will include improve- ments that have not yet been built, but for which funding identified over the Including a rail component as the preferred alter- next three to five years.This is the baseline to which all other potential improve- native is popular in Fort Collins,while those who ments will be compared. submitted comments from the Greeley area tend to indicate their preference for improvements to The three steps of the screening process will be: be made on US 85 to help alleviate congestion on 25.Some people across the study area indicated level 1)Initial Screening—The initial list of potential transportation improvement they would prefer an alternative that includes a ail alternatives will be qualitatively assessed to identify"fatal flaws."Critical concerns component and/or expands the local bus service. will include non-responsiveness to the project's Purpose and Need,likelihoor irresolvable environmental impacts,and excessive complexity or cost. It is critical to note that public comment,while mportant,is part of a larger process that is con- Level 2) Comparative Screening — Alternatives that are advanced from the sidered in determining the preferred alternative. initial screening will be further developed for comparison on a more In this situation,each comment is not considered quantitative level. At this level, screening criteria will include more a vote, but an indicator of which alternatives the quantifiable measures of mobility, safety, environmental impacts, costs and public is likely to support. other implementation issues. Lastly,we want to remind you that we will accept Level 3)Detailed Screening—At this level the remaining alternatives (probably packages of improvements)will be refined in greater detail and will be assessed public comment throughout the entire EIS process with a larger number of criteria. and look forward to hearing your thoughts on what alternatives you support.You can let your The final evaluation will identify a preferred alternative that will be voice be heard by participating in our open house recommended as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. meetings in late-June and early-July,visiting our Web site to contribute electronically,sending us a letter or reaching us by phone. e- z use g ° ,..• l! _ • • s d n3 • rurpose and Need (continued from cover) Contact Us Need for Action North I-25 EIS Project Office The need for transportation improvements along the corridor cart be summarized as Phone: 19701352-5455 follows: (303)779-3384 Web site: www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Safety Concerns Mail: CDOT Engineering Office The number and severity of accidents along the I-25 corridor have increased 2207 E. Highway 402 over the last decade. Loveland,CO 80537 Several segments of I-25 experience more accidents than would be expected Project Team when compared to comparable facilities. Jean Wallace,PE., Federal Highway Administration; Capacity Needs John Dow, Portions of the I-25 corridor are currently experiencing congestion. Federal Transit Administration; Even with the improvements currently committed, the capacity of the I-25 David M. Martinez,P E., corridor will be inadequate to meet the needs of future traffic projections. CDOT Project Manager; Torn Anzia,PE., Aging Infrastructure Project Manager; Many bridges and drainage structures in the North I-25 corridor are Gina McAfee,AICP, approaching the end of their life expectancy. Deputy Project Manager; Segments of pavement on I-25 are reaching the end of their life expectancy, Kim Podobnik,APR, and surface conditions are deteriorating rapidly. Public Involvement Manager Several major drainage structures do not provide the hydraulic capacity required by current design criteria. Modal Alternatives and Interrelationships Optional travel modes for trips between Northern Colorado to Denver are limited. Demand for the movement of goods in the region is increasing. Economic Growth Demands Continued growth pressures are causing potential right of way along the I-25 corridor to increase dramatically in cost. Access to existing and planned activity centers along the I-25 corridor is limited. To view the entire document,including details related to the points above,please log on to our Web site at www.cdot.info/northi25eis, to download a copy. As always, we're looking for comments from the public to help us make the best recommendation to address the future trans portation needs of Northern Colorado. Comments can be submitted through the above Web site. We'll Come to You Are you a member of a group,such as a chamber of commerce or Rotary who feels your friends and colleagues would enjoy learning more about the North I-25 EIS?If so, call the project office at(970) 352-5455 or(303) 779-3384 to set up a time for us • o make a presentation, answer your questions and record your feedback. Morning, noon or night, we really look forward to meeting with your group. L e_ a F'h.; G Imagine the Possibilities Many of you attended the previous round of open houses for the North I-25 EIS and gave us your opinions on the best solutions to the transportation challenges facing Northern Colorado. Now we need your help again.You are invited to the next series of open houses where you can help us ensure the alternatives we're developing are the best ones for your community. If you haven't yet given your opinion,we extend a special invitation to do just that. This is the time to join the dialogue. Tuesday,June 22 Thursday,June 24 Tuesday,June 29 Thursday,July 1 Open house:4-7 p.m. Open house:4-7 p.m. Open house: 4-7 p.m. Open house: 4-7 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Project Presentation:5:30 p.m. Project Presentation: 5:30 p.m. Evans Recreation Center Loveland Museum/Gallery Margaret W. Carpenter Lincoln Center Multipurpose Room Auditorium Recreation Center Columbine Room 1100 37th St. 503 N. Lincoln Ave. Room A 417 W. Magnolia Evans Loveland 11151 Colorado Blvd. Fort Collins Thornton • LEON OD'puetano1 ZOb'Lm1-1 'a LOZZ . aaa3O 5uuaau38u3 LOUD NORTH 1-25 Volume 1 - October 2004 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Y,- ice„+ \. ��,_�>„ c' THE NORTH I-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE �-. ----z.::',,-,„..„„ FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. C.:-..... Alternatives What's Inside. in Level Two Alternatives in Level Two: The North I-25 EIS is moving into • alternatives move forward the Level Two Screening process.A tor further development in comprehensive list of alternatives /i i Level Two Screening 1 was developed during the first /; 'Tr--nF, phase of the project,called Scoping. Stand Alone vs.Complementary: Level One Screening looked at how Some potential alternatives can well these alternatives met the meet the identified Purpose Purpose and Need Statement for the - and Need while others play a project, if they impact the environ- supporting role 2 meet in a manner that could not be %, " avoided or mitigated, and if they No-Action: were practicable in terms of cost,technolo- Level Two Screening will to e a closer No-Action doesn't mean gy and logistics. The Level One Screening look at how well the remaining alternatives no action 2 process identified some alternatives that will help relieve congestion and improve were not recommended for further devel- safety along the 1-25 corridor between Here We Are: opment. Examples of those alternatives Denver and the Fort Collins/Wellington An update on progress of the EIS 3 included restriping the highway to create area. Level Two has been identified as additional, narrower lanes on existing Comparative Screening and will consist of a The Environment and the EIS: pavement and the elimination of super high combination of qualitative and quantitative Learn about the approaches speed rail,MagLev,monorail and heavy rail analyses. If an alternative would perform to collecting data about (subway)technologies from consideration. the same or at a similar level of transporta- environmental impacts 3 lion service and improvement but is much more complex,the more complex alternative Your Community.Your Travel 1 ,. may set aside from further consideration Your Future.Your Ideas?: _ while maintaining a reasonable range of •n us at the public meetings xs, ; alternatives. October to see the latest in mow~• alternatives development 4 wt".:: There are 36 alternatives that will be ';z,:. developed further in Level Two Screening. • xi continued on page: c 0 .• Ill^ ,e ` I ''''Ir ® L • tM� • l! Alternatives in Level Two Stand Alone vs. Complementary continued from page 1 They include the No-Action alternative During the FJS process,alternatives are labeled as either stand alone or which is required by the National complementary based on their ability to resolve the issues outlined in the statement s used as of Purpose and Need.An alternative would be considered stand-alone if it would Environmental Policy Act and a baseline against which the other primarily serve the need.In other words,if just that one alternative were built the alternatives are evaluated.See the article on average person would think it provided an acceptable solution.Complementary alternatives are used to improve the functionality of a stand alone alternative. this page for further information about For example,a passenger rail system might be considered as a stand-alone No-Action.Congestion management alternative with a local bus system that takes passengers to their final destinations measures include four options:travel demand as complementary. management,intelligent transportation It's important to point out that there are some stand-alone alternatives that systems,transportation systems manage meet,and bike and pedestrian facilities. would not function correctly without complementary alternatives in place.An additional lane of highway might primarily serve the Purpose and Need but Of the 13 highway alternatives identified couldn't be done without the complementary alternative of improved interchanges. during the scoping process,12 will be carried Because of this,alternatives are often packaged together to provide a comprehensive forward for additional evaluation in Level solution.Packaging Two Screening.Alternatives in the highway allows for detailed category include replacing or upgrading analysis of fewer,better interchanges,improvements to local roads alternatives.Packaging P generally occurs cl in an effort to move traffic off I-25,adding v7` to the end of the E. lanes to existing roads,and toll and high - Q'r, project.Watch future occupancy lanes among others. t editions of NorthLink Of the original 31 proposed,20 transit �i;' ...., ��"; a for information about the need for packaging in alternatives will move forward to Level Two the North I-25 EIS. Screening.These include traditional bus,bus rapid transit,and a number of passenger rail options.Those passenger rail options could include service along existing highway corridors including 1-25,US 85,or US 287. No-Action The FLS will consider using existing freight rail corridors as well as the possibility of new alignments.Commuter rail,light rail and The No-Action alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act high-speed rail are technologies that will be and is used as a baseline against which the other alternatives are evaluated. The purpose is to determine what effect on level of service future improvements would evaluated during Level Two Screening. have as compared to making no improvements beyond those already committed. Additional information about the altema- No-Action consists of existing roadway and transit facilities,committed capacity fives moving forward to Level Two improvement projects that have identified funding,and committed capacity projects that have a dedicated source of funds such as bonds or money from the 7th Pot. Screening,including potential alignments for highway or rail alternatives,will be available No-Action does not mean that no projects will be completed as the EIS process at the public meetings in October 2004. moves forward.CDOT continues to make safety improvements along I-25 as they Times and locations for the public meetings are identified.For example,a cable median barrier is currently being installed in the are included on page 4 of this edition of median of I-25 between SH 7 and Fort Collins.This project will be completed by the NorthLink The project management team end of 2004.There is also a widening project in place between SH 7 and SH 66" is also available for group presentations.To includes the modification of interchanges,overpasses,and frontage roads.The schedule a presentation,call(970)352-5455 section of I-25 from SH 7 to Weld County Road 16 is expected to be completed in e or(303)779-3384,or visit our project Web site fall of 2004.Final design is complete for the section from Weld County Road 16 to at wwwcdotinfo/northi25ei$( SH 119 and preliminary design is complete for the section from SH 119 to SH 66. These improvements will be included in the No-Action alternative. TT 'Fill a. pN F Contact Us North 1-25 EIS Project Office e e Phone: {970)352-5455 ��`'''�''''' -- '�-- "�- Rip. 13031779-3384 scaPirve• onm '1 . y:aw+we .ARO - ,y n 1 couernon 'sae—as-is ,e: rueotairvrr o•�rres r•urrs .oaicox_: Web site: wmw.cdot.info/northi25eis/ Mail: COOT Engineering Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 Project Team t—..- . . . . .., -b.• rr<,nr�w .w. Jean Wallace, P.E., Federal Highway Administration; David Beckhouse, We Are Here Federal Transit Administration; David M. Martinez,P.E., COOT Project Manager; • ' Tom Anzia,P.E., f -' Project Manager; Gina McAfee,AICP, ,A Deputy Project Manager; Kim Podobnik,APR, Public Involvement Manager ,) ,; .- • There are several sources and approaches for the identification : - and collection of the data in the resource areas for the North I-25 EIS.These include: • Data will be collected per guidelines specifically established by • . federal governmental policies and procedures-for example: • wetlands,threatened and endangered species and parks. • • Data is available and will be collected from state and regional resource agencies-for example:information about wildlife will come from the Colorado Division of Wildlife,historic/ cultural data from the State Historic Preservation Officer and water quality data is collected from the Colorado Department of Public Health&Environment. The Environment and the EIS: • Local jurisdictions and agencies can provide data related to land use,parks and recreation,bike and pedestrian facilities, An outline of environmental and traffic data. ■ Data is collected during in-the-field reconnaissance or from data collection specific expressions of interest by the public identified during project scoping—for example:noise,vistas and neighborhoods. It goes without saying that one of the most important goals of All data collected is further field-checked to verify its accuracy an Environmental Impact Statement is to determine the impact and relevance to the project.The data being collected at this stage ipotential alternatives will have on the environment. of the process is general and broad in level of detail because of th uonment is broadly defined as natural and cultural resource size of the study area.More detailed data will be collected during areas that include both physical and cultural elements.These the spring and summer of 2005.The collected data will be used it resource areas are required by the National Environmental Policy the subsequent development and screening of transportation Act that governs the preparation of an EIS. alternatives in the North I-25 study area. - —H--a • -arar-- Public Meetings 8 , 'i -- • — Tuesday,October 19,2004 i - Presentation:5:30-6:15p.m. Small Group Discussions:6:15—8:30 p.m. i Commerce City Recreation Center • ;, . Multipurpose Room 6060 E.Parkway Dr ■ Commerce City Thursday,October 21,2004 Your Community. Your Travel. Presentation:5:30-6:15p.m. Small Group Discussions:6:15-8:30 p.m. Your Future. Your Ideas? McKee Conference&Wellness Center Friends Room More than 1,500 comments have been received from residents of Northern Colorado 2000 Boise Ave. Loveland and those who travel the I-25 corridor since the North I-25 FIB began in January 2004. Tuesday,October 26,2004 Those comments have helped shape a draft list of potential solutions to improving Presentation:5:30-6:15 p.m. transportation in the region.You're invited to join us to learn about the transportation Small Group Discussions:6:15-8:30 p.m. improvements under consideration and how they might successfully address conger- Lincoln Center,Columbine Room tion and safety concerns in the study area. 417 W.Magnolia St • Fort Collins A presentation will outline the types of technologies and alternatives being Thursday,October 28,2004 considered.The project team will also share information about the criteria to be used Presentation:5:30-6:15 p.m. in evaluating alternatives in Level Two Screening and outline the environmental data Small Group Discussions:6:15-8:30 p.m. collection process.The small group discussions will provide you the opportunity to Greeley Recreation Center,Room 101 speak directly with those doing the research on how each technology or alternative 651 10th Ave. • Greeley can work to improve the movement of people and goods along the corridor.To fully For more information on the study or public understand the transportation alternatives currently under development,we ask meetings,or to arrange for special that you plan to attend the entire meeting and participate in each of the small group accommodations or translation services, discussions.Topics for the small groups include: visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/,or call Commuter Rail and High Speed Rail Highway and Congestion Management (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Travel and Land Use Patterns • L£508 03'puetano7 Z06'^MH'3 ZOZZ a!;;O 2u!uaaur2u3 1000 Kt'ON iliNH3d •uogeuodsueil-mneiadooruonewno;ui . O0'Seds 0100 • SI3 30Vlsod'sn SZ-I HINON 0161NSLJdSi' NORTH 1-25 , Volume 2 -June 2005 EIS information cooperation. transportation. c }_. THE NORTH t-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - STUDYING FUTURE �'>:----- - ---, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I.25 CORRIDOR FROM THE `'--- FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. yc. . \. hi Household Survey Results Anyone who has traveled I-25 through census data,including information What's Inside? through Northern Colorado has already about the trips people make to and from experienced increasing congestion and a work.However,we have heard from a ousehold Survey Results growing concern for safety.That's why significant number of people that they the Federal Highway Administration,the travel I-25 between Northern Colorado liminary results of a household survey completed this spring 1 Federal Transit Administration and the and Denver for many other reasons,such Colorado Department of Transportation as entertainment,shopping,and to get to Studying Future Travel are studying options to improve mobility and from Denver International Airport. Try your hand at an exercise for local commuters as well as those To gain a better understanding of these that demonstrates how travel traveling between neighboring states and trips,the North I-25 EIS project team demand forecasting helps plan throughout the region.This study,called contracted with National Research Center, for the future 2-3 the North I-25 Environmental Impact Inc.to conduct a household travel survey. Statement(EIS),will address the future Report Card The following table reports the number transportation needs of the region. Our method of clearly and of times,on an annual basis,people travel easily sharing the latest results of One of the methods used to deter- from Northern Colorado to Denver on a alternatives evaluation 2-3 mine future transportation needs for the weekday or weekend to participate in the region is called travel demand modeling— types of activities identified.For example, Which alternatives make the grade? see page 2 for additional information Jane Smith travels on a weekday from Information about public meetings about modeling.Most of what we needed Northern Colorado to Denver to shop three in June 4 to know to effectively estimate future times a year travel patterns was readily available Sporting Events 17 1.6 —;--2,"r"{e[[-A-'][4,' r ! r Cultural and Special Events or Attractions 18 21 v ,r' " � ;a'r v'`; �� ,.*fit' {[ 1 � Social or Recreation Trips 60 40 1 Fn It f �`"v PT E,I 19{ h: r —• • n ( i, : Shopping or Personal Business 3.0 20 Err eia 1 U Work or School Commute 10.0 N/A ".,ir r r l a Work-related Trip s 68 N/A a � P 1 ! r + I 4jl- NI Travel to 0lA 27 56 :"[' / Continued on page • Survey Results lronmmrd from mei) Studying Future Travel One other interesting point A key basis for evaluation of the trans- approximately 46 percent of travelers portation alternatives is future travel estimates. said they regularly avoid traveling on A computerized model has been developed I-25.The top reasons given include too .>'` � -'-_ _ that simulates multimodal(roadway and much congestion,a sense of not feeling jaw0'4 � transit)travel on the transportation system. safe,and that it takes longer than other ` Future alternative transportation system routes. " scenarios are coded into the model,along >. ._"ter •- 1 Additional fmdnrgs along with � _ with estimates of future population and information about the methodology ,/1 w - employment, obtained from the North Front used to conduct the survey will be Range Metropolitan Planning Organization available at the public meetings in June. (NFRMPO)and the Denver Regional Council of Governments(DRCOG).The North Please see page 4 for public meeting 1-25 MS travel forecast model turns the future population and employment into trips dates and locations. of different kinds—work trips,shopping trips,etc.The model results indude estimates of traffic volumes on roads and transit patronage on bus and potential rail lines.The modeling process helps us understand the alternatives,in tern-is of their effectiveness to serve the future population and their impacts on the environment. • Report Card Evaluation of alternatives involves collecting and analyzing alternatives could be a primary component of an acceptable detailed information related to the categories of purpose and transportation solution.For example,a highway alternative will need,practicability and environment.As a way to dearly and receive a"satisfactory"grade for Purpose and Need if it provides easily share the results of this effort,we are developing report sufficient capacity to comfortably serve future traffic volumes in cards for each of the alternatives.The report cards will reflect the a safe manner.Under Environment a "satisfactory"grade will be grades including S,NI and U(Satisfactory,Needs Improvement or given to alternatives that will not be likely to have a significant Unsatisfactory),and will include our preliminary recommendations impact on the environment. for which alternatives should advance for additional evaluation. Needs Improvement Alternatives that receive this grade The completed report cards will be presented at the public may not fully meet the criteria but if modified,or combined with meetings in June.Here is an example of what the report card will other improvements,may justify further consideration.These look like,as well as an explanation of the grading system used. alternatives are considered complementary,meaning they are Alternatives will be given a grade of S,NI or U according to used to improve the functionality of a stand-alone alternative. how well they address the subject areas as they are described above.Here is how the grades are assigned. Unsatisfactory If an alternative is identified as being too costly,doesn't serve a significant number of travelers,or has°- Satisfactory:An alternative will receive a "satisfactory" potential to significantly affect the environment it would be r,� grade if it addresses the criteria identified for the subject.These an"unsatisfactory"grade.An unsatisfactory grade will result in would be considered stand-alone alternatives,meaning the an alternative not being recommended for further evaluation. L= • re ^ t r H • rev ; r • ,, v<. Contact Us What is a Travel Demand Model? North 1-25 EIS Project Office A travel simulation program that uses a road network connecting Phone: 1970)352-5455 population and employment locations. (303)779-3384 Web site. www.cdot info/northi25eis/ Home Mail: CDOT Engineering Office Simulates people traveling between home,work, / 2207 E. Highway 402 shopping,entertainment,etc. Loveland,CO 80537 Finds the quickest route for each trip 2 hoot Project Team This example model has 6 zones and 9 roadway links. Theatre 2 p 3 Jean Wallace,P.E., Can you find the quickest route from home to work? \ 10 Federal Highway Administration; Shopping Now envision a model that connects the Northern Center David Beckhouse, Colorado cities with metropolitan Denver and has Federal Transit Administration: 3,500 zones and 21,000 roadway links,and you have 6 David M Martinez, PE., the North 1-25 EIS Travel Demand Model. 6 try CDOT Project Manager; LEGEND leaner Tom Anita,PE., 1 Areatt of called Zones and employment 6 Project Manager; Answer: — Roadway Link work Gina McAfee,AICP, setrtma,laDeputy Project Manager; X Travel Time in Minutes Kim Podobnik,APR. . Public Involvement Manager REPORT CARD FOR LEVEL 2 EVALUATION NORTH 1-25 EIS shams.e*+r ah. — S U B J E C T pct PURPOSE FINAL r and PRACTICABILITY ENVIRONMENT ' . .GRADE k -� NEED i HIGHWAY n`"pgrdadee In this subject area Considerations n this subject The grade In this subject area Altemadves will ALTERNATIVES p, Mimi how well each area include how much each will reflect how much impact frecedve a cumulative c Widen 1-25 jril rive addresses safety alternative costs as compared to the human environment "glade of 5,NI or U. c New Toll Lanes on -25 • and future travel m the other alternatives. each alternative will have as r. c High Occupancy Vehicle Lane. C -l.'s.on I-25. compared to theothers,aswell Improve Parallel Roads(US afi as how much impact it will t;. have to the natural I��$ US 2871 environment as compared to 1. I Build New Parallel Arterial the others Build New Highway •�� Congestion Management TRANSIT i_ ',, tit alternative will In this subject area,each The grade In this subject area t{ematves will ALTERNATIVES ?::i",_he`d on how well it mutt alternative win be will reflect how much impact yea cumuladvc e Bus Rapid Transit - '4:pgtetlon and graded on cost as compared to the human environment rocs,NI or U. High Speed Rail a _-I centers,how well to other alternatives.how well each alternative will have as • Light Rail J; :Prominent travel suited each is to longer- competed to the others,as well C Commuter Rail h f-'-,. and how much distance trips,and how much as how much impact it will Tp II generates. coordination with transit have to the natural agencies or other agencies is environment as compared to iii required. the others. , GRADING KEY: S: Satisfactory NI: Needs Improvement U: Unsatisfactory Which alternatives make the grade? Public Meetings Tuesday,June 14,4-7 p.m. You're invited to our public meetings to look over our report card Project Presentation 6 p.m. on alternatives for the North I-25 AS. Greeley Recreation Center • Multipurpose Rooms 101 A,B,and C The North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is studying future trans- 651 10th Ave.,Greeley portation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington Thursday,June 16,4-7 p.m. area to Denver. Project Presentation 6 p.m. Fort Collins Lincoln Center During the initial evaluation of transportation improvements,alternatives were Canyon West/Columbine Rooms evaluated for fatal flaws.Each alternative was judged on its suitability to the corridor, 417 W Magnolia,Ft Collins its typical costs and its potential effect on the environment The project is now finishing Tuesday,June 21,4-7 p.m. the second level of evaluation with more detailed measures and travel analysis. Project Presentation 6 p.m. Loveland Police&Courts Building We invite you to review the results of our Level 2 evaluation.Just like in Conference Rooms North/South school,each alternative will receive a report card explaining how it compared in 810 E.10th St.,Loveland the evaluation process.Alternatives will be graded on travel times,congestion Thursday,June 23,4-7 p.m. relief,preliminary cost estimates,environmental impacts and other measures. Project Presentation 6 p.m. Recommendations on which alternatives will be carried forward into more Longmont Radisson Hotel& detailed evaluation will be presented.We invite you to give us your thoughts Conference Center Silverthorne Ballroom and comments about the evaluation results and the alternatives that are being 1850 Industry Circle,Longmont recommended for further development and screening. For more information on the study or public Please plan on joining us at one of our next public meetings to help plan meetings,or to arrange for special the future of travel along 1-25. accommodations or translation services, visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/,or call For more information on the study or the public meetings,visit 1970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. www.cdot.info/northi25eis/or call(970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384. • L£5OS OJ'pueiano-j Z05 AMR'3 LOZZ asujo Suczaaur2u3 ZOOJ • uollenodsuan-oopeJed000 'UOiwu11oy01 SI3 FusoN • a r NORTH 1-25 Volume 3 -January 2006 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. THE NORTH I-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT — STUDYING FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE I-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE T -- FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. 40 What's Inside? Town Hall Meetings Join us at one of 12 town hall meetings and view transportation mve forward improvements the More Town Hall Meetings o n anticipated to move forward into the EIS. 1-2 IllEjnsit Station Working Groups the North 1 -25 EIS Working groups provide a hands-on opporcommunity ty for toprern olorado idein Help decide the future of transportation in mmmwury members to provide input on potential transit alternatives. 2 Northern Colorado. Gasoline Prices and Travel Behavior How gas prices influence transit ridership and highway travel. 3 If you've ever wondered what forward into the Draft Environmenta the future of transportation in Impact Statement(DEIS). What's Next The DEIS The next step in the North 1-25 EIS Northern Colorado might look like, Please plan on attending one of involves the development of here's your chance to find out. Even the 12 scheduled public meetings to improvements in the Draft better, it's also your chance to shape Environmental Impact Statement. 3-4 that future. explore,discuss,learn and provide input on the future of transportation Interchange Planning:A Public Process The North 1-25 EIS project team in Northern Colorado. Here's another opportunity for the project team and public to work has just completed the third level of To view a listing of town hall together. 4 evaluating transit improvements. Eight meeting dates and locations,please alternative transportation packages see page 2 of your North Link were developed and evaluated, and newsletter. For more information, now we're ready to show you the visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ results.At the upcoming fifth round or call the Public Involvement Team of town hall meetings,we will present �► r. at(970) 352-5455 or(303) 779-3384. the packages that performed best, and which we would like to move VIII qelConanued on ma atiiir Vi\N 7,;i\ �"-' ,' ,r _ter- 1 Town Hall Meetings lrnnfl,,,udF.mupnlrl, Transit Station Working Groups: Town hall meeting dates and locations An Interactive Opportunity areas follows: January 23 In October,the North I-25 EIS launched Transit Station Working Groups. This Fort Collins Aztlan Community Center hands-on process is another way for community members to have an impact on the 112 E.Willow St. P 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. study. Transit Station Working Groups discuss transit stations(Commuter Rail, January 24 Commuter Bus and Bus Rapid Transit),bike and pedestrian connectivity and Windsor Community Center maintenance facilities. 250 11th St. 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 pm. Northern Colorado community members January 25 who reside in or frequently drive our Study Frederick Town Hall Area are encouraged to participate. 401 Locust St. , 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During the first two meetings,groups . _.— ,l January 26 discussed evaluation criteria that can influence Thornton City Hall the location of stations(land use,bus service -' 4 9500 Civic Center Dr. d' = 1 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. and zoning for example),and reviewed �``=" Janua 30 proposed station locations in each corridor. . ri ` ry Gilcrest Valley High School To view information from the first two 1001 Birch St. meetings,please visit the project Web site at 6:00 p.m. to 800 p.m. www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. January 31 Mead Town Hall The third round of working group meetings will focus on the results from 441 Third St Level 3 Evaluation and how the results affect the transit station process,modeling 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. February 1 results,station program,station site evaluation criteria and maintenance facility. ongmont Museum One or more of the transit technologies may be eliminated in Level 3,so be sure to 400 Quail Rd. attend Town Hall Meetings to view the results. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. February 2 The next Transit Station Working Group meetings are as follows: Loveland Public Library •Monday,March 20,5:30 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. 300 N.Adams Ave. Frederick Town Hall 7.00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. 401 Locust St. February 6 • •Thursday,March 23,5:30p.m. Greeley Recreation CenterR4, to 8:00 p.m. 651 10th Ave. a. 2207• Loveland 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m \ 2207 E. Highway 402 February 7 I If you were unable to attend either of Fort Collins Harmony Library the first two rounds of working group 4616 S.Shields St. gr P 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. meetings,you are still invited to attend February 15 and participate in future meetings. Please Southwest Weld County Building - .- __ contact the Public Involvement Team at 4209 Weld County Rd.24/ a (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384 if y • 4:30 p.m.to 6:30 p.m. ,+ao,,,.. February 16 ^' l would like to get involved. Milliken Town Hall 1101 Broad St. 6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. �_, �h`- �f ® ,1_,-;'''' , _ 70 . t* o-...,_' r z Contact Us Gasoline Prices and Travel Behavior North I-25 EIS Project Office Phone: 19701352-5455 Several unexpected natural disasters during 2005 resulted in notable increases in the (303)779-3384 price of gasoline.And a recent sampling of U.S. transit systems finds increases of transit Web site www cdot.info/northi25eis! Mail.. COOT Engineering Office ridership ranging from eight to 17 percent compared to last year'.So how is the price of 2207 E.Highway 402 gasoline considered when evaluating transit ridership in the North I-25 FPS? Loveland, CO 80537 Project Teem Travel forecasts for the North I-25 EIS process assume that the relative price of fuel Jean Wallace, PE, remains constant through the year 2030.This is a standard and well-accepted forecasting Federal Highway Administration, practice because of the uncertainty of predicting the price of fuel. But how much do David Beckhouse, ederal Transit Administration; travel patterns really change when gasoline prices increase? David M Martinez. PE., With the abrupt rise in gasoline prices in recent months, SOCOOT Project Manager; record numbers of people are turning to mass transit as their 4--. .73.: O 9 9 Torn Anzia, PE., mode of transportation.Washington Metropolitan Area Project Manager, Transit reports system ridership was up 10percent for the4 Gina McAfee, oje t p Y � � 9 Deputy Project Manager; year,compared with a normal annual growth rate of two Kim Podobnik,APR, percent. In Texas,traffic on the Trinity Railway Express, Public Involvement Manager h links Dallas to Fort Worth,was up 16 percent for the 3 9 IF-four weekdays of September compared with the same • period one year earlier. What's Next: The DEIS Similarly,Colorado carpool and vanpool programs F: managed by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning 4 Level 3 of the evaluation screening process has been completed and we Organization(NFRMPO)and the Denver Regional Council of Governments(DRCOG) are now ready for the next step in the both report a large increase in inquiries since the recent rise in gasoline prices. EIS process: preparation of the Draft Automobile travel also changes if fuel prices increase.Historically,the amount of Environmental Impact Statement. vehicle miles traveled(VMT,a common measure of automobile travel)has outpaced The DEIS document will include the population growth.Over the past 20 years,the U.S.population has increased about one following: percent per year,while VMT has increased about three percent'.However,an exception 1) Development of DEIS was after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries(OPEC)oil embargo of Alternatives:Alternatives that 1973.Comparing 1974 to 1973,national VMT declined by 2.5 percent,even though U.S. remain after Level 3 screening will be defined to a greater level population grew about three percent.In general,it has been estimated that a 25 percent of detail so that a full analysis car increase in the price of gasoline would result in about a five percent drop in VMT. be completed.This greater level o It is interesting to note that the amount of fuel consumed would decrease more than detail will include areas such as: the decrease in VMT,given rising fuel prices.As gasoline prices go up,people tend to a) Layout of right-of-way modify their driving habits by accelerating slower and reducing travel speed to conserve needed b) Location of bridges, fuel.Also,for drivers with two cars,the more fuel-efficient vehicle is driven more often. retaining walls and fill Eventually,people purchase smaller,more fuel-efficient cars to replace larger vehicles slopes Itas SUVs.It is estimated fuel consumption would decrease 1.5 to two times as c) Location of stations and ch as the decrease in VMT. interchanges 1 American Public Transportation Association(APIA).Mart 2009 to September 20i15,for transit systems without any major improvements d)Planned frequency of to transit swine. transit service r US.Census and U.S.Department of Energy data.Census e)Cost of construction, operations and maintenano What's Next: The DEIS (rmti,medfmu page 31 2)Analysis of DEIS Alternatives:The DEIS Alternatives,including the • • No-Action Alternative,will be fully analyzed,according to such areas as: a)Transportation impacts and performance b)Impacts to properties(access,right-of-way,visibility,etc.) c)Impacts to natural resources(wildlife,water resources,wetlands,etc.) d)Operational impacts such as noise or air quality Q ' e)Impacts to social and economic conditions Interchange Planning: f)Costs and funding possibilities A Public Process 3)Documentation on the DEIS Chapters:The information developed In Level 3,the project team began throughout the entire study will be documented in a federally required the interchange planning process and report.This will include: this process will continue through the a)Purpose and need for improvements DEIS.Interchange Planning Groups b)Alternatives considered and/or public meetings will soon be c)Transportation impacts underway and we invite community d)Existing conditions and environmental impacts members to participate and share e)Summary of public and agency involvement f)Funding options their opinions. 4)Review Process:Before the DEIS enters the public and agency comment The I-25 corridor will be divided process,it is reviewed in detail by CDOT,FHWA,FTA and the Cooperating into six segments for interchange Agencies(RTD,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Federal Railroad planning meetings. Please call Administration). the Public Involvement Team at 5)Public and agency comment period (970)352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 for more information about becoming involved. • L£SOR OD"Puetano7 ZOt Xn+H a LOZZ aatmO Sutraawt5u3 lOQJ • uopeliodsuerr.uogeiadooa -uwrewmrw Sid SZ I HI}ION Volume 3-October 2006 NORTH I-25 • --- -- -- EIS 3 information. cooperation. transportation. 1n THE NORTH 1-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT— STUDYING FUTURE TRANSPORTA- - • TION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE 1-25 CORRIDOR FROM THE FORT COLLINS/WELLINGTON AREA TO DENVER. Introduction to the Draft EIS Process Level 3 Evaluation is complete and the • Of the various tolled Express Lane alterna- Inside This North I-25 EIS project has entered the Draft tives, tolled Express Lanes with Bus Rapid Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) phase. Transit(BRT) would provide the most con- Issue Based on Level 3 Evaluation findings,two DEIS gestion reduction and would have the high- Packages have been developed and will un- est utilization. Based on this, a variation of Introduction to the Draft dergo even more detailed analysis in the DEIS tolled Express Lane alternatives with BRT EIS Process process. Steps in the DES: will be included in the DEIS. Learn more about the next steps in this evaluation 1 1. Development of DEIS Alternatives Transit Evaluation DEIS Pkgs.A and B 2. Analysis of elements of Packages A&B • Commuter Rail (CR) service attracts the ell • w of the proposed and No-Action Alternative highest level of ridership but bus alterna- t _ goon packages. 2 fives are the most cost effective. 3. Documentation of the DES Chapters Transit Station Planning • CR service along the western Burlington Learn how transit station 4. Review Process by the Colorado Depart- Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railroad corridor locations are selected 3 ment of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration,Federal Transit Adminis- would be significantly more effective than A Look into Commuter tration and cooperating agencies building CR along I-25 and/or U.S. 85 Rail and Bus Rapid corridors. Transit lines on I-25 compete transit in the EIS 5. Public and Agency Comment Period for riders with transit services along the A detailed look at the types BNSF railroad corridor and U.S.85. of transit options 4 Notable Level 3 Facts to • Bus transit service to Denver International Interchange and Highway Consider in the Draft EIS Airport attracts more ridership and has the Access Planning potential to improve the cost-effectiveness Detailed diagrams help explain Highway Evaluation of bus service. the differences between the interchange possibilities 5 • Evaluation of various transit and highway Environmental Analysis in improvements indicated that 1-25 would Y Your Community.Your need to be widened to accommodate future the Draft EIS Travel.Your Opinions. development regardless of transit improve- Public meetings on new rail ments provided. The North I-25 EIS environmental resource alternatives 6 specialists are completing data collection and • I-25 could be widened to accommodate Contact Information. 6 future growth and development in three updating existing conditions for DEIS Pack- age A and DEIS Package B. Environmental basic ways: additional general purpose resource specialists have been collecting data lanes, tolled Express Lanes or combination of both. on wetlands throughout the North 1-25 EIS study area, along the BNSF railroad corridor 411 -„ -• • Using general purpose lanes, a six-lane and from historic and archaeological resources. cross-section is sufficient in much of the Currently, the environmental team and many �r •, - � area while eight lanes and/or auxiliary municipalities are identifying important com- lanes would be required in select locations. munity resources in order to avoid any poten- _;--." /i tial negative impacts. 1 x fr. I`1 t,,, qtr C, 1l - _t77 DEIS Package A: 6 GP + WCR + CB85 DEIS Package B: Express Lanes + BRT LEGEND LEGEND — i H•wfm•rel purpose C•meet q e•metric ._.c. lGuner-5•p abl Ex tene to Escb Dinnlon bnelnEecll Directionrn Cu l rtct sL'U I11 L'1 rIC •eiicicncic6 dch cicncics ..—.. 1 New General �, am replace acing ze.rri.r-S.p tee Eupr.i antl replDrc a e in• LIMN 4.Auxiliary lane in infrastructure b•••in E•ch Dir•cnnn turf ra strucure Each Direction _1 Ix._ BRT Route(Uses Express Commuter Rail Lanes o •rZ Fort Collin , m L I-zsl Fort C Mos m a Committer Res Service in Feeder Rue Suviea General see lj mi.. IntsreFanpe p � 0 — Ender Bus Sorlc• 4 �� - Sm • © Number of �— G 1 EJ -> Interchange Upprecin r• Lanes y�►► 1 —Lov. ntl Lovol ntl "{L�i© Number el lams `., J — 7/'� Bus RapN Transit Station )` • - CommobrRu•Rbtlon ,�0i Greeley� RaTracka Rail Line m'ry ..r r:) commuter Rail Ethane — ) PTO atingle Steil..FvTraeke Rail Line Y4 Q RTDTransit Elation 1W�.'. �Y ~ „` 2 Longmont ` iiii Q. ongmont Oy lr f" l 1f ^v eouitler r r� ,�} !oula•r — n r i^ .��o -1 ..Un CI` 111 �, , ,.... 1 1n iI Implement - i '•••'•C r � ,� n � •Ilpnttive T \ t v 7 •ejects , m., Ill \ 4a. i` 0. a- m b� a1 NOT TO SCALE m I! ' Don Rr r t (\ NOT TO SCALE ✓`1 ( � r® I\ F9- NOTE: NOTE: - Select sections of 1-25 would require auxiliary lanes and/or an — A wider barrier and Express Lanes cross-section is included additional through-lane in addition to this 6-lane cross section. between SH 60 and Harmony Road. — Where widening is needed between State Highway 66(SH 66) — BRT stations could be located within an expanded median area. and SH 7.the median would be used. — Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7,the median would be used. Congestion Management Measures could include: • New local transit routes • Variable message signs at all transit stations • Signal coordination along U.S.34 and • New express transit routes • Automated Vehicle locaters on all transit Harmony Road[Package R] • Enhanced carpool lot parking capacity and vehicles—"next bus"technology • Continuous links to local bike and pede.' . amenities • Ramp metering and variable message signs at systems • Courtesy patrol(incident management)from selected interchanges • Support for development of a Transportation SH 14 to SH 7 •Access management along U.S.85[Package A] Management Organization(TMO) 2 ilk 9 " 11� - � s. iti 7 . HI,-.1 .- • Transit Station Planning The design team has considered many Once a general facility location was de- pedestrian and bicycle access,platform/ potential station locations for Bus Rapid termined, the team identified numer- site relationship,land use compatibility, Transit (BRT), Commuter Rail (CR) and ous sites for each station. The specific joint development opportunities and Commuter Bus transit corridors.Criteria sites were identified and sized to serve environmental impacts. As a result of such as station spacing, vehicular access the park and ride facility feeder bus this evaluation, one to two sites per and proximity to population and activity system,passenger drop-off and pedestri- station were recommended to move centers were all taken into account as well an connectivity.The specific station sites forward and be evaluated further in as committee and stakeholder support. were evaluated looking at vehicular, the DEIS. • One platform 20' x 300' Bus Rapid Transit Typical Station located in the median of 1-25 • Bus loading lanes will be located on either side of platform • ° P > r : • Bypass lane, barrier and FRAIL 1MVEL MPN�GEO�IgllOE1l PVPp5 BUS PUTFIXIM PJS 9Yvp5i NnGE TRPVEt ITMVEL BADE shoulder provide a 23'buffer IAI t roLL r LM'E LO,gWG I Lit I LANE t.o LINE UNE f it • from bus loading lane to the it;cul- through-lanes of I-25 I • Pedestrian circulation will be provided with a pedestrian _ _ overpass from the median e a, _ _. - �_ platform to parking, which c- �- - � will be located on either the SB I-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NB I-25 east or west side of 1-25 • Stairs and elevator will be provided • Parking is located adjacent or close to station 0' 50' Commuter Rail Typical Station r ENsf Now ENOF NOW • Two platforms 19'B"x 400'(allows for compatibility with RTC °'r° '5'4 1 "' r` PLAT FO ' PUT PLATfOPM transit system) 1701 • One platform will be located to the west of the southbound , . . - -- i i — track and one platform will be located to the east of the northbound track I C71p Em 1 • Pedestrian circulation will be provided with a pedestrian roe -1 1 i „.E. 1711' 1••1 overpass between each platform to prevent unsafe crossings 1;;1_ mitl 1 t of the railroad tracks k 01T1= Vi -1.1 d l:a iii i Stairs and elevator will be provided I •i'arking is located adjacent or close to station COMMUTER RAIL STATION 3 Cq' tit • ' - • pi A Look into Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit in the EIS Commuter Rail and Integration with FasTracks The passage of RTD's FasTracks proposal in November 2005 The project team evaluated numerous CR alignments for the ex- brings Commuter Rail(CR)service to the doorstep of the North tension from Longmont to the North Metro Corridor.The align- Front Range.The North 1-25 EIS project team will analyze con- ment chosen for further evaluation in the DEIS would extend east necting the proposed CR alignment shown in Package A with from Longmont along the SH 119 corridor, then continue south the FasTracks lines that include both the North Metro Corridor along WCR 7 through Erie before crossing I-25 at WCR 8. After through Thornton, as well as the Northwest Rail Corridor up crossing 1-25 the alignment would continue south in the Union to Longmont along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Pacific Railroad corridor to meet the North Metro Corridor at (BNSF) railroad corridor, which parallels U.S. 287. However, the St. Vrain Junction, where the northernmost FasTracks sta- "connecting the dots" isn't as easy as it sounds. tion is planned. Benefits of the alignment include a shorter track length, utilization of existing rail line, and the fewest impacts to To maximize the FasTracks investment and avoid paying communities,parks and open spaces of all the alignment options more of the operations cost than absolutely necessary, service considered. extended north from the FasTracks stations should be at the frequencies planned by RTD,which is currently every 30 min- The CR alignment will feature a station located in the Tri-town utes to Thornton and Longmont. Therefore, every 30 min- area. The project team has selected two sites, one along WCR 8 utes a train from North Metro would continue north to the west of 1-25 and one near the intersection for WCR 7 and SH 52. Longmont station, meet the RTD train pulling in and allow The CR alignment and both station locations will proceed passengers to transfer to the northbound train. This allows the DEIS for further evaluation. Further components and d passengers from Fort Collins to Denver to ride without trans- elements of the station and CR alignment will be presente ferring, but passengers from Fort Collins to Boulder would public comment during the DEIS evaluation. have to transfer to the RTD service in Longmont. Bus Rapid Transit: A New, Flexible Transportation Option in Colorado Picture a large, swift and futuristic- blending local service with several stops service would take Harmony Road and looking vehicle, much like ones seen at near neighborhoods or employment U.S. 34 to get to 1-25.Along these roads themed amusement parks.Now picture centers to provide sufficient access, with the BRT is proposed to stop at both that same vehicle in a special lane of a commute service that has fewer stops street-side stops as well as park and ride the highway, stopping every few miles and higher travel speeds along freeway lots,and to utilize signal treatments and at bus station platforms built into the lanes. Distinct from typical bus ser- intersection modifications that would highway median.This new transit tech- vice, BRT typically runs in a dedicated, be designed to help the service avoid nology, known as Bus Rapid Transit special-use lane. But that, too, is flexible, congestion. Along I-25, the service (BRT), has gained widespread interest as the lane can also be utilized by other would run within the tolled Express and appeal as a comparatively lower- high occupancy vehicles, or for other Lanes and stop at station areas that are cost high capacity transit investment. special purposes like tolling. built into the freeway median. They In Colorado, it is being considered in would be accessible to pedestrians via a the North 1-25 EIS and is planned for In the North Front Range, BRT is pro- pedestrian bridge. Freeway station areas the U.S. 36 Corridor. posed as part of an alternative that in- would be buffered by passing lanes and cludes tolled Express Lanes along North other treatments to provide adequate The benefits of BRT relate to flexibility. I-25. The service would consist of two space and roominess for passengers. The bus can be powered by a variety of routes:one from Greeley,going directly fuel sources and runs on rubber tires like to Denver Union Station, and the other The BRT alternative will be compa a typical bus.Therefore,BRT vehicles can from Fort Collins, alternating destina- the CR service, and both will be tes be routed anywhere there is adequate tions between Denver International for ridership, costs and environmental pavement, which makes it ideal for Airport and Denver Union Station. The impacts in the DEIS. 4 �. W m • . D• t !_. "L- I .pi I Interchange and Highway Access Planning In late 2005, the North I-25 EIS project team recognized that most I-25 Corridor interchanges would need to be rebuilt or reconfigured to handle future traffic volumes.In February 2006,a series of small group public meetings commenced to collect input and better understand the issues associated with each interchange.Since February,the project team has developed and analyzed new interchange configurations while continuing to meet with the small groups.Preferred configurations have been recommended for many locations;however,the planning effort is ongoing and the project team will continue to meet with the small groups this fall. tayy '*,•31O-,-. .. crass street a _ cross street• 1 --i.: ,.. y , ,,. . ..,,s.,„_ L ,,,,,,;;.._ ..,...,„:„... „„,,„,,T,, ,,...,„,..,_ ,,,.. ,.„._ .,.. A Diamond A Single Point Urban Interchange(SPUI) The Diamond interchange is the most commonly used interchange on 1-25. A SPUI is similar to the Diamond design except the SPUI is smaller and its Ramp intersections with the cross street are typically controlled with stop ramps converge to one intersection at the cross street controlled with a traffic signs in low volume situations and with traffic signals in moderate to high signal.Typically used when there is limited right-of-way, SPUI interchanges volume situations. Occasionally, roundabouts are used such as along 1-70 in are being proposed at U S. 34 and Rocky Mountain Avenue along with the Grand Junction and Gypsum. Diamond interchanges at Harmony Road,State U.S.34 and Larimer County Road 5 intersections. Highway 52 and Weld County Road 8 have ramp intersections and multiple left and right turn lanes. o'' r•L'i-• "' f Direct Connect Ramps Typically used at interstate intersections or at the intersection of an interstate and major cross street, these ramps support all turn cross street movements including specific turn movements with high traffic volumes. This type of ramp is being considered for the 1-25 and ,icarm. U.S.34 interchange. 5 Your Community. Your Travel. Your Opinions. Contact Information During the last round of public meetings, the communities expressed interest in a North I-25 EIS Project Office rail alternative that would connect to Denver without traveling through Boulder.In Phone: (970)352-5455 or(303)779-3384 response,the North 1-25 EIS project team has extended the Package A rail line into Web site: COOT Engineering rinorthi25eis/ southwestern Weld County. Mail: 2207 Engineering Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 The modified rail alignment would connect northern Colorado passengers to the Do we have your e-mail address? FasTracks system at both Longmont and Thornton, reduce travel time, and have If not,register it by going to our Web site minimal impacts to natural resources and adjacent communities. and clicking on"Contact Us." Project Team We invite you to attend one of the scheduled public meetings to review the new Monica Pavlik,PE, alternative and provide input.Come see how your opinions continue to shape your Federal Highway Administration transportation. David Beckhouse, Federal Transit Administration Monday,November 13 Wednesday,November 15 David M.Martinez,PE., Open house:6-8 p.m. Open house:6-8 p.m. COOT Project Manager Torn Recreation Center Southwest Weld County Complex Anzia,Manager n Project anager 11801 Community Center Drive 4209 Weld County Road 24 4 Gina McAfee,AICP, Northglenn Longmont Oeputy Project Manager Kim Podobnik,APR, 6 Public Involvement Manager • LESOS OD "puelano7 ZOtt A2m142TH H LOZZ ao830$uuaaut$u3.LOQJ •uoileUodsuen -uogeiad^o7oa .uopewzolu, • SI.7 cz I NINON FACT SHEET NORTH 1-25 1' , "ra` 0 North 1-25 EIS EIS Page 1 of 2 inf3rmaUon aooperalio-^ t nnportatnn Project Description: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),have initiated a project to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The study will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods and services. Why an EIS Must be Completed: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as well as many state and local laws enacted during the late 1960s and early 1970s mandate that Environmental Impact Statements be completed before major development projects can begin. Producing an EIS requires analysis of the impact that a proposed development will have on the natural and social environment. It includes assessment of long-and short-term effects on the physical environment, such as air,water, and noise pollution, as well as effects on employment, living standards,local services, and aesthetics (R. K. Jain, L. V. Urban,and G. S. Stacey,Environmental Impact Analysis(2d ed. 1981). Study Boundaries: The North 1-25 EIS will be limited to areas along the existing I-25 corridor from the v"` Denver metropolitan area to Northern GEGE,o _. s. • Colorado communities including Fort 4: A / u.. ...aim Collins/Wellington and Greeley. US 287 A • —'- -/ and US 85 transportation corridors will — • us i ^°^""^-, else ` —L_ also be included in the final analysis of C -- potential alternative route locations. The k` . . _ study area spans portions of seven , counties, includes more than 30 J' "÷� Gin } ��^. \ 1, communities, two metropolitan planning _ _ organizations (the Denver Regional 4, 4 Council of Governments and the North �"""�� Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization) as well as the Upper Front --t Range Regional planning Commission. At ' -. approximately 1,300 square miles, the study area is larger than the state of Rhode """' J._4. Island. ® ' zt Contact: .. North 1-25 EIS Project Officer 2207 East Highway 402 a♦ I r • Loveland, Colorado 80537 �. (970) 352-5455 or(303) 779-3384 . .. 9 • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration - Colorado Department of Transportation. FACT SHEET NORTH I--25 EIS North I-25 EIS . Page 2 of 2 information_ cooperation ransportation Purpose and Need: Project Purpose The purpose of the North 1-25 EIS is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. Need for the Action The project purpose can be explained through four major need categories. The study has identified the need to: • Improve safety • Improve mobility and accessibility • Replace and/or rehabilitate aging and obsolete infrastructure • Provide for modal alternatives and interrelationships The project needs will relate differently to highway transportation solutions and transit solutions. Highway alternatives will be evaluated on all four of these needs. Transit alternatives will be evaluated only on two of the needs: Mobility and accessibility, and Modal alternative and interrelationships. Alternatives Under Consideration: Alternatives are defined as any improvements that can be made to the existing transportation system to improve the level of service, safety or efficiency. These include, but are not limited to, the following: • No-action o Completing projects that are in progress or that have been committed to by CDOT, the • transportation planning organizations or cities and counties within the study area o Used as a basis against which other alternatives are evaluated • Package A consists of: o One new general purpose lane in each direction along 1-25 between E-470 and SH 52 and between SH 66 and SH 14 o Commuter rail service connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and downtown Denver via FasTracks rail lines o Commuter bus service connecting Greeley to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport via US 85 • Package B consists of o A combination of single buffer-separated tolled Express Lanes and barrier-separated tolled Express Lanes along 1-25 from US 36 to SH 14. o Bus rapid transit service operating in the tolled Express Lanes along 1-25 connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport. Complementary features of the alternatives under consideration include connections to the Denver metropolitan area's FasTrack rail lines, carpool lots,real-time transportation information, upgraded interchanges,transit stations and a feeder bus system. We Need Your Help! The North 1-25 EIS project team is soliciting public comment via submissions to our Web site, comments at public open houses, letters, phone calls,booths at outdoor fairs, meetings with civic groups, displays at libraries and other places people gather. For more information on this study, to learn about upcoming public meetings, alternatives being studied and to weigh in on the discussion, please visit www.cdot.info/northi25eis/or call the project office at (970) 352-5455 or(303) 779-3384. • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. HOJA DE DATOS NORTH 1-25 Proyecto North 1-25 EIS EIS information cooperatic' Description del proyecto La Administration Federal de Carreteras (FHWA, en ingles), la Administration Federal de Transporte Publico(FTA), y el Departamento de Transporte de Colorado (CDOT)han iniciado un proyecto para preparar la Declaration de Impacto Ambiental (EIS) para identificar y evaluar mejoras multimodales en el transporte a lo largo del Corredor de la 1-25 desde Fort Collins/Wellington hasta Denver. El estudio analizara el movimiento regional e interregional de personas, bienes y servicios. Por que es necesario el estudio EIS: El Acta Nacional de Politica del Medio Ambiente de 1969, conocida en ingles por las siglas NEPA, asi como leyes estatales y locales de las decadas de los anos setenta y setenta, exigen que el estudio EIS se complete antes de que puedan comenzar cualquier gran proyecto de construction. Producir el EIS requiere analizar el impacto que el desarrollo propuesto tendra en el ambiente natural y social. Tambien incluye evaluar los efectos a corto y largo plazo en el ambiente fisico,como aire, agua y contamination de ruido, asi como los efectos en el empleo, calidad de vida, servicios locales y estetica. (R. K. Jain, L. V. Urban, and G. S. Stacey,Environmental Impact Analysis (2d ed. 1981). Area del estudio: - El estudio EIS de la 1-25 None esta limitado a las areas junto al corredor existente de la I-25 desde el area (LECEeo " 11Ir' „ .! metropolitana de Denver hasta „„, ,•,,,,„ TIw , • comunidades el none de Colorado, .qo incluyendo Fort Collins/Wellington y Mortrood• ..° • rt•• Greeley. Los corredores de las carreteras r" ^— US 287 y US 85 tambien se incluiran en el analisis final de los potenciales lugares w - \ E , altemativos de las rotas. El area de estudio „ "-Z--- N Gres incluye partes de siete condados asi como t“ a.- mas de 30 comunidades, dos \ gip` organizaciones de planeamiento regional "-t••,.-- (el Denver Regional Council of Governments y la North Front Range � Metropolitan Planning Organization), y la r--,,_rf comision planificadora Upper Front Range ii " Regional. El area abarca unas 1.300 millas im cuadradas, es decir, una zona mas grande •— que todo el estado de Rhode Island. ..... Contacto: °° North 1-25 EIS Project Office '. T: 2207 East Highway 402 R I '- Loveland,Colorado 80537 ' aft 9 (970) 352-5455 or(303)779-3384 m . -%«"°�,% Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. HOJA DE DATOS NORTH 1-25 Proyecto North 1-25 EIS EIS information cooperatic a!;: • Proposito y necesidad: Proposito del Proyecto El proposito del estudio de Declaration de impact()del Medio Ambiente (EIS, en ingles) es safisfacer las necesidades de viaje a largo plazo entre la zona metropolitana de Denver y los rapidamente crecientes centros de poblacion a lo largo del corredor de la 1-25 Norte hasta el area de Fort Collins-Wellington. Necesidad de Accibm El proposito del proyecto se puede explicar por medio de cuatro grander categorias. El estudio ha identificado la necesidad de: • Mejorar Ia seguridad • Mejorar la movilidad y el acceso • Remplazar o rehabilitar infraestructura antigua u obsoleta • Proveer altemativas de modos de transporte e interconectividad Las necesidades del proyecto se satisfacen de distinta manera en el caso de las carreteras que en el caso del transporte publico. Las alternativas para las carreteras se evaluan de acuerdo con las cuatro necesidades enumeradas. Las altemativas de transporte publico se evaluan solo de acuerdo con dos de las necesidades: mejorar la movilidad y el acceso y proveer altemativas de modos de transporte e interconectividad. Alternativas en consideracion: Las altemativas son las mejoras que se pueden hacer al actual sistema de transporte para mejorar el nivel de servicio, la seguridad o la eficiencia. Las altemativas incluyen las siguientes opciones, pero no se limitan a ellas: • • No action o Completar los proyectos que ya se estan realizando o con los que ya existe un compromiso por parte del Departamento de Transporte(CDOT), las organizaciones de planificacion del transporte, o las ciudades o los condados dentro del area de estudio. Esta alternativa se usa como criterio de evaluation de las otras alternativas. • Paquete A, que incluye: o Un carril de use general en cada direction en la 1-25 entre la E-470 y la SH 52 y entre la SH66ylaSH14 o Tren suburbano de pasajeros conectando a Fort Collins y a Longmont con el centro de Denver por medio de los ferrocarriles de FasTracks. o Buses suburbanos, circulando por la US 85, conectando a Greeley con el centro de Denver y con el Aeropuerto internacional de Denver. • Paquete B, que incluye: o Una combination de carriles expresos (separados por barreras o no) en Ia 1-25 entre la US 36 y la SH 14. o Buses rapidos circulando por los carriles expresos de Ia 1-25, conectando a Fort Collins y a Greeley con el centro de Denver y con el Aeropuerto Internacional de Denver. Estas altemativas incluyen otros elementos complementarios, como conexiones con los trenes de FasTracks en la zona metropolitana de Denver, totes de estacionamiento para carros compartidos, information en vivo sobre transporte publico, mejoras en las intersecciones iNecesitamos su ayuda! Para mas information sobre el proyecto, el calendario de reuniones publicas, las altemativas en • consideracion, o para compartir su opinion, visite www.cdot.info/northi25eis/o llame a la oficina del proyecto al (970)352-5455 o al (303)779-3384. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. North 1-25 EIS Project Office 2207 East Highway 402 NORTH 1-25 " Loveland,Colorado 80537 • (970)352.5455 EIS (303)779.3384 www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ information cooperation. transportation. August 10, 2007 Organization name Address City, State Zip Dear As the primary route between Northern Colorado and the Denver metropolitan area,the 1-25 corridor has experienced considerable growth over the years. People are increasingly aware that demands on the existing transportation system are exceeding its ability to serve travelers efficiently. Along with increased traffic volume on 1-25 and parallel roadways has come an increase in accidents, resulting in a need to plan for transportation improvements within the corridor. As you may be aware, the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is underway. The purpose of this project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 to the Fort Collins/Wellington area Solutions under study include, but are not limited to,construction of passenger rail, addition of highway lanes, improving bus service, or some combination of these alternatives. • As the North 1-25 EIS moves forward, transit and transportation alternatives are narrowed down and public input is critical. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with members of your organization to present information about the North 1-25 EIS and transportation alternatives that are currently being reviewed directly in your area. In addition, we welcome comments on if and how the alternatives are meeting the community's needs, will the options be utilized, and any additional information members of the community can provide. Presentation times can easily be scheduled around your regular meeting times and location. We look forward to hearing from you. Please don't hesitate to contact Francisco Miraval at 720-936- 1769, or myself with any comments or questions you may have. Sincerely, Jessica Woolery Public Outreach Team North 1-25 EIS 303-779-3383 • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation we NORTH 1-25 :, :,:t. EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Please have the person in the household aged 16 or older who most recently had a birthday complete this questionnaire. (Year of birth does not matter.) Your responses are confidential,and will be reported in group form only. The completed questionnaire can be returned in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. 1. In the past year,about how many times did you attend sporting events at the following locations? Examples of sporting events: Denver:the Broncos,the Rapids,the Rockies,the Avalanche, the Nuggets,the Mammoth, DU Hockey, etc. Boulder CU Buffaloes football, basketball, etc. Ft. Collins: CSU Rams football, basketball, etc. Greeley: UNC Bears football, basketball, etc. Budweiser Center: Eagles hockey, etc. About how many times on WEEKDAYS (Monday through Friday, including Friday nights)? more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to2 25 times times times times times neve a. For a sporting event in Denver ❑ p ❑ p p ❑ b. Fora sporting event In Boulder ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For a sporting event in Fort Collins ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Fora sporting event in Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For a sporting event at the Budweiser Center ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Fora sporting event somewhere else U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: About how many times on WEEKENDS not including Friday nights, which should be included in weekdays)? more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to2 25 times times times times times never a. For a sporting event in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Fora sporting event in Boulder ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For a sporting event in Fort Collins ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For a sporting event in Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For a sporting event at the Budweiser Center ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f For a sporfutg event somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . 3 where;., HousEHow TRAVEL SURVEY Pace 1 of 5 2. In the past year,about how many times did you attend cultural events,special events, or visit other attractions at the following locations? Cultural events:Attend a concert,watch a play,see a ballet,etc. • Special events: Special events or festivals such as Taste of Colorado, Parade of Lights, Boulder Creek Festival, Loveland-Fort Collins Balloon Festival,etc. Museum/zoo: Museums, an amusement park,the zoo, or some other type of attraction. About how many times on WEEKDAYS(Monday through Friday, including Friday nights)? more than 13to25 7to12 3to6 1to2 25 times times times times times never a For a cultural or special ewsnteraUredfonndantow1Dewar ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For a cultural or special event or attraction elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Fora atlkxaxspedateienta' onktBQuldsrartOUWXd ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For a cultural or special event or attraction in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 e. For a cultural orspeaat emit tit ateac onsomeMhereelse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? more than 13 to 25 7 to 12 3 to 6 1 to 2 25 times times times times times never a Fora cultural or spew event or attraction in downtown Denver 0 O O ❑ 0 0 b. For a cultural or special event or attraction elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C. For a cultural or special event oratlrartonin Balder arLaamad....❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For a cultural or special event or attraction in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 .e. For a Guttural or special event or atkar on somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 4 where: 3. In the past year, about how many times did you travel to the following locations for social or recreation trips? Social/recreation: Entertainment or recreation;for example,to visit friends or family,to dine at a restaurant,see a movie,participate in a sports activity(or take children to a sports activity),etc. This category also includes trips to attend a religious service or do a volunteer activity. About how many times on WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a For social or recreation trips in downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For social or recreation trips elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O e. For social or recreation trips in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f. For social or recreation trips in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ O 0 0 O g. For social or recreation trips somewhere else ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 -3 where: On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a For social or recreation trips in dmxrrm Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For social or recreation trips elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For social or recreation drips in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f. For social or recreation trips in Fort Collins, Loveland y 0 0 0 0 0 W or Say g. For social or recreation trips somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Pace 2 of 5 4. In the past year,about how many times did you travel to the following locations to shop(at the grocery store, a mall,other shopping center, etc.)or conduct personal business (e.g., going to the doctor, post office, hair stylist, etc.)? On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year neve a. For shoppmg/errandsin downtown Denver- O 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For shopping/errands elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For shopping/wands in t Bidder or Longn ont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For shopping/errands in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley...❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For shopping/errands sotiterfhere else U CI ❑ ❑ ❑ , . �where: On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For shopping/errands in downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For shopping/errands elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For shopping/errands in Boulder or Longmont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For shopping/errands in Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For shopping/errands somewhere else ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ 3 where: 5. In the past year, about how many times did you travel to Denver International Airport to fly yourself, or to pick-up or drop-off family,friends or associates? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year neve On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never On WEEKENDS OS including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Are you currently employed or a student? 9. How many days per week do you usually use each of ❑ yes ❑ no 3 GO TO QUESTION#12 ON PAGE 5 the following types of transportation to get to and from 6a.Do you work or attend school in. . . work? ❑ Fort Collins ❑ Boulder ❑ Loveland ❑ Longmont drive alone ❑ Greeley ❑ Broomfield ❑ Thornton/Northglenn ❑ Downtown Denver drive with at least one other person ❑ Denver Tech Center ❑ Other Denver County van pool ❑ Other Adams County ❑ Other Weld County p ❑ Other Larimer County ❑ Other Bounder County walk ❑ Jefferson County ❑ Other 7. What is the zipcode of bike your workplace or school? ride the bus/light rail for any part of the trip 8. Do you typically travel a significant distance work at home (approximately 5 miles or more)on I-25 for your work or school commute? other, please specify❑ . yes ❑ no HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Pace 3 of 5 10. In the past year, about how many times did you travel to the following locations for the work or school commute? On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never b. For work commute trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work commute trips to BouIdet of Lotamont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For work commute trips to Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley..❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For wok commute trips to somev+here else'&...« ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For work commute trips to downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For work commute trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work commute trips to Boulder or Lonamont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For work commute trips to Fort Collins,Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For work commute trips to somewlrerselsi .......�: .........O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 where: 11. In the past year,about how many times did you travel to the following locations for work-related trips(trips made for work purposes such as attending meetings, making deliveries, etc.,but NOT the work commute)? • On WEEKDAYS (including Fridaynights)? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For work-related trips to downtovm Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For work-related trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work-related hips to Boulder or Lonamont ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For work-related trips to Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley...❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e: For wok-related trips to somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 where: On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never a. For work-related trips to downtown Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b. For work-related trips to elsewhere in Denver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. For work-related trips to Boulder or Lonomont LI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d. For work-related trips to Fort Collins, Loveland or Greeley ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e. For work-related trips to somewhere else ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 where: 0 HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Paoe 4 of 5 12. In the past year,about how many times did you make trips for Ely purpose on Interstate 25? 5 or more 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 every once or twice per week per week per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never On WEEKDAYS(including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • 3 or more 1 to 2 1 every once or twice per month per month 2 to 4 months in the past year never On WEEKENDS not including Friday nights)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Do you regularly avoid traveling on 1-25? ❑ no ❑ yes 3 13a.Why? (Please check all that apply.) ❑ I don't feel safe ❑ it takes longer ❑ too much congestion ❑ other 14. Before taking this survey, had you heard of the North 1-25 EIS Study? ❑ no 3 GO TO QUESTION#15 ❑ yes 3 14a. How had you heard of it?(Please check all that apply.) ❑ newspaper articles ❑ television ❑ Council or Commission meeting ❑ radio ❑ public/community meetings ❑ "word of mouth"from friends or family ❑ committee meetings ❑ don't remember ❑ other 15. How would you like to be informed about matters related to the study of North 1-25? (Please check all that apply.) ❑through a newsletter ❑ newspaper articles ❑ the project website http://www.dotstate.co.us/Northl25eis/ ❑ ads in the newspaper ❑ public community meetings ❑ television or radio public service announcements • ❑via e-mail ❑ other DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Our last questions are to ensure a valid sample of survey 19. In what type of home do you live? responses. Again, all of your responses to this survey are ❑one family house detached from any other houses completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. ❑a duplex,townhouse,or other building with two or more apartments or condominiums 16. How old are you? ❑mobile home ❑ 17—24 years old ❑other: ❑ 25—34 years old ❑ 35-44 years old Thank you for completing the survey. Please return it in the ❑45-54 years old enclosed postage-paid envelope to: ❑ 55-64 years old National Research Center, Inc. ❑ 65 years or older 3005 30th Street Boulder,CO 80301 17. What is your gender? ❑ male If you have any questions about this survey, ❑ female please contact Erin Caldwell via e-mail:erin@n-r-c.com or phone toll-free 1-877467-2462. 18. Do you rent or own your residence? If you would like more information about the North 1-25 EIS ❑ rent study,please call the project hotline at(970)352-5455 ❑ own or visit the project website at http://www.CDOT.info/Northl25eis/ HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Paae 5 of 5 NORTH 1-25 Mg EIS ,tandaon :ocgera9or trans=talon Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners The Colorado Department of Transportation is studying several alternatives in Northern Colorado to alleviate congestion on 1-25 and make travel safer. The range of alternatives includes improvements to the roadway system and/or to the transit system. Each alternative would have different effects on businesses. As part of our investigation of the potential social and economic effects in the study area, we are contacting all local businesses that may be affected as a result of these alternatives. In order to determine potential effects on your business and employees, we would like you to answer ten (10) questions. Your answers will be used to help identify which alternative is eventually chosen and to quantify social and economic impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is required for this project. All of the answers you give about your business will remain confidential. All the data we gather will be discussed in general terms in order to protect the privacy of your business and your employees. 1 . Name of business 2. How long has your business been at this location? 3. What types of services does your business provide? • 4. How many full-time and part-time employees are employed at this location? Full-Time Part-Time 5. What percentage of the employees at your company are unskilled workers, e.g., manual laborers? What percentage are skilled or professional workers, e.g., electricians or engineers? According to the US Department of Labor"unskilled labor"is labor that requires less than two years of training or experience;"skilled labor"is labor requiring at least two years of training or experience;and "Professional"means a qualified person who holds at least a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and who is a member of the professions. a. % Unskilled b. % Skilled or Professional 6. Approximately how many minority employees (i.e., African American, Native American, Asian, or Latino) are employed at this location? [Actual number or percentage] Full-Time Part-Time 7. Does a minority person or persons own this business? 7 Yes ❑ No If Yes, Which minority group? 8. Are you aware of any transportation issues that your employees may have? [For instance: a long commute to work, restrictions preventing use of vehicle to get to • work, etc...]. Please elaborate. n Yes: Details 7 No NORTH 1-25 EIS .¢'.dlloll navef3Uof Ira(vcr 131'D, Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners • 9. Please estimate the percentage of employees using the following modes of transportation to get to work: • Vehicle • Bus/Transit % Walk % Bicycle Other 10. Had you heard of the North I-25 EIS prior to receiving this survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No 11 . If yes, where did you hear about it? ❑ Newspaper articles ❑ Television ❑ Word of mouth Radio • ❑ Public community meetings ❑ Council/Commission meeting ❑ Committee meetings ❑ Other: ❑ Don't remember 12. How do you prefer to receive information about the North I-25 EIS? ❑ Newspaper articles Public service announcements ❑ Through a newsletter ❑ The project Web site ❑ Ads in the newspaper ❑ Via E-mail ❑ Public community meetings ❑ Other: • NORTH 1-25 EIS Ink). lion matraliar ransovratgn • Survey of Potentially Affected Business Owners Please return the completed survey in the envelope provided. If you are not presently occupying this address, or if there are multiple businesses at this address, please provide us with a contact or contacts who may be able to answer these questions. If you would prefer to complete this survey over the phone please contact Lindsey Larson with PRACO at 303-779-3383. For questions pertaining to this survey or to the North I-25 project or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Lindsey Larson with PRACO at 303-779-3383 or visit the project website at http://www.dot.state.co.us/northl25eis/index.cfm. Esta iinspeccidn se puede hacer disponible en el espanol sobre el pedido. Contact info?? Comments: • Thank you for your participation! •J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\Pubinv\Research Questions for Affected Business Owners.doc Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex • Longmont information Lioperain tra'sp o' November 15, 2006 Purpose The Southern Connectivity Public Meetings were held to introduce the Sugar Mill to North Metro connection that has been developed in response to public's request for a commuter rail connection that would connect North Colorado to Denver without traveling through Boulder. Presentation The presentation introduced the two connections under consideration. Representatives from CDOT, FHWA, FHU, Carter-Burgess, and PRACO were available for questions and comments. Attendance There were 27 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Add "Maximize Ridership" to the objectives for the Longmont to North Metro study. • 2. Adding one additional lane of pavement on 1-25 does not seem enough. 3. If safety is a big issue, tolled lanes will exclude general population putting them at more risk. 4. What is crash rate for the general purpose lane verses tolled? 5. Package A - Why is rail proposed along CR 7 when there is room in 1-25 ROW? 6. Those provisions for rail are already on 1-25? 7. What about WCR 13 and Huron to relieve congestion? 8. In No Action improvements to SH 66 are already proposed. 9. Not using the 1-25 median so that you can use it later makes no sense. 10. Makes more sense to place rail near populated area. Have it closer to Tri-towns where growth potential is currently higher verses Erie. 11. I'm right on CR 7. The train would be 50 feet from my bedroom. 12. Did you take the old Union Pacific ROW into consideration? • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary �,�• ;gv� NORTH 1-25 0 n�� Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont ,to n<'i n cDmeratr r transnotil e November 15, 2006 13. Why not go along Frontage Road? 14. Why not have the rail go along the east side of 1-25? 15. There are subdivisions that straddle WCR 7 at WCR 7 and SH 52. This would impact future plans for the subdivision with a rail going right through. 16. Move 1-25 over to run CR along 1-25. 17. Have you worked with Weld County on this? 18. If you are worried about wetlands why not use 1-25? 19. Impacts would be less along 1-25 for the environment. Don't use CR 7. 20. Avoid the west side of 1-25 wetlands. 21. Why not go out on 66? Fewer Businesses on 66 to Impact. 22. Are there Ecologists working on the project to evaluate wetlands? • 23. The rail would decrease traffic on CR 7 and prevent need to widen it. 1000 people on one train are better than 1000 people in 1000 cars! In favor of the rail on CR 7. 24. Safety during the winter will be an issue. There will be no crashes on the rail, but more lanes on 1-25 will mean more accidents. 25. Developments with build up around transit verses adding more lanes to 1-25. 26. Would rather have one rail verses 125 cars go by my house like I currently have. 27. Where will the future 8-10 lanes up north go? Denver is grid-locked and width expansion is limited. Won't all those cars just back up farther down 1-25? 28. Are there studies on what will happen without 1-25 lane expansion? 29. What are you doing about transit oriented development? 30. If you don't think transit will be used why are park-n-Rides currently full along 1-25? 31. Have you considered parking at the station locations? 32. Where does Union Pacific go from St. Vrain Junction now? 33. Is the abandoned rail corridor the standard 50 foot width? • 34. How do you determine who will drive to get on at a station verses if it is in their own backyard? Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-L5 . > s wr: Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex . Longmont cccoeratlor: transp ,rtat on November 15, 2006 35. Did you factor in existing and planned local transit services and connecting rail to those lines? 36. If you run on SH 14 you eliminate need for feeder bus to rail. 37. Station site at WCR 7 and SH 52 better because of the major activity line on SH 52. 38. Will the study look at noise and vibration? 39. Cannot go through wetlands that you are currently going through. 40. What rates higher on avoiding impacts to: a bedroom window 50 ft. away or wetlands? 41. Less likely to use rail if it just passes a mile away from my house. 42. I like the idea of no rail connection to north metro line from Longmont. • • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS • Northglenn Recreation Center November 13, 2006 ,morn uo c3:ipprailari transpo'latryi Purpose The Southern Connectivity Public Meetings were held to introduce the Sugar Mill to North Metro connection that has been developed in response to public's request for a commuter rail connection that would connect North Colorado to Denver without traveling through Boulder. Presentation The presentation introduced the two connections under consideration. Representatives from CDOT, FHWA, FHU, Carter-Burgess, and PRACO were available for questions and comments. Attendance There were 10 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. • 1. Q: Why can't you impact the bike path near 112th and community center and shift 1-25 in that direction? 2. Don't take our garage. Our subdivision backs up to 1-25. 3. It doesn't seem like you are solving the bottleneck near 104th. 4. We have concerns about noise moving closer to our house. 5. Q: How many lanes up to SH 119? 6. What is the time period for improvements in our area near 104th? 7. Safety concerns regarding 128th at Dry Creek. There are lots of accidents. 8. Q: Is this the same process that was followed for T-REX? 9. Q: Could the funding for this be put up to a vote? 10. Q: Is this on the same schedule as T-REX? 11. Q: What is RTD's role relative to CDOT? 12. Q: How will this impact our homes in Northglenn? • 13. Q: Will the current wooden noise fence be kept? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I25 �� ' Southern Connectivity Public Meeting EIS Northglenn Recreation Center • November 13, 2006 rnforr.Iation cnoperatioa transpodaton 14. Q: Can Roadway move west between 104th and 120th to provide more room? 15. Q: Would metrovision affect our property? 16. We saw blueprints last February which showed a sound wall in our backyard. Is it still there? 17. Will you put up a concrete barrier before construction? 18. How do you get involved with DRCOG metrovision? 19. Has there been meetings for public since you were last here in Thornton? 20. If you go any further, we can't hear anything in our backyard. Even one lane, will increase the noise. 21. Safety is a huge issue. We deal with flying tires crashing into people's yards. Prefer having concrete walls for safety. Don't care about losing view of mountains. We are concerned about wall height. Short ones don't help. 22. There is trash between noise wall and CDOT ROW fence. It causes a problem with rats near 104th. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary 2S NORTH I *: Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Milliken Town Hall February 16, 2006 information ccopermlon transportat on Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 17 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. With central and west rail alignments won't environmental impacts translate into money? 2. Would existing track be leased from the railroad? 3. On both alternatives, what are the plans for the interchanges? Will they be upgraded or • replaced? 4. US 54 is horrible and the interchange at SH 392 needs work. 5. If we do these changes, how much space will that take up? Will it impact median and businesses along the highway? 6. East part of the highway is only for semis. Are you considering that? 7. Toll road won't do much because truckers won't pay more than they do now. 8. This is looking at long period of time. In the mean time I'm not sure howl-25 and US 34 can function until the intersection is improved. Can you stop their growth? 9. I thought CDOT had control of access. That is how it is on SH 402. Put the squeeze on central. 10. Assume you have population studies, what do they show in terms of growth? How does it impact? 11. From the model info, which is the better alternative? 12. With west, are you trying to move development off 1-25? 13. I don't see somebody on west side of Greeley driving to US 287 to take rail. • 14. You see new development further out along E-470. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Milliken Town Hall • February 16, 2006 mforrnatioa traosportaton 15. People on the east will drive or use bus if you put transit on west side. 16. If you had rail/bus along 1-25 it might mean more traffic on transit. 17. The only way to get people to ride rail is to not make improvements to the highway. 18. You have chosen commuter rail over light rail. Why? For safety? 19. What about ROW issues? 20. My property borders 1-25, if the highway is expanded I won't be able to talk to people in my front yard. 21. In committee meetings, who goes from Johnstown? 22. Heard rumors that they might widen WCR 13. 23. What questions have you heard at other meetings? • • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I--25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont nto,^iati a ciiperatm t . cp tam r.l February 15, 2006 Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 28 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Have the railroads agreed to shared use? 2. What is the frequency? I am not sure double tracking is necessary. 3. If taking freight for passenger where does freight go? • 4. What is more expensive, freight or passenger? 5. If growth is moving east, does it make sense to send people west for transit? 6. Are LAL meant to encourage toll lanes? 7. E-470 has to raise rates as there aren't enough users. 8. Have we done toll projections? 9. Don't we already have problems at SH 7 for installing tolls? 10. Are you planning to acquire more property on the southern end? 11. Why do you want access to my property? 12. Is the service road along 1-25 CDOT ROW? 13. What happens to access if frontage road becomes part of highway? Will we loose access? 14. You have been collecting materials/information since 1999. What is the projected date for doing something? • 15. Could you talk about US 85? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 ..N x Q•p t^°e Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Southwest Weld County Complex Longmont 'nformato.% ccopera!-r,•r iranspo-tat February 15, 2006 16. Weld County has dangerous roads. Have you considered that? 17. Package B lacks east-west connection, which isn't beneficial if you are going from Loveland to Greeley. 18. Ridership for much of the toll lane is overestimated use and underestimates transit rail ridership. 19. What is the FasTracks plan along 1-25? 20. What speed will the rail go? 21. I don't understand VPD figures like WCR 13. 22. On the Web site under capacity inters of people per hour, do you count people or cars? 23. Are we allowed to consider number of people who come out of Wyoming who want the train? • • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department ojTransportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 4 `1 `' • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Harmony Library, Fort Collins February 7, 2006 ntorrnr.ut :i,operabon transvy131 Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 49 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. High speed rail on 1-25 is the obvious choice. High speed rail was sabotaged in the last round of public meetings. BRT is ideal for an urban corridor, but on 1-25 BRT is ludicrous. BRT on US 287 would be appropriate. Feel this project is rigged with meaningless transit alternatives. Poor communication by consultant team. Recommend public reject this project, and go back and develop meaningful transit alternatives. • 2. What are funding mechanisms? 3. Will locals be involved in interchange planning? 4. Will there be opportunities to look at interim improvements? 5. Do you have to transfer CR vehicles in Longmont? 6. What are travel times for CR on 1-25 central and US 287 western alignments? I find the times unacceptable. 7. How can you make assumptions about how long it takes to get from home to a station? 8. What about rail lines on both west and central? Can that positively influence economic growth? 9. We are eliminating options for future CR on 1-25 if the ROW is diminishing and all of it is being bought. 10. How will you upgrade the system into a regional system? 11. How does your project address increases in gasoline prices? 12. You stated that you referenced Texas and other metro areas, but this is not Texas. • Northern Colorado is not a metropolitan area. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 _ xt Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Harmony Library, Fort Collins • February 7, 2006 ,nfon-1atinn conperauun transp tato'i 13. Projections shows only two percent of travelers will ride transit. Are we going to be paying money for something very little people use? 14. Package A offers a lot of support for current transportation needs. Northern Coloradans do a lot of short trips so Package A is good for this and it also allows for people to take advantage of transportation if they wish. 15. You project LOS D in 2030, but what are LOS levels today? Will we be experiencing gridlock in 2030? 16. What is the no build LOS? 17. Explain the feeder busses and commuter bus. Is there a difference? 18. What are the CR travel times on the track only, not including from home? 19. Is there an option for express CR service? Fewer stops? 20. Why did you select CR for Package A and not BRT and visa versa for Package B? 21. How much room is there really for mixing and matching the packages? If CR on US 287 is more costly can you substitute BRT? 22. BRT on 1-25 shares lanes with HOV and HOT vehicles? Will this degrade over time? • 23. Speak to the expandability of capacity for CR and BRT. 24. What are highway costs compared to CR and BRT in the DEIS packages? 25. Is CR going to share the rail line with freight? 26. What are completion dates for construction? Will things happen in phases or all at once? 27. I don't like package B since it is not rail. 28. Why is there no service to DIA from the western alignment? 29. What is the timeframe for a vote or decision on Package A and B? 30. How involved has the BNSF been so far? 31. What are bounds of gas prices you took into consideration for 2030? What about hybrid cars? 32. Population is increasing along 1-25, so why not rail centralized on 1-25? 33. TOD type areas are booming like in FasTracks. 34. The option where even HOVs are tolled seems problematic. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary t,e0 .iK NORTH 1-25 ,--mv0004 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • •", Harmony Library, Fort Collins February 7, 2006 inform ru.t ewope•c n t a.iS i t tt oa 35. What is happening with E-470 west of Denver? 36. Any plans to improve 1-25 in Northern Colorado before your plans come into place? 37. Do toll fees on 1-25 help pay for maintenance on frontage roads? 38. What is CDOT doing in regards to working with the Super Slab group? • • Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I25 '. Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center • February 6, 2006 nfwnat i c: ape;v io, transportat on Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 19 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. What exactly is HOT? 2. How much did east-west connections pay part in your north-south modeling? What about rail east-west or diagonally? 3. HOT uses existing or new roads/lanes. Does that mean you might make US 34 a toll road? • 4. US 34 is already congested and you want to add busses onto the road? 5. I don't think people will want to take a feeder bus to 1-25 to get on another bus. 6. Are you addressing travel on bus between cities? 7. Is Colorado congestion going to be like L.A. on US 85 and 1-25? 8. Building more highway lanes entices people to drive. You need to provide more transit opportunities. 9. CR west alignment is more cost effective, but Cheyenne is a major up and coming population center, what about that 1-25 linkage? 10. How did you find that ridership on CR is higher than on bus? 11. Bus and BRT has to deal with accidents and vehicle problems where CR is less likely to be held up by these kinds of problems. 12. Limits of the study to 2030. There seem to be a lot of predictions that Weld County will be a major population center in 2025. Package B makes no sense, Package A at least spreads out travel options and serves the citizens that will be spending the money building it. A more balanced, diversified transit solution may be very welcome. • 13. Why is Package B any good at all? Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 125 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center February 6, 2006 informa Cr-.ape r i Iranspa ta;or 14. Looks like Package A is deluxe and Package B is second best. Is Package A more expensive? 15. Who funds rail and bus? 16. One problem with CR is that people need to find a way to get to final destination from their CR stations. Are you looking at solving this issue? Can you force development near stations? 17. Is your travel time modeling based on projected increases in congestion, specifically on US 85? 18. Did you look at impacts of Super Slab or new airport in Ault? 19. How much uncertainty would you need if you were to evaluate beyond study area and beyond 2030? 20. Is your model already off by five percent or so? 21. Is it 24/7 transit service? • 22. Who would manage transit? We need guidance support from MPO to help define a transit authority. 23. If you are to partner with MPO whose goals are to provide regional multimodal transportation, shouldn't your packages reflect that? Package A does, B not so much. 24. What are the differences in travel time to bus from CR on I-25 and US 287? 25. Are you working with John Peacock at CTA? 26. Local jurisdiction controls a lot of the land use. Things may change in the future especially on US 85. How much of what local jurisdictions plan play a part in your decisions? 27. Could a new EIS in five years after land use changes have different results and put rail on US 85? 28. An EIS is a decision informing document, not decision making. Narrowing and limiting your options seems flawed. 29. If this were done north of Seattle is would be done very differently. You aren't constrained to do it only this way. 30. Think outside the box. Keep flexibility and create something that won't make an L.A. in 2030. I don't see how adding to 1-25 will solve anything. Congestion is terrible today and • we need to change the way we plan or we'll end up with and L.A. situation. Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary ms's NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting Greeley Recreation Center EIS • February 6, 2006 inform rope nio ransportat 31. Is there a faster more direct way to get to Denver rather than going through Boulder? 32. Implementing package a would that proved quicker relief? 33. There is an existing Denver bus service that goes from SH 119 on US 287 into downtown Denver. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 :a . Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Loveland Public Library February 2, 2006 Hformatm c.-nperd'ui trarbportal on Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 32 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. How to compare VHT in 2006 vs. 2030 VHT? 2. How does the percent of transit traffic compare to highway traffic? 3. Additional ROW easements for six or eight lane sections will need to be purchased? • 4. SH 52 south to CR 7, can this be expanded to eight lanes with restriping. 5. Did you measure peak hours, worst case a.m. and p.m., for LOS? 6. Was a cost applied to safety among alternative management lanes packages? 7. How does eight lanes compare to HOV, HOT and toll during hours of congestion? 8. What is definition of commuter? How many miles for a commute? 9. Can private transit operators operate in the corridor? 10. Do transit riders pay own way? 11. Has monorail been considered? 12. Study of those with and without drivers licenses? Potential ridership source. 13. Funding for feeder routes? How will locals operate? 14. Are feeder route costs included in evaluations of alternatives and packages? 15. Are employment/shopping locations considered in modeling? Stops and stations should be located near employment and shopping. • 16. CDOT needs to compare notes with NCEDC or Northern Colorado Economic Development Council. Do you need contact info? Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS mo * Loveland Public Library • February 2, 2006 informatry coperati., , airapc ta, on 17. Is ridership modeled with cost for the rider? Ridership is dependent on fare. 18. Number of users for transit has a direct correlation to the cost of fare. 19. What was fare cost assumed? 20. What are the available hours that transit will operate? 21. Review central corridor for employment and other growth with NCEDC. 22. For BRT in Fort Collins, is it on Harmony? 23. Need to Test Public Acceptance of toll lanes. Any type of toll? 24. Roads and streets should be public. 25. Tolling only works with GP congestion. 26. What is point of toll roads? 27. Transit is not a good option for construction workers. Now a six lane section is awesome. Barriers are difficult to maintain snow removal. • 28. With CR there are a fewer number of stops compared to CB. Favor package with CB due to more stops. 29. Prefer CR, but want to go to DIA. Why should Colorado residents in north pay tolls and Denver does not? 30. Think outside box. 2030 cost of oil, conventional vehicles are not practical with expensive oil. Electric vehicles, one out at Europe transit, what is most affordable method of transportation beyond 2030? 31. Tolling differentiates between rich and poor. 32. Funding if it all goes to 1-25 corridor then what happens to funding for east-west state highways? 33. Bring public, western attitude towards transit. 34. Educate public and change culture from car to transit. Consider how to best serve the public and look globally. 35. Aging population, mobility and accessibility land use, transportation planning must be coordinated. 36. Development needs to increase funding to transportation impacts system wide. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary -� tiq NORTH I--25 . Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Loveland Public Library February 2, 2006 nforrnation caoperatio r I'd sp "tat o r 37. Bike trails are an integral part of the transportation system. 38. Any federal funding available? 39. Can Exit 254 funding be provided by feds? If trucking stops America stops. 40. Is there a reason why eight lanes does not receive more consideration? 41. Eight lane section is better for private transit providers with less congestion. 42. Why does CR not go to Denver? 43. Any studies that verify if you build it they will come? 44. Projected population 2030? 45. Is inflation included with the cost estimates? 46. Acquire ROW now for identified corridors. 47. For Transit to work local plans must be coordinated. Transit options, grid systems which . support transit developments. 48. Grid system is important for highway operation. Parallel arterials could reduce demand on 1-25. 49. Commuter Rail in central corridor. 50. Timeline for project completion? 51. When do you expect DEIS for public review? 52. DEIS packages moving forward look good to business community. 53. How to gage public input? Do some groups/individuals have more influence? 54. City of Loveland Transportation Advisory Board meets the first Monday of every month. 55. Commuter Rail! We can't build enough lanes to keep up and stay safe. People wouldn't have to own cars to get an appropriate job. Even though it will be hard we must change our car culture. Hold off on extra lanes. Lanes are used. Development must pay own way. Municipalities must cooperate. Think of parking at transit stops. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration- Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Longmont Museum • February 1, 2006 rnformatiai nope i l :•a.ispyrtai Dn Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 42 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. When would construction begin? How much would it cost? 2. Widen 1-25 thru Weld County and you will wind up with heavy congestion. Pressure to develop that area is high. Eight lanes will make it worse. 3. Transit saves auto maintenance money. 4. Are EIS packages locked in? What happened to CR on 1-25? • 5. Explain modeling, how do you assess congestion? Travel demand forecasting, DRCOG, NFRMPO? 6. I commute SH 52 to 1-25 and congestion is bad. Is there any chance of commuter bus on SH 52? 7. Have you considered reversible lanes for peak travel hours? 8. A lot of accidents happen near Mead. 9. Do stations include park-n-Rides? 10. CR on US 287 doesn't seem reasonable. Direct line to DUS would be nice. 11. What is the interim plan since construction won't begin for at least 10 yrs? 12. People ride rail over bus. Greeley and Weld County expects tremendous growth. Why not build rail? People will ride it. 13. Does, CR become more feasible or cost effective beyond 2030, say in 50 years? 14. Is US 287 CR at grade crossing? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary ' s NORTH I--ZS tiitt • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Longmont Museum February 1, 2006 lnforJatiori caoperauon transpo-tat 15. Front Range Commuter Rail from Cheyenne to Pueblo, FRCR is a non-profit looking for funding. 16. Talk about other 1-25 projects in particular 1-25 and Highway 34. 17. Is the Huron and Colorado Blvd expansion in your plan? 18. Will the lowest costing package most likely be committed? 19. Does CDOT enforce HOV lanes? So we don't have more dummies riding as carpoolers? 20. What types of noise will come from commuter rail? Looking at light rail because it is quieter? 21. SH 52 up toward SH 66 has become very dangerous. SH 7 area used to be bottleneck, but it's now moved north. We need more highway lanes. They give a lot of relief. 22. Rail transportation for both people &freight must be a part of the plan. • • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS " Mead Town Hall • January 31, 2006 ,formatro,r croperatInn t raasp rIJCon Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 17 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. SH 52 and SH 66 roadway improvements, six to eight lanes. 2. Design of shelf waiting for funding. ROW purchased SH 52 to SH 119 and ROW needed at SH 119 to SH 66. 3. How many feet of ROW is required, straight sections? 4. No upgrade needed at SH 66 and 1-25. It will be upgraded with other projects. • 5. HOT, does it mean HOV and Toll? 6. Will the access tunnel be closed on SH 52 north? 7. Will accesses be built to new standards if replaced? 8. Wetlands along 1-25. 9. Main purpose of HOT to provide choice or as a means to pay for facility? 10. Tolling on E-470 are well below opening day projections need to adjust model and verify accuracy for tolling model assumptions. 11. Where do you buy the transponders for E-470? 12. Package A, sharing ROW with BNSF freight rail, is this reasonable to assume you can share? 13. Possibility of moving BNSF completely? 14. MARTA, Atlanta, Europe and Japanese "Mistake". Technology was reviewed early in process. HSR screened out no significant rise in ridership. • 15. My property backs up to 1-25. What noise mitigation will be provided? Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary � NORTH 1-25 } ti Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS '` • Mead Town Hall January 31, 2006 t'ansv:rtul0 16. Package A, Package B, transit alternatives. 17. Is projected growth considered? 18. Elimination of frontage roads? Why? 19. What about people who use frontage roads instead of 1-25? 20. Why can't the speed limit be lowered? It is so dangerous right on the bumper. 21. Parallel arterials, is this a CDOT project? 22. Package B forces all/most north-south traffic to 1-25 Corridor. Package A is more north to south and more east to west transit connections which is critical as lots of folks do not drive. 23. How to educate community to use transit alternative? 24. Congestion management? 25. Safety replacement of GR with cable rail. • 26. PNR along 1-25? 27. Will it require payment? 28. Funding for busses, is this CDOT money? 29. Seem when a lane is built it is too late. 30. Why build roads? They attract traffic. 31. Document will look at phased improvements. 32. It is all about money. 33. Super Slab -There are toll road out east, why not move focus on this? 34. Which state has best DOT? 35. Are you communicating with other state DOTs? 36. Consider construction zones on 1-25 and mitigation money for alternative transit. 37. Gold plating CR does not need double track. Thirty minute service is generous. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS "sa Gilcrest Valley High School • January 30, 2006 'orri LTrtpe t transporlat oft Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 8 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Concerned about local access. 2. Is this related to the last study done? 3. Is there a timeline for improvements outlined in last study? 4. US 287/US 85 improvements would take traffic off I-25. M 5. Bad accidents mean stop lights. They could close intersections instead. 6. Was concerned about closing intersections in Gilcrest. 7. I hate driving on US 85. There is so much traffic on it now. 8. One closure that was planned was for Min St, is that still planned? 9. Are those decisions still final? 10. It's amazing how well traffic moves along 1-25 where it has six lanes now. 11. Heard that Exit 254 will be closing. 12. Don't like toll roads. I've been on E-470 and it once cost $6. I won't do that again. 13. Where do these alternatives go now? 14. Will state widen north of SH 66 or does that depend on this study? I Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 �:> , Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Thornton City Hall January 26, 2006 :, MD-Fiat-in duper i r ra^.Su t 3 oiI Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 12 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Has CDOT considered commuter rail on 1-25 from Fort Collins to Denver? 2. Why was CR connection between US 287 and 1-25 on Highway 119? Yore not utilizing rail to its fullest capabilities. 3. Tri-town area and all of 1-25 corridor will soon boom with development and not adding • Highway 119 connection will leave out many people. 4. Packages don't show any connection to DIA from Northglenn/Thornton. Demand is high for this type of airport service. 5. Did presence of E-470 toll road defer from your decision to go to DIA? 6. CR west: do your cost estimates reflect the use of existing BNSF rail line? 7. You seem to be divorcing from the Front Range Commuter Rail/Bob Briggs effort why? 8. All highway improvements are from E-470 North? 9. Is there room for additional HOT lanes on 1-25 and US 36? 10. When you say BRT and CB are less costly than CR, are you using operational or capital cost? 11. Are you working with FasTracks? North Metro study did not involve public. Has FasTracks already been set in stone? 12. Eight lanes end at E-470. Will this cause problems down South? Bottleneck effect? 13. Who will actually make the decision? 14. I live at 109th Ave. east of 1-25. Have they studied sound there? Secondly I am 60 feet from 1-25, will I lose my home? When does this funding for this become available? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Thornton City Hall • January 26, 2006 'nformatin c Joper r;nsp rva nrl 15. Huge concern about dumping cars at E-470 for eight lanes into six. 16. Wood fences DO NOT work as sound walls. There is horrendous noise at homes that don't meet noise criteria; you need to raise that criteria. 17. My homes noise level is just as bad now as it was before the eight foot sound wall was built. 18. Any noise/pollution studies being done between 104th and 120th? 19. Can you reroute truckers around town on E-470? 20. Do tolls go on indefinitely or until road is paid for? 21. Has future growth been calculated into ridership? 22. Everyone out east has no rail option, only bus. Transit on west and east do not compete whereas transit on 1-25 competes with west and east. Sprawl is also an issue. Need strong feeder system bus. 23. I live in Northglenn at 109th and 1-25 and the noise is horrible. 24. Why do you need to enter my property? I don't think this study will help anything. • 25. Do you accommodate people with disabilities? 26. What will happen? 27. My house at 109th would most likely be directly impacted. Package 8 runs through my backyard. How long do I have to dump my house on someone else? 28. The value of my home will decrease if highway is expanded. 29. Will highway eliminate bike path on east side of 1-25? 30. It looks like my house is ok on Package A, but then on Package B it runs right over my house. 31. Will you consider alternatives to noise mitigation such as making a quieter road surfaces, etc? 32. What is the highway made of at south end of T-REX? It's very quiet. 33. Are you saying that you are trying to reverse development by putting CR on the west? 34. Regardless of what happens in this study, growth is happening, traffic is increasing, people that live next to 1-25 will have to deal with it forever. • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 ` Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Thornton City Hall January 26, 2006 !nformati n LicperciMr tryrsp r i ,n 35. There are significant issues not only in Northglenn and Thornton but also further south to US 36. A lot of residential communities in this area. 36. Did you ever consider an elevated highway? • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Frederick Town Hall • January 25, 2006 ifcrm aticn c '•aasP 'GI Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 26 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Was Package A once Package 7? 2. What is difference between bus services, commuter bus vs. BRT? 3. Would BRT be used on major roads? 4. Difference between A & B, how many people will they move without expanding before 2030? • 5. Which of the two would be easier to expand in 2030? 6. In 2030/2050 could trains run every 10 minutes and still be safe? 7. Is the east loop a dead issue? Would Super Slab effect it? 8. What is assumed population for area in 2030? 9. Is FasTracks light rail? 10. Living in Erie I can get anyplace today. They solved most issues in Chicago with rail. 11. Can CR go on rail that is there from Fort Collins to Denver without a transfer? 12. Existing rails present safety issues with grade crossings. 13. How much need for eminent domain will there be in each package? 14. Most towns along western alignment wave build along rail. ED develops along transportation 1-25 could have the same kind of draw have you looked at economic development impacts? 15. Has there been discussion about cost to individual fare, toll and parking? . Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting • Frederick Town Hall EIS January 25, 2006 rrrorrna ion cooper 3 i t'arisportLil 16. Purchasing ROW, where is that now with BNSF? Are they purchasable? Could help finance more east for railroads. 17. What is time frame for completing study and beginning construction? 18. Are we looking at T-REX situation? 19. With the western railroad will we share rails with freight rail? 20. Do commuter trains have performance over freight? 21. When considering funding could stations be opened for private development? 22. Citizen participation notices at post office. S Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Windsor Community Center • January 24, 2006 in'omistIC" cooperabo:r transpotat()- Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 39 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Option B tolls collected to assist in capital cost or are tolls used to reduce use of Highway GP lanes? 2. Will tolls price be similar to cost on E-470? 3. Hate to apply business logic to highway logic but what about pricing on toll lanes? 4. Who are we limiting on limited access highways? • 5. Central rail has less impacts on endanger species? 6. Was cost of west CR alignment on environmental included in analysis? 7. Will final proposal be A, B or combination of A and B? 8. Pink routes are feeder routes and is this part of funding packages? 9. It is time to get in year 2030 by adding rail routes to Fort Collins to Denver. Station spacing comparable in Level 3 Screening. 10. No brainer! Need to consider trains! Embrace train! 11. Package B has more congestion to I-25. 12. What will stations be? PNR multilevel? 13. Number of transfers west for CR? 14. Which alternative uses the least amount of land? 15. Impact SH 392 and I-25 interchange. North 1-25 interchange design clearance. • 16. 25-30 year design outlook is short sighted. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 N�Are"t Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Windsor Community Center January 24, 2006 !rfornlatnn cecperauo i trarsperte: cri 17. Change way of thinking in regards to public transit. 18. Access roads to Johnson's Corner keep truckers safe. Provide access to Exit 254 Johnson's Corner. 19. Forget Boulder, most people want to go to Denver. 20. Were private transit providers considered during design? 21. Why was US 85 not considered for CR due to projected growth in Greeley? 22. Disappointed no alternative C with more transit. 23. Reality of transit is CDOT committed to looking at CR? 24. Purchase ROW now for future use. 25. Are there human nature factors considered with tolling option? 26. Who would use CB/BRT/CR? • 27. Can trucks be restricted? Move trucks to the right lane. 28. Have parallel arterials been considered? 29. Coordination between EAS/EIS/EOS? 30. Prioritization of interchanges reconstruction and how does SH 392 work into this? 31. Is private Super Slab toll road a possibility? 32. Electronic monitoring devices to catch super speeders. 33. Permission to enter, want a person to talk to. 34. Submit for public and agency review? Are we starting over the process? 35. Be aware of ROW acquisitions and condemnation as we move into ROW process. 36. Package B tolls: What is purpose of collecting tolls? CR is more expensive, are tolls used to deter drivers? 37. Not happy with CDOT's approach to tolling. Higher toll costs during peak hours, according to congestion. 38. Why not lower toll rates and accommodate service more people? • 39. Explain LAL who are we limiting? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 ¢ X5k Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Windsor Community Center • January 24, 2006 nforma is t cin;)eratirri tramp irtat nr 40. Endangered species impacts? Isn't it illegal to have any? 41. North 1-25 needs to work better with SH 392 EOS and others to communicate what will best solve our transportation issues. 42. Land will be more expensive in 30 plus years. Why don't we acquire all the land along l- 25 so at least we have if for future use. 43. Was mitigation included in the use of CR alignment? 44. Are feeder bus routes parts of your funding package? 45. Travel time and ridership on CR was destination the same? 46. Do you have to change trains to get to Denver? • • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH -N/15344, Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 Of ''nil r soeei transp t l:, 0'1 Purpose The Level Three Screening town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Attendance There were 64 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment forms, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. Comment Forms There are development interests at all interchanges. It would be helpful to have individual interchange meetings. We're also concerned about what is happening to the east. Timnath and the City of Fort Collins need to coordinate information and land use issues. I'm concerned about categories of improvements and want to look at alternatives to diamonds so that less land is • impacted. There is a possibility of adding a new interchange at Kector. How does adding new interchanges benefit the highway system and how will it impact the local transportation? Vine Street is on the City plan for a new interchange and should be analyzed in the EIS. We are more comfortable with Vine than Kector. Incremental improvements make sense. Does CDOT update the models with changed land use? A lot is changing from the NFRMPO model projections done years ago. Changing land use from industrial to commercial greatly affects transportation on those roads. Kathleen Bracke City of Fort Collins kbracke@fcgov.com I attended the Town Hall meeting last night in Fort Collins. You ran out of handouts with the two packages and I was told they were on the Web site and I could find them there. I'm having a hard time finding them. Please send me a PDF of the materials handed out at the meeting. Also of note, I arrived at 6 p.m. not realizing that the presentation began at 5 p.m. You might want to emphasize on your promotional materials that the entire time is presentation and Q&A rather than an open house. Thank you. Ann Hutchison 225 S Meldrum Fort Collins, Co 80521 ahutchison@fcchamber.org Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 .94 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins • January 23, 2006 infonnatinn cooperation t'anspertaton I have concerns related to floodplains, drainage, and wildlife and wetlands, especially bald eagles. All interchanges impact wildlife or wetlands. Our role is to make sure CDOT works closely with corps, division of wildlife, etc. Natural Area Program with City has very specific policies. Doug Moore City of Fort Collins dmoore@fcgov.com Additional Comments 1. With Option B are tolls collected to assist in capital cost or are tolls used to reduce use of Highway GP lanes? 2. Will toll price be similar to cost on E-470? 3. Where are the costs of alternatives? 4. Package A's weakness is it ends in Longmont and most commuters want to go to Denver metro area. 5. What is transit time for the CR west alignment? 6. How are costs of (plus or minus) $1.5 billion accounted for as a funding mechanism? • 7. What is the travel time for all packages and all models? 8. Why is commuter bus not available now? Why wait? 9. There are gridlocks and bad conditions on 1-25 now. Why wait 30 years? 10. What is timeframe to reach Fort Collins? 11. No public transit from Loveland to Longmont. 12. Why does B transit only go to the south end and A transit goes to north end of Fort Collins? 13. How does BRT work in the College area? 14. Pop density used to 100K for planning. 15. When does the 30 year study period start? 16. People have choices in living and work locations. Do we consider impacts to people's choices due to packages? What is impact on land use? 17. Have improvements to north/south arterials been considered in modeling? s Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 _ Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS • Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 information coopers i, traasp to on 18. Choice has impact on economies. I'm amazed at consideration of eight lane highway facility. Isn't this an environmental study? 19. How does regional funding impact local funding? 20. How do the fling options address needs in GP lanes? 21. Are GP lanes and toll lanes paid for by individual user or by general funds? 22. Need for study driven by growth. Why do we allow development to occur? Why not charge (+ or -) $300 per new house? For new residents? 23. People do not like to pay for unplanned growth. 24. Toll roads leads to a 2-tier society and public transportation system should be open to all. 25. Electric transit options are not pollution free. 26. Motorcycles get 50 mile per gallon, but current conditions are not safe for motorcycles. 27. What are the effects of gasoline supplies and pricing? • 28. Type of road surface? 29. LCCA of alternative modes of transportation. 30. Why do Colorado toll roads have different costs than other systems? Why have both (pay tolls) on line and not at exit? 31. The Autobahn in Europe has lower costs for repairs do to material and thickness. 32. How will ROW be acquired for design? Design expands outside or inside? 33. No tolls on T-REX. Should entire state pay for improvements in northern Colorado? 34. Did we look at tolling on old Boulder turn pike? 35. What are you doing about truck traffic? 36. What type of rail transit is used with commuter rail? 37. Were rail crossings considered in cost? Impacts to E-14 traffic? 38. Autobahn built with much thicker concrete and costs less to maintain. 39. Are property values affected when the highway is widened? • 40. Will the highway be widened from the outside or inside? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration- Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins • January 23, 2006 t aasporta1 41. No company paid for T-REX and there were no tolls. Shouldn't Denver pay for our roads? 42. Will you be tolling existing highways? 43. Encourage everyone here to get in touch with your legislators. CDOT needs its fair share of money. 44. Did you investigate US 36 Toll? It paid for itself in half the time because it was a toll road and restricted access. 45. Most of the cars on 1-25 from Fort Collins to Denver have one person. Transport now has 32 vans running on natural gas. 46. What are you going to do with major truck traffic problems? 47. What type of rail transit on US 287? 48. Is rail crossing safety equipment factored in? 49. Where are costs? How can I approve any if I cannot see costs? 50. Package A has a weakness. It ends in Longmont. • 51. Travel time for CR? 52. How will costs be supported? 53. Travel times for transit and highway from Greeley and all need answer. 54. Why not run bus now from Fort Collins to Denver? 55. I drive the highway twice a week. At Dacono there is a gridlock. What's the timeframe to do anything? Police in Fort Collins and Greeley are concerned we'll have gridlock in 10 years. Traffic has doubled, almost tripled, in 1 '/2 years. 56. I like the transit from Loveland to Longmont in Package A. 57. A lot of growth in northern Fort Collins. Why is Package B only to southern Fort Collins for transit? 58. Population density. 59. Seattle/Portland rapid transit is the best system. 60. With Fort Collins local transit, how will local and federal funds from this project be used to enhance Fort Collins? . Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary , NORTH 1-25 • Level Three Screening Town Hall Meeting EIS Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins January 23, 2006 Lnoaernior transpnrint 61. Package B is not really expanding on the highway. Will toll/HOV be over sufficient? Can toll become "cheaper" than a tax increase? Which option will be more economical? 62. Some communities don't allow more growth where road capacity can't handle them. Why does CDOT allow development? Let's charge each new home $300 to pay for the $1.5 billion to expand. 63. Take into account gas price increases over the next 50 years. 64. If you don't take into account the change in gas prices you won't find a good system. We have already found all the oil we will find. 65. will new roads be built with cement? Asphalt uses gasoline. 66. Need to do something now, not later. Growth is here. 67. The longer we wait the more it will cost. 68. Consider SPVR at Harmony for turning trains. 69. Stations at 25th (Longmont) Berthoud station could be eliminated to reduce cost and improve travel time. • 70. Need to stay away from fossil fuel (diesel). 71. How long will it take to get from Fort Collins to Denver on commuter bus? 72. Can you operate an express bus from Fort Collins to Denver? 73. What year is this for? I don't know why we are even here we will be dead by then. 74. Is there an agenda for this? You started at five? In the past you have had an open house. 75. You have been talking about trying to build a self-supporting line of even 50 miles when 12-15 miles tends to struggle. 76. Would you consider opening with fewer stations on the western line in order to save travel time and station cost and then add them back in later? 77. I would be very disappointed if you didn't build rail. I would rather ride rail than get on l- 25 but I'm not going to go all the way to Boulder to get to Denver. I think toll roads are terrific. I would use those any time. 78. Eliminating 1-25 would be stupid. It is an established truck stop that I have used. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 3 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Radisson Hotel, Longmont • June 23, 2005 ,nformetion (Tope :'on transpo td.on Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 27 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. US 36 to Denver is not local to local. We need local to local. 2. N 1-25 to DIA uses Boulder branch from Erie to Brighton- US 85 to E-470, E-470 to DIA. 3. Ace is buying a transit. Bring it to Denver as it's currently stopped west of Denver. 4. Cheyenne airport bus to DIA ridership should be in commuter RTD numbers. • 5. Consider shoulder-like lanes, grades, and frontage roads for a biking corridor. Especially north of SH 66. Have separation of bike and pedestrian, as bike travel requires higher speed. 6. PNR at highway 66 instead of Sugar Mill. Pleasantly serviced. T Avoids SH congestion and makes northern connections. Move inside- split end of line service -take pressure off of Main Street. 8. Passengers from Cheyenne would love a rail connection to the airport. Can you figure them into the special events ridership? 9. You'll need fairly substantial improvements along US 287 to get a funding passed for this area as will Greeley, Ft Lupton and Brighton, along US 85. 10. CR system will need a bike rack to give commuters maximum options. 11. Would like to see improvements to 1-25/56 interchange. 12. Why are there different environmental considerations for managed lanes 46B and 46D, for tolls and current existing impacts? 13. Show amount of traffic usage for each alternative with screening. • Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary a. NORTH 1-25 `:4 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS 00 • Radisson Hotel, Longmont June 23, 2005 ,nforno ccoper, 'on (•anspurt,t or 14. To add train visitation, some systems compliment commuter service with special evening service offering dining. 15. The rolling terrain for CR will affect its engineering and it will be different. 16. Rate E would turn 1-25 into a high growth corridor like Colfax. 17. Should stick with existing rail corridors to help control growth to current communities. 18. Greeley needs to get some transit service. 19. Are you saying it is 1-25 that drives the study and what happens on US 85 and US 287? Is it incidental to how they address issues on 1-25 and are they not looking at city to city travel? 20. It appears the commute is east to west not north to south. 21. The radio reports incidents on 1-25 east-west facilities. 22. CR needs to drop out skips of Loveland and Berthoud. It zig zags and has long travel time. • 23. Compliment highway results- I-25 needs widening. 24. Consider DIA CR to airport instead of bus. • Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I2S `` � Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS far' Loveland Police and Court Building • June 21, 2005 i'forr,iati .: cooperation transportation Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 24 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. US 36 to Denver is not local to local. We need local to local. 2. N 1-25 to DIA use Boulder branch from Erie to Brighton- US 85 to E-470, E-470 to DIA. 3. No left turn exits-all clear span structures. Roadway design is sufficient to accommodate jet engine landings. No trucks allowed in innermost lane. Variable message signing should indicate what lane an accident is in either text or symbols such that the driver can • get into the moving lane early. 4. She lives in Highland Meadows in Windsor, Larimer County near Loveland. Since the construction of CR 5, the neighborhood has had issues with traffic noise from vehicles, including construction vehicles using CR 5. She has contacted several agencies for resolution and has suggested several options including: 1.Constructing a roundabout at CR 5 and Highland Meadows as a traffic calming measure. 2. Using different pavement material to reduce the noise. 3. Constructing a beam between road and houses 5. Owns property and a business on the north side of US 34, east of 1-25 and west of CR 3. He is concerned about impacts to his property with the interchange improvements at US 34 and I-25. Concern for his employees if the business is taken. He drives a truck along 1-25 as part of his business. 6. Lives in Loveland on the west side of 1-25 along CR 7. She indicated that if the arterial improvements are done that it would impact her property that has been in her family for generations. She will attend the next meeting to determine if the arterials will move forward as a viable alternative. She will provide formal comments at that meeting. If the arterials are not included in the next phase she will coordinate with Weld County on the arterial road improvements. 7. No one in Loveland wants to go to Greeley (Hwy 85) to catch transportation to Denver. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration- Colorado Department of Transportation. . . ... . .. . . ... Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 4 ta Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Loveland Police and Court Building June 21, 2005 mlorrnanon c opera^a, transporlat an 8. Consider Super Slab and how it affects 1-25 volumes. 9. Model options are important to those unwilling to drive to Denver (elderly, handicapped)- therefore ridership is not the only concern 10. Frontage roads are too close to 1-25. Especially at night, the headlights overlap. 11. Public built stations with houses and lots. 12. Private entry on the service. 13. City needs station (team with shamrock). 14. People need to know when it is coming. Have shelter and need information. 15. Would like to see CR in the mix. Tech jobs in Fort Collins are leaving people to commute to Longmont. 16. Would like it to run from Fort Collins to Boulder. 17. Buses can be as nice as CR if it runs in its own lane. • 18. Need bus stations at major intersections, need bus stations with protected shelters, and to attract riders buses need to run 24 hours a day. Bus shelters stations are critical to shifting travelers from the automotive to mass transit. Private enterprise would work best. Also most people consider buses as third class citizen mode of transportation. Need to encourage/change the way people think by making mass transit more attractive. 19. Were cost association fuels considered during screening? With fuel costs increasing such cost should be included in the screening criteria. 20. Improve bus systems to increase ridership make bus systems more rider friendly. 21. Need to put more emphasis on local commuters to develop local bus networks. 22. People avoid going to Denver because 1-25 is too fast and has too much traffic. 23. Buses need to be provided and would be well used. 24. Don't eliminate transit to build highway. 25. Like Package A CR best as it serves both FasTracks lines. 26. There is an obvious bias towards highway versus transit. 27. Need an RTA to fund transit. • 28. What is the difference between light rail and CR? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • , Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Loveland Police and Court Building • June 21, 2005 Information cJJperaOn'1 transportat on 29. Are you considering both rail and bus or will it be either/or? 30. When more highway lanes are added, the more clogged it gets-are you predicting how fast 8 lanes will fill up? Will having alternatives such as rail, help us alleviate capacity? 31. Is ROW adequate through north-end of study area? 32. HOV lane is closed close to Denver and we are sitting with an empty lane open and complaining about congestion. 33. Are you looking at linking other projects like CR to Albuquerque? 34. Explain existing frontage roads and usage. 35. We're doing a great job! 36. How many times has this corridor been studied? 37. Has thought been given to expenses after highway is built, mainly fuel? 38. What is the status of 1-25 main? 39. Are plans including future land use plans from surrounding communities? • 40. The bus system in Loveland today is not user friendly. 41. What consideration has been done for pay-as-you-go improvements vs. pay in future? 42. I rode a bike here today. People will ride an alternative transit. 43. US 34 / I-25 interchange needs to be addressed now. 44. Are you coordinating with communities to improve transit and other local improvements? • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS ' t • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 Information wnperaun'l ua'1sportat on Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 62 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Highway report notes don't identify whether an alternative serves the population and employment centers, but transit boards do. 2. Fuel prices will rise soon due to decrease in oil production, so alternative roads will be favored. • 3. I think more people will be traveling to Denver for high tech jobs. 4. I don't use transit much and probably won't in future. 5. Interested in wildlife crossing. What species are considered? What species will be impacted the most? 6. Current transit wait time doesn't invoice use. 7. Lots of traffic between Fort Collins and alternative. 8. I'm Colorblind. Label the lines differently. 9. Look beyond 2030. We will all be here past then. 10. Alternative fuels should be considered. 11. Link to the airport with the alternatives. 12. Ninety minutes is too long. No person will express interest in local train to DIA. Compare trains verses gas. 13. BRT on Mason St and in Longmont as hub. 14. Don't spend Federal fuel tax dollars on improvements that are not available to those who • pay the taxes (i.e. don't make me pay for HOV lanes I won't use, or buses I won't use, or trains I won't use). Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 '.:;'al Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • June 17, 2005 mforma io n Cf,peri ;rormpLvtatc 15. Please provide a white paper outlining FRA safety requirements for passenger rail cars. I want to know why we can't use European stuff on US rails. 16. Please evaluate using European passenger rail equipment on alignments that do not share freight rights-of-way (especially 1-25). 17. Does the high speed rail demand forecast take growth into consideration? What about the population that will live in Fort Collins and work in Denver? 18. Shortage of funding. When will this plan happen? The 22nd century? 19. What was the difference in the time service with commuter rail verses high speed? 20. I agree that widening lanes is not forward thinking. Yet how about those technologies that are not here but are in easy reach? Innovation reads the way of the future. I'm discouraged by the same number of"S" grades given to transit options. Can they be reconsidered after input and before going to Level 3? Have shifting demographics (aging boomers) factored into the desirability of transit? Why has transit not obtained all "S" grades for safety? So I understand now that you point out that safety is considered at Level 3, but why have so many more highway options reached Level 3? All but one of the transit option received "S." What about solar electric commuter cars used in the day in Denver after disembarking commuter train? Monthly user fee to ride and drive? • 21. There are not many choices around accidents on 1-25. It needs alterative routes. 22. Agree that high speed rail is too costly. 23. One difficulty with rail is that it is not flexible. 24. Buses make the most sense. 25. Rail advantages are its reliability to go even in harsh weather less use of fossil fuels. 26. Like the limited access alternative. 27. I like the idea of TDM, vanpools or carpools. 28. I would like to see something more than just widening highways or adding more pavement. 29. I think the commuter rail alternative along the BN line is the best. It should be in town so people won't have to drive or can just take a short bus ride. 30. Concerned about increased traffic and noise on CR 5. There would be accumulative impacts widening CR 5 and we will see a decrease in property value. 31. Make sure you are coordinating with the truckers' distribution centers that are located • along 1-25 and close to 1-25. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 -41-1t Yr Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 anpera io n . ,, isp o tal 32. Put a hospital in the center development. Emergency access is a big concern. 33. I would like to see transit (rail). I am not interested in seeing more lanes being built. 34. Ballot measures C&D would override Tabor. Would that money be use on widening l- 25? 35. Would like the transit to connect to FasTracks. 36. SH392/CR 5 residents are concerned with improvements to county roads to improve I-25. 37. Why is the cost of toll per mile more than HOT? Why so much more than general purpose? 38. Why are there less environmental impacts for toll and limited access lanes than eight lanes? 39. Why does commuter rail get a NI on US 285 and highway gets U for purpose and need? 40. A lot of the information is repetitive. • 41. Need to consider the future when developing costs. 42. Would like a single summary of the major findings of the meeting. 43. If commuter rail were to be an option how and when can commuter rail take advantage of existing rails? 44. Why is capacity not directly proportional to increased lane age? If you increase the number of lanes by 50% (4 lane to Greeley), the expected certainly does not necessarily increase by 50%. Why? 45. Has the impact of Super Slab been taken into consideration? 46. If light rail is considered as an option, will we be working with the individual communities to identify station locations? 47. What is the difference between light rail and heavy rail? 48. Can we still commute on the process? Adventure? 49. Why was safety not considered for transit? 50. Why does commuter rail rate get a NI while US 287 and US 85 improvements rated U? • 51. Will rail be incorporated in each package? If rail is included, then no matter what alternative is chosen there will be rail. Rail is very expensive! Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 12S Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • June 17, 2005 atjon ccoperat transpi•i o 52. Study area is 1-25 corridor. Transit linkage to the airport without going to downtown Denver would be nice. 53. What is the study costing to date? 54. Are you giving weight to more highway equals more cars equaling more gas when rail would lessen oil use? 55. Do they have to have highway and transit in the Level 3 packaged alternatives? Is it based on the numbers? 56. Local communities can charge a fee. What would it take for CDOT to work with local communities? 57. Seems like balance of cost, but public and private trains have less cost for a person. Use car for personal insurance. 58. Will you look at alternatives and how they impact land use? 59. Influence developments and how people move around. 60. Hybrid vehicles on the highway. It is naturally hard to get people out of their cars. • 61. Troubling aspect of most transit is what are people going there for? 62. I don't understand adding a third lanes being funded by federal and state money. 63. Thrilled to take a train to Denver. About 50 family members along the way to Denver. 64. You're not going to have enough track. If you don't have an express tram you will not get finders. You need to take an aggressive approach. Rail that needs to be super sized like highway. 65. How extensive were the environmental studies? 66. HSR is 250 MPH x 70 MPH. 67. Would like a definition of the difference between CR and HRS. 68. It seems odd that we continue widening highways when it doesn't help. We need to think long term. 69. What is the criteria for practicability? How do we dig deeper? How is it relative to costs and environment? 70. What are the past and present efforts regarding urban area transportation lessons learned? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary F r NORTH 1-25 • Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins June 17, 2005 r.ccpc'ation uansportat¢1 71. Cost is a big factor in evaluation. Did you consider safety and medical? There is no comparison between highway and rail. 72. I heard HOV/HOT do not provide much improvement over regular lanes. 73. Colorado builds and rebuilds. It is obsolete. If you put in CR can infrastructure be used for another technology? 74. Ninety minutes is too long. No one will ride. 75. Direct connection to DIA would be better. Look at a spur along E-470. 76. In the future I'm looking forward to more choices. 77. Is CDOT willing to work with Fort Collins on Mason Street? 78. What about Longmont as a hub? 79. You came to different conclusion than TAFS. 80. How much weight does air quality have in this evaluation? • • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration- Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • ' Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center • June 15, 2005 un`;ormaty cioperaion transportaro Purpose The Level Two Screening public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. Attendance There were 14 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Should only improve roads that are already there. No new roads. 2. Would like a train from these towns to Denver. 3. Glad to see that rail alternative are still being considered. 4. It makes sense to have rail that goes up 1-25 and then have spurs that go along SH 34 to • Loveland & Greeley or go along SH 119. 5. Should put transportation improvements where they won't mess up open space and views. Save them! 6. Agree that the front range toll road wouldn't take that much traffic from 1-25. 7. Should consider a rail spur from 1-25 out to Ft. Lupton. 8. Like widening 1-25. 9. Distinguishing between this and the Super Slab project. 10. Liked graphics and presentation materials. 11. Disappointed there is not much focus on US 85. 12. Think growth in Weld County. 13. US 85 is just now getting stop lights from Denver north through Brighton. 14. Weld County is looking at improving O Street and doesn't want it between SH 392 and US 34. 15. Likes BRT more flexibility and easier to connect to other routes. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department ofTransportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 ,Tz: .81 Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center June 15, 2005 !rlfnrm< ..o mono ran5r0r l or. 16. Concerns about US 85 lights not being synchronized. 17. Does model use existing signals and plan them out to 2030? Does this cause people to change routes? 18. Concerns about SH 392 and 1-25 interchange. 19. Concerns about lights on US 85 and congestion to Denver. 20. Concerns about O Street project. 21. Understands need for 1-25 improvements. EIS process and meetings are helpful to understanding. 22. Need to identify highways SH 53 or SH 49. If this alternative is rated satisfactory, we need to provide more information to identify. 23. Has the Super Slab been considered with respect to traffic model? How much traffic would be taken from 1-25 if the Super Slab were developed? 24. Need to use different types of transportation because we hate to see land swallowed up. • 25. It is unsafe to travel 75 MPH on 1-25. I still travel 65 and am the only one going that speed. 26. SH 52 to SH7 to 76 River Valley, gravel trucks and 50 car or more backed up at these signals. 27. Loop power point of where we have been to where we are now. 28. Noise from 1-25 is very loud at the Larimer County Fairgrounds. 29. The City has an office by Josephine Jones Park (sunflowers). It is also very noisy. It seems that the road surface in that area is the cause. 30. How do you guarantee that access remains limited on the HOT? 31. Add Collector to the Glossary. 32. 1-25 should not be a barrier to bicyclist and pedestrians. Many safe crossings should be provided to accommodate modes other than cars to cross 1-25. 33. Bike and Pedestrians facilities should be considered, especially between communities. 34. Highway alternative 39C is better from an environmental rating than alternative 39D (not what is shown). • 35. Good to compare what we have at this meeting with presentation at next public meeting. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary F NORTH 1-25 z Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center • June 15, 2005 information coc•ation transportoton 36. We should discuss land use implications or alternatives. 37. Sensitivity test on model to look at more or less signals on US 85? 38. bicycles 39. Ft Lupton commuter rail. 40. Commuter rail up 1-25. 41. Buy ROW early. 42. Windsor Bus to 1-25 commuter rail. 43. Park-n-ride 44. Disabled people make up 22% of Greeley and 21% of Colorado population. 45. Send them out in a more timely manner, day before. 46. Back roads are hard to reach. 47. Concerned about the Super Slab toll road because my home/property is in the middle of • the 12 mile wide swath. Highway problems should be highest priority for limited state and federal financing. This area is not going to be dense enough in populations even in the next 25 years to justify a rail solution. 48. Once this study is done in Denver will there be a study to go farther south? 49. Consideration to noise pollution to this area? 50. At the 1-25 and HWY 287 the classifications for commuter rail seem like a good deal. Can we see why you would do that? Can you have an off ramp to Greeley and Fort Collins? 51. In 2030 or 2050 the population growth in Greeley is high. 52. What happens with analysis of Super Slab? 53. Interested in eastern side of 1-25. I don't see a connection to DIA. Land prices are going up and it appears that going to the west may not be like going to the east for parking. More communities on both sides of 1-25 not just west of E-470. Already having problems getting land. Greeley is already having its own discussion about getting to 1-25. 54. When this EIS is done how long is it good for before you have to study again? What is the shelf life? • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary Sit NORTH I-25 ` rt Level Two Screening Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center June 15, 2005 information oopera i ; to.ispn to an 55. City council is concerned about US 85 signals looking at expressway status. Though the potential for putting in interchanges is slim could it be modeled, signals with interchanges? • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25m'T-r--:;,,010 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center • October 28, 2004 nforrnatya cooper a t'arisp at or 17. Longmont to Boulder and Broomfield to Boulder means travel is missing. 18. Significant east-west problem may be as great as north-south problem. Are we coordinating with other east-west studies? 19. Are there Web site links to other transportation studies? 20. With westerly growth in Greeley, won't park-n-Ride be required? 21. Light rail is not shown for Greeley. 22. CR: 3 of 4 stars 23. Can we see some trip length comparisons? 24. Why use light rail (cost/low speed) when there are faster and less expensive alternatives? 25. What additional amenities can be added to CR to make it more business person friendly? 26. Service, reliability, and travel time during peak times are the most attractive features. 27. End points of alignments may not be actual trip ends. Need to consider local distributors. • Single ticketing for mixed mode trips. 28. Which technology is less polluting? Quieter? 29. Are the vehicles bigger and are they needing special lanes to accommodate these vehicles? 30. Has anyone tried this in adverse weather? Would it have priority? 31. Do we have comments about the negative image of buses? Need communities and shelter info. 32. Looking at the alternatives-how did you arrive at them? Why are there stops at Broomfield? Connect to existing. 33. The decisions [for alternatives] were made on what kinds of factors? 34. Travel time on system- doesn't include time to get on/off system- 15-20 minutes ride to transit. 35. People move to areas for easy transit access. 36. Have we estimated the capacity costs? 37. Systems linking together-could these technologies be feeders? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I25 ' i:ist: „I Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center October 28, 2004 nfoirnation Cioperation transportat[In 38. Travel times- 1 or 2 hours- not yet specified. 39. Does bus go faster than light rail? 40. Express bus is great. Transportation terminal should be integrated to connect to DIA, downtown and Colorado Springs. 41. Who will provide service? They will need to coordinate with existing service. 42. Could a private company use BRT system to take people from Greeley to DIA? They could pay for using lanes. • • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I- Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • October 26, 2004 mforrnation cauperation '.'a ytdtur Purpose The purpose of the Level One Screening public meetings was introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. Attendance There were 58 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Comment Forms 1. Please consider wildlife crossing and connectivity between habitats. 2. This project will surely influence the future trajectory of growth and development along the Front Range. Please use mass transit as a tool to direct growth to existing city/town centers rather than encouraging long term dependence on the automobile. 3. Widening highways to reduce traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to try to lose weight. Please use this wisdom as a guiding principle. 4. None of the alternatives seem to stand alone. Start creating combined alternatives. • Buffy Hastings 324 N. Grant Ave Fort Collins, Co 80521 hastings@cnr.colostate.edu 1. More maps in the presentation (i.e. Highway 7 mentioned in Super High Speed- where?). 2. Demand forecast- Mode can create demand. Travel behavior may increase with transit. 3. Evaluation criteria to 3rd parties- i.e.: freight rail 4. Schedule- Clarify. When can we see the end result of the study? 5. Make additional presentation materials available on Web site. The land use/travel patterns showed many more charts than handouts. 6. On the evidence presented this evening, commuter rail seems preferable. Randy Wright 5100 Saffron Ct. Fort Collins, Co 80525 r.f.wright@comcast.net Verbal Comments 1. Have you not heard about the trucking roadway? Safety is enhanced. 2. Building more roads means more traffic and the demand for cars, fuel and pollution increases. 3. Different speeds on HOV lanes. Go faster and attract more users. • Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25O Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 orr ati caopero ion t anspn tat on 4. High speed HOV lanes coupled with other systems. Transportation terminals with 24 hours a day operations. 5. Additional lanes on US 287. 6. Encourage fuel efficiency lanes as incentives. 7. Highway vs. transit- you know people will use the highways. 8. The whole package with rail? Can they all fit in the same corridor? 9. Happening in 20 years, but using it for many years to come. Are materials for the roadway being looked at? Plan for 100 years. Are other aspects being looked at such as tires? 10. In analysis is the cost per traveler looked at? Benefits per user? 11. Look at the big picture with the cost/benefit analysis. Impacts on public, health, nitrogen deposition in RMVP and other pollutants. 12. Numerous studies say that 1,500 of major roadways with more than 20,000 ADT equals 6% increase in health problems. • 13. Low income communities will be considered and thank us for that. 14. Happy with the railroad. 15. Widening roadways is like loosening your belt. Is that your philosophy? 16. Any smart roadway systems looked at? What are the travel time criteria? 17. What is the data for states that already expanded highways? Was there any kind of success? No. 18. Arterial alignments are good ideas. However, Timberline is a bad traffic jam. Consider TDM before building new roadways. 19. With the arterial road alternative, does the county bare the cost to build the road? 20. I used to be able to drive from one end of Fort Collins in five minutes, but I no longer can. We are ahead of the ball and we need to move people faster. Glad we're looking at it now. 21. How do the highways interact with the other alternatives? 22. Is there a correlation between willingness to pay the toll and length of the trip? • 23. Are there studies that show that people look for other alternatives or just plan on being in traffic longer? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-L5 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • October 26, 2004 mformmi n cooperation transportai on 24. Do stand alone alternatives out of the stove pipe (North-South) and expand the options (East-West) combination of alternatives. 25. State funded improvements? East-West corridors could be built by county and city? 26. When does cost and environment get discussed? 27. What is the goal of the EIS? Reduce air pollution? Noise? Travel Safety? Transit and human behavioral component not discussed. 28. Are the number of accidents and deaths looked at? 29. What are the programmed capacity improvements? 30. New arterials, during high demand take out truck traffic. Split slow moving traffic during peak periods. 31. What are the goals for time to Fort Collins to Denver ridership, convenience, time and concern? 32. Are you ruling out High Speed Rail? 33. What is the time difference on commuter verses high speed rail? • 34. High Speed Rail costs more than commuter and is less flexible. What is the number of people who can use each system and the cost per passenger? 35. High speed does not offer many stations downtown to downtown. BNSF alignment is curvy. 36. What are the times of operation? Will it be 24/7? 37. Are you looking at transportation to DIA or Grand Junction? 38. Is the High Speed rail option ruled out? 39. What would people be willing to spend from Fort Collins to Denver? 40. Light rail has standing and seating. Commuter rail you sit. High Speed allows you to plug into internet. Increase tolerance with the type of amenities. 41. Commuter Rail is a great alternative! Is the cost low? Will we compensate railroads? 42. Is High Speed Rail separate? 43. Is High Speed Rail like a Cela system? 44. Why is there no east-west alignment for commuter and high speed rail? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 ` • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 mforma ciwe'ci.on transportat o 45. Everything I've read says that train lines are not used or are underused. Are trains good for all? And is the capacity on rails correct? 46. What is the typical speed between stations on commuter rail? 47. Is there a possibility of upgrading or going faster? 48. Would commuter rail be in conjunction with another transit option? 49. In the traffic flow analysis there is high traffic between Broomfield and Boulder. Why is this not shown on maps? 50. What kind of speed is there for light rail? 51. What is a person's tolerance for standing? 52. Are people scared to stand at 50 mph? 53. Start with bus, go to light rail and then to commuter rail, please. 54. Do alternatives contain multiple routes? • 55. Capitol costs and amounts are different. Why? 56. What type of fuel does BRT use? What type of fare would it charge? 57. Could buses be retro fitted to use alternative fuels? 58. Has there been a study about ridership considering the negative image of bus verses the positive image of rail? 59. What are the operating costs per year? What about the cost per hour? 60. Can you figure out the cost for a longer period of time? 61. Buses are not user friendly. You need shelter, etc. so people will use it. 62. Are all modes evaluated on how many cars will be removed from 1-25? 63. Not sure high speed rail is faster. What will take longer to get to the station? Evaluate time it takes from where they leave home. 64. Transit authorities put together tax money and then turn it over to private operators so fare matches cost of ride. 65. Rail lines in the transit corridor have no east/west bound ability. It has got to have lateral mobility for it to work. • 66. Shamrock shuttle operates to airport and is privately run. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary xt NORTH 1-25 4t** Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS Greeley Recreation Center • October 28, 2004 nformet a f;;;5;'e•aunn trainu rtat on Purpose The purpose of the Level One Screening public meetings was to introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. Attendance There were 17 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Do HOV lanes encourage carpools? 2. What has the experience been with Denver's HOV? 3. What is the practicability of studies like this with respect to funding? 4. What is the planning horizon, 30 years? It could be longer. • 5. Some elements are being funded, like WCR 13. 6. Are there any incentives for developers to pay some of the cost? 7. I get frustrated when developers do not provide infrastructure: schools, roads, etc. 8. Developers are required to pay for roads and for the studies of the roads. 9. Technologies may change within 30 years. 10. Why CR 49? Would it create sprawl? I'm against that. 11. Will we look at a combination of lines? 12. Possible stations? Fare collection? Will be looked at later in the study. 13. DMU- Do operating costs triple with three-car trains? 14. How accurate are the projections? 15. Are the numbers the latest/most current ones? 16. What are the advantages of Light rail vs. CR? • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary r NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins October 26, 2004 inform., r. doper i 3 impurtat on 67. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. How will you balance population east verses west? Limited dollars will not allow everything. 68. Will study look at usership in the area? 69. Have we done analysis of cost of running a car verses using transit? 70. Rail adds the cost of lateral transportation. 71. Need to figure out how to pay for things today as dollars get harder to find. By time this gets done, Fort Collins will have doubled in population. 72. Does CDOT work with communities regarding development along 1-25? 73. I moved here from St. Louis where they built a light rail downtown. There was no reason to take a car downtown. This can be done here. 74. If you went from Fort Collins to Denver it would not be very comfortable. • • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland !ntormatiyi c.:mperatinf 'a' spartatoI October 21, 2004 Purpose The purpose of the Level One Screening public meetings was to introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. Attendance There were 22 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Is the projection conservative? 2. Travel demand projections source? What percentage of mass transit is included? 3. Are there any assumptions about capacity constraints? • 4. Is there a relationship between population growth and travel demand? How are they related? 5. Date of O/D study? Growth demand in Fort Collins may not be one to one as indicated. 6. Relationship of land development and open (free) versus toll road? (i.e.E-470 and Dallas North Tollway) 7. Will alternatives be used to direct transit as a means to land use patterns? 8. Why are some travel patterns so strong and others so low? 9. Is there info on effect of transit to shape land use patterns and projections? 10. What about access to DIA- major destination from north Front Range? 11. Intraregional trips are most important- not just Denver. 12. Can we analyze growth as dictated by travel modes? What about starting with a desired plan rather than accommodating unconstrained growth? 13. The cost of housing determines living locations and that accommodates (car)travel to work because it is cheaper. • 14. If you build it they will come...You can't build your way out. Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 wc-"_ , ;b Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS • • McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland Inform ia) Cnoperd trarnf October 21, 2004 15. High speed rail travel time is not exclusive/grade separation. 16. ROW uses the same for class 7/8 position. Build a separate track. 17. Will you add additional stations and rotate? Yes, possibly. 18. Will local road alternatives require ROW acquisition of private property? 19. Will H0V lanes allow motorcycles? 20. There's a hill on 24 between 34 and Mead: raise the minimum speed limit to 70 mph to allow passing more easily (as a short term solution until money is available.) 21. Don't spend money on bike paths. They have lottery money. 22. Increasing speed will only add to the accidents numbers and straighten out the highway at 56. 23. I disagree about the comment on spending on bike path comment (don't spend money on bike paths-they have lotto). Paths to transit centers should be part of the project. • 24. How long until funds start building the recommendations? They may be stale by the time funds are available. 25. Travel time on South College Street is now higher than other routes. 26. How can toll roads save time if you stop to pay tolls? 27. Toll incentives for low emission vehicles? 28. Just adding more lanes to 1-25 is not the answer. We are not like L.A. 29. Adding more lanes to 1-25 makes more sense for trucks than out-of-direction alternative routes. 30. Focus on improvements on east-west highways between north-south arterial roads parallel to 1-25 (especially across 1-25). 31. Can we somehow train and discipline our drivers by limiting passing zones for trucks and slow RVs? (i.e. stronger laws) 32. Alternate routes with signals will not divert trips from 1-25. I don't use US 287 south of Loveland because it takes more time. 33. How do you reconcile "new interchanges"with "limited access lanes?"Aren't these • opposing alternatives? Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department oJTransportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS McKee Conference and Wellness Center • Loveland ..n.formannn r:joperati'D tronsportfon October 21, 2004 34. How do you balance high population base west of 1-25 with the lower cost of improvements east of 1-25? 35. I live in Loveland and would use an improved US 85. 36. Do the costs on the handouts include all costs? 37. Are you considering the CDOT study to move railroad freight lines east of Greeley (Ports-to-Plains) making rail lines available for transit? 38. Will you consider improvements to SH 402? What about extending it east? 39. I'm opposed to toll lanes. 40. I like the current improvements to US 287. Can Longmont signals be timed better? 41. Will you consider adding more lanes? 42. Chances of funding for any of this? 43. The 20-yearold "Foothills Highway" was west of Fort Collins, but went further north to Poudre River. • 44. How do they share streets? 45. No vehicle used lanes, but could include carpool with priority for buses. 46. Owned/operated by private or state? 47. Convenience factor- list convenience. 48. Which is most cost effective? 49. How fast is rapid transit? 50. What are the safety issues [with rapid transit]? 51. BRT has a dedicated lane? It's not on the highway-does it have its own lane? 52. Bus is a good system. It reduces traffic on the road. Roads are full so people might use them. People could commute more effectively. 53. Glad we are looking at light rail-fast, efficient and clean. Might not have been light rail. 54. Most of commuting is from Longmont to Denver- have to stop to let people on/off. 55. CR is faster than getting in your car. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary � � NORTH 1-25 ,4 Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS '-11% . • McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland '+Dann P a doper io i .fry,sr or.nt October 21, 2004 56. What is the difference between commuter and light rail? 57. Why use light rail? Why not use CR? 58. Pay now or pay later. Operating cost could reduce that. 59. The population here is getting older and will depend on that. 60. There's an AARP study that seniors don't use transit. 61. Has there been any interface with existing bus service? Greyhound is not making money. 62. I hate that we have to subsidize buses. 63. Having ridden RTD to Denver- how will travel times compare? Is there a difference? 64. We had light rail 50 years ago. The tracks were removed because it caused congestion and was not flexible enough. Buses can go with traffic so how will it be different? 65. Time for today as growth changes timing. • 66. I don't understand how this will work if it moves with the traffic? 67. Great deal because it moves people all over corridor- meat and potatoes system. 68. If you didn't have them all would there be bus too? 69. What's the feasibility of doing two or so alternatives on county roads? 70. What are the travel times? 71. What is the cost? $200-500 million means nothing. What are the parking costs? Will that work with the cost? 72. Concern about ROW and frontage road with widening the corridor. 73. What are the bridge concerns? 74. What security measures are being taken? 75. Where is our growth? 76. If FasTracks passes, what happens? 77. A and B look good if FasTracks passes. 78. Try to use existing tracks and saves costs. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 r Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS McKee Conference and Wellness Center • Loveland nfcrmatian ccopt^a.c:n t,a'rsperi n on October 21, 2004 79. Will the rail be put over highways? 80. 1-25 corridor is a better idea for a train. 81. For Loveland, high speed rail is not very accessible. 82. Station locations? Fort Collins/Loveland airport? 83. The G alternative is good for CSU/NCD school. Does it strictly isolate east/west? 84. How many stations would there be with CR? How long would it take? 85. How would the weather affect the train? 86. If they generally run off diesel is there pollution? 87. Center line seems the most fair. 88. How long until this is all operational? 89. By staying on tracks are we limited by stations? • 90. Is there room for park-n-Rides? 91. How much would it cost to ride? 92. Can we add stations as we go? 93. What is the impact to the cities? 94. Park-n-Rides are great. 95. People in college towns stay as college students. 96. Fixed manufacturing jobs are decreasing in the corridor. Probably increasing hours of service industry jobs. Look at this, this is often overlooked. 97. Look back 25 years (Boulder)-No Growth Policies. Is there a present day affect we're seeing in the projections? Cap on residential development but not on jobs. 98. Service industry trips not easily defined. 99. Looks at San Francisco region, 20-25 years ago they built parallel highway systems. Are there other alternatives to pursue to prevent grid-lock in existing corridors? • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 .. • Level One Screening Public Meeting EIS McKee Conference and Wellness Center Loveland c,uperatiorl rransp lai October 21, 2004 100. How do you gather non-work related trips? 101. Most population is west of 1-25 but cheapest rail corridors are east of 1-25. How do you reconcile this? 102. Growth areas in Commerce City and DIA: How will they be served? 103. Future connections: DIA to Union Station (CR) I-70 East for the east corridor. 104. The percentage of motorcycles in estimates seems low. How much certainty is there in future projections? 105. A lot of intraregional traffic/minimal travel to downtown Denver matches with CR alternative A, not so much alternative G. 106. Compare the alternatives to No Build. 107. East side alternative alignments require longer commutes. 1-25 would be a more central location. • 108. Population greater on west side, so should alignments be on west side as well? East side to be increased residential? 109. Mixed alternatives? Feeder systems to be provided? I Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-2D Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • July 1, 2004 :nfonnaror ccoperatui transportat on Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 78 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment forms, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. Comment Forms I would encourage this project's management to ensure the final solution provides incremental segmenting of LONG TERM solutions to the undoubtedly significant and continuing growth along the northern most portions of 1-25. Donna Hanks 8233 Three Eagles Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80528 • donnathom@frii.com I would like to see the practicality of the various transportations be part of the study. What I mean is how practical are they in terms of user needs/wants. Be able to get where they want to go when they want to go, at a good speed and reasonable cost. Don Homan 1626 Adriel Cir Fort Collins, CO 80524 donhoman@jymis.com I am with the Cheyenne MPO. In the past the Cheyenne MPO and WYDOT have been on past CDOT studies, including the CDOT rail study and the CDOT North Front Range Rail Study, and the US 287 by-pass study as steering members. Tom Mason Director of Cheyenne MP0 2101 O'Neil Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 tmason@cheyennecity.org Too often, transportation planning and management is side tracked as a growth management tool, rather than a fundamental recognition of mobility among a growing population. Additionally, the cost of infrastructure has escalated well beyond the cost of materials. Joe Rowan 621 Gilgalad Way Fort Collins, CO 80526 joe@fundingpartners.org • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary '< NORTH 1-25 g .F. Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 cnspe•atinn nansportaton Thanks for keeping in mind the need for transportation. Alternatives that are in line with future revenue streams are best. As I see it, lower wage earning population, plus lower paying jobs, plus increasing older population appears to work when the funding of most of the project. Richard Shipman 4418 Goshawk Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 richs@frii.com I took the new northbound section of 1-25 today (south of Dacono). It looks really good. If possible, could you remove the traffic barrels over the steep grade on that stretch until they actually do the median work? It's about a 1 mile stretch that trucks use. Jack Cooksey 1037 Ogden Ct Fort Collins, CO 80526 jcooksey@larimer.org 1. Complete rebuilding to three lanes from the end of current construction at Hwy 52 on to Hwy 14. The present roadway is inadequate and getting extremely rough in places. 2. Extend RTD bus service along 1-25 to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Robert& Barbara, Sweat 1313 Alford Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 rsweat1313@aol.com Doing nothing is NOT an alternative. Multipurpose lanes are a good choice. Rail-type transit to Denver is conceivable, but not financially responsible. Do NOT tell me to ride a bike. William Welch 4305 E. Harmony Rd Fort Collins, CO 80528 wwelch@connellresources.com Myself and my family are in support of a passenger/commuter rail system/train that runs from Cheyenne (perhaps)to Colorado Springs. A system of this kind is overdue. Our environment can no longer support the emissions from ever increasing auto use. Michelle Albert 6301 Compton Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80525 michelle_emily1@msn.com Light rail/commuter rail is the way to go. Operating costs for a bus system does not seem to include cost of maintenance for highways. Even if the use is shared with auto (no dedicated lanes), operating costs for road maintenance can be apportioned by number of opportunities. Ann Grant 4321 E. Vine Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521 caryoptens@cs.com • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-L5 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • July 1, 2004 information ccoperC t arrspi to c fl It appears that the only really practical solution is some type of rail system. I think that it should be lighter than commuter rail system. Also a 30 year timeline is way too long. Every means to shorten the timeline should be exhausted. It would be great. Merritt Hankson 4321 E. Vine Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 hmohantz@cs.com Colorado recently ranked #1 in the US in number of miles driven per vehicle per year (20,000/yr). Some say we don't have the population density to warrant the expenditure for a commuter rail (light rail not appropriate for Fort Collins to Denver distance). We MUST have a long range plan! Angie Paccione 1331 Birch St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 angie@angiepaccione.com It is crucial to consider the long-term investment of the alternatives. New lanes on 1-25 cost $5- 15 million per mile and can only accommodate a fixed level of traffic. From the information we received tonight, commuter rail costs $8-15 million per mile. Doug Ryan P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 ryandl@co.larimer,co,us • Buses can be very hard for non-frequent riders to know where to go, etc. Where I'd use a fixed location rail readily, I would be very reluctant to use a bus. I have no confidence that CDOT will choose anything but more highway lanes, considering our cure. The final proposal should allow for growth after 2020. I.e. if rail is chosen, being able to run more frequent trains. I didn't see the (now) proven maglev technology. It is high speed. I support it. Consider the distance between Fort Collins to Denver. Chuck Siefke 8450 Stag Hollow Rd. Loveland, CO 80538 csiefke@starband.net While the cost of adding new modes of transportation are typically higher than adding new lanes of highways, the increased capacities, safety records and decreased pollution impacts (some of which are hard to quantify in dollars) are offsetting factors to these. William Stiewig 2106 Brenson Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 bstiewig@aol.com I strongly favor the rail system idea. Some of my reasons include accidents on 1-25, stress reduction for commuters, easier access to Denver for seniors (20 percent of Fort Collins is retired, I believe), more flexible expansion for the future. LeRoy Wichman 5557 Weeping Way • Fort Collins, CO 80528 leroywichman@yahoo.com Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 . Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Lincoln Center, Fort Collins July 1, 2004 Inforrnatun coupe o ar;sp rta on After living in Seattle and seeing the lack of results of six lanes (each way) on 1-90, I really believe that there needs to be other ways of travel on 1-25. We can't build enough lanes for cars. We need a rail-bus system that interfaces in a useable way. Ray Rowe 707 Locust Fort Collins, CO 80524 e@lamar.colostate.edu Regarding purpose and need, safety: I would suggest the alternative of increased law enforcement (annual cost, various means)to counter the increase in accidents 1991 to 2001. Regarding capacity: the eastern mobility study, I thought was to unload 1-25. George Reed 201 E. County Rd. 66E Fort Collins, CO 80524 sue_george_reed@msn.com I strongly favor bus rapid transit if the buses are not belching fumes and are away from auto traffic. I also prefer commuter rail with the most advanced technology. Trains are really more comfortable and convenient than buses. Adding lanes to 1-25 as the very last option. Anonymous Additional Comments • 1. I like trains! You can't rely on your car to get to Denver in a timely manner anymore. 2. Alternatives seem to lead to highway with buses, not rail. 3. Twenty year timeframe is too short. Should look to 50 years and beyond. 4. Alternatives seem to lead to highway with buses, not rail. 5. Schedule is hard to read because horizontal gridlines are needed. 6. Was a Maglev considered? 7. Compare all modes of transportation on a 100 year basis. 8. Please consider these infrastructure replacements in costs of adding roads. 9. Consider routes previously discussed on eastern boundary to relieve truck traffic on 1-25. 10. Compare to the population and employment numbers in 1970. 11. I don't think TransFort has Sunday service. 12. There are so many environmental benefits to rail over widening 1-25. 13. If you want to do rail, need to making it faster than the drive on 1-25.• 14. Need to show cost per person for different modes to get from x to y. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 125 ,.` e Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Lincoln Center, Fort Collins • July 1, 2004 information caoperatital. transp rtatoa 15. Please have a chart which clearly defines the existing tracks in this study area. 16. From a safety standpoint, more lanes are necessary. • s Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration . Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 - -400 • Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Margaret W. Carpenter Recreation Center Thornton ira isi vta'on June 29, 2004 Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 12 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Numerical ratings are more important than year built for bridge status. 2. Hwy 7 - Hwy 66 -- Is under construction now for six lanes. Map doesn't reflect current project. 3. Why not show per passenger operating costs? The per revenue hour fails to consider • car capacity! • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Loveland Museum June 24, 2004 information c)operatyr, trans[scat oa Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 36 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. What about a "ferry train?" People could park their cars/trucks on the train while the train speeds to Denver. In Denver they could drive their vehicle off the train and around Denver. When they want to go home they drive their cars to the train and ride it home. 2. Widening North 1-25 is NOT the answer to our congestion problems. I would like to see commuter rail from Fort Collins to Denver. 3. I like the idea of BRT because it keeps the buses in an exclusive lane and keeps cars • from having to watch for buses or vice-versa. I experienced driving along side BRT in Las Vegas when I lived there and I liked it. 4. Add Weld County Minibus. Contact Patsy Drewer (Weld Co.) for details. 5. Consider special events for transit ridership (i.e. DCPA and sporting events). 6. This all looks good so far. Keep it up. 7. I believe that the project committee needs to act quickly to provide the alternative of bus transit while they undertake the lengthy study of new roads, wider lanes, etc. 1-25 is in a crisis situation and needs quick resolution. 8. I believe that the only long range answer to this problem is to have some type of commuter rail or mass transportation system. If these options are chosen, I would hope that there would be some incentive for people to use these systems until our philosophy. 9. We must find an alternative to the automobile! (mostly those with one person.) I-25 north of SH 14 "at capacity 2020", no right of way to add lanes (frontage road too close now). Wellington is adding houses close to existing frontage road. Find solutions now! 10. Widen 1-25 from Wellington to Denver. Get rid of intersections like 1-25 and US 34, Windsor and 1-25, and cloverleaves. Signs for more awareness for motorcycles. Our main safety concern is ROW violations. Make people aware of motorcyclists! • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 125 ' -_ Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS • Loveland Museum June 24, 2004 mfonnatiofr cioperotIO'l transporiat os 11. Seemed to be a clear split between the road, roads and more roads cult, and the "think rail" contingent. I support the latter. The reason everybody drives is because there is no alternative. DO NOT DROP the non-road alternatives! We have season tickets. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 .t Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Evans Recreation Center, Evans • June 22, 2004 'nform n n transpr i l on Purpose The second round of open houses took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. Attendance There were 14 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. Having commuter trains during peak hours from Fort Collins to Denver is a good idea. Even something just from 160th south would be usable for trips to the ball game. 2. Improvements are definitely needed to 1-25. 3. Should consider HOV lane with express bus service. 4. Like to see RTD/TransFort/The Bus develop a regional plan for working together. Want • to see Greeley/Fort Collins transit bus merge in with RTD to provide better service and expand service (routes/days times). 5. Don't like driving at high speeds with all this traffic. It isn't big enough to handle traffic today. 6. Mass bus transit will not relieve congestion on highways. 7. DCPA and other retail spots in downtown could offer reduced fares. 8. Freight rail would likely pay for commuter rail use. 9. Behavior modification is very difficult in the west. 10. Do not ignore travel between cities. 11. If highway fuel tax payers fund 1-25 improvements, they should be able to access all lanes they pay for. 12. Old abandoned UP railroad would be good route if you could work with UP and BN. 13. Want CDOT and State to start paying attention to the Front Range, not just Denver. 14. Want to see something happen and not just talked about. • 15. We need growth and therefore need to address infrastructure. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 • Purpose & Need Public Meeting EIS Evans Recreation Center, Evans June 22, 2004 sntorria 1 ope 3 ,randataton 16. Concerned with future infrastructure between Greeley/Fort Collins/Loveland handling 30 year growth. 17. Existing condition of 1-25 pavement is terrible. It is falling apart and the US 34/1-25 interchange is very dangerous. 18. Hwy 34 and 1-25 are congested today and not capable of handling growth. 19. Safety is a big problem on 1-25. 20. A lot of 1-25 needs to be built. 21. Showing the "over capacity" red line doesn't explain what the delay might be. I'd like to see the segments showing delay times. 22. Please define what an "annual passenger" is. 23. Show accidents by year and volume by same year. May show increasing accidents and less increase in volume. 24. Show with traffic growth to further indicate growing safety concern. • 25. The abandoned railroad ROW would be a great route for passenger rail. 26. A second set of improvements should be questioned and analyzed thoroughly. 27. Rail must NOT use ROW paid for by highway impact fees (fuel tax). 28. Please DO NOT package alternatives. Different modes should be weighed individually and demonstrate their contribution toward the Purpose and Need areas of safety, capacity, modal alternatives, aging infrastructure and congestion growth. 29. Where did the VanGo data come from? I have different data. I'm also concerned over the subsidiary for the VanGo program. I'd like to see an analysis of real cost of Van- Go/TM strategies. I'd like to see more privatization of the vanpools. And who exactly would use it? 30. Be sure to consider that a population with longer commutes will be LESS likely to give up additional time and flexibility to make mass transit work. Northern Colorado seems to have an earlier and more dispersed rush hour. Simply extending what RTD is doing northward. • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 . Scoping Public Meeting EIS ` rte Fort Collins • February 10, 2004 n`ormatr n coperd c.n transpc id of Purpose The purpose of the scoping meetings was to introduce the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement to the public, help define the purpose and need, and identify environmental issues that need to be studied. Attendance There were 179 recorded attendees at the meeting. Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives. 1. As a cyclist and a pedestrian, I prefer separate lanes for each. They don't mix well and have safety issues. 2. Bicycles are a great alternative to cars. I lived in Fort Collins for 15 years without a car and I rode my bike everywhere. I am safe, and respectful of pedestrians. Bike and pedestrian lanes are great when separated from cars and buses as cars stink. • 3. Biking, walking, running, etc. are healthy, fun and cheap. There are no wars for oil. 4. Cycling is not near as safe or reliable as an automobile. 5. Cycling short distances is a time saver. In the time it takes to scrape windows and warm up the car, I am home on my bike. Also there is no fear of hail damage to my car. 6. Fort Collins needs a functional bike trail system. 7. Fort Collins needs to fix its many bike lanes that do not meet the AASHTO standard. 8. I am very concerned regarding safety in the pedestrian/bicycle lanes. Many people on bikes will want to travel as fast as they can to commute. That can lead to bike/pedestrian accidents. I think there should be some sort of system to keep all of them separate. 9. In Fort Collins bike lanes are not continuous. They stop at busy intersections. This leaves bicyclers and cars at a conflict. 10. This is a very important component of good transportation system. Please keep it high on the agenda as you review all options. It must be seen as a component of all systems. (Bicycle & Pedestrian Board) • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-25 17-',--;"4":' • Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information ccper3 rr tr , afar d on 11. Auto/vehicular pollution (fossil fuel) causes heart and lung disease, cancer, and contributes to obesity. 12. Less than 10 miles of bike long distance is not an efficient mode. 13. These concepts are important, but how is this relevant to 1-25? Are you considering a bike lane on the highway? 14. Rapid transit from Fort Collins to the other towns of any size at least 4 times per day is greatly needed. Let's not forget our low-income workers who don't own cars. 15. Establish bus service first, then add rail if demand is there. 16. If buses are the solution they should be express buses and have enough bike storage. Transit doesn't hold enough bikes and don't go to work areas which folks would use. 17. Regional bus service needed now. 18. Transport does not service business centers (commuter). They service shopping centers. The commuters are buses' bread and butter, not shoppers and youth riding for • free. 19. Until the mind set changes enough to accommodate the idea of means of transit (i.e. trains)the bus is the most workable. 20. What about smaller clean burning buses? With more buses running over more routes with increased frequency. More riders over a wider geographic area could be better serviced. 21. In some ways maybe bus service would be the most economical, but it will add to congestion on already stressed highways. 22. Bus takes too long and is not efficient. It won't be used. 23. Check amount of BRT per mile. 24. Why does it take this long? 25. It is important to not pollute any more. Use alternative fuel and rail service with enough storage for bikes and do it soon. I have been hearing about alternative transportation to Denver for years. 26. Using rail service reduces congestion on roadways. • 27. Incentives for people to live near where they work would pay off in the long run. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins • February 10, 2004 tnforrnatior L.:operatic, I ansp o to on 28. Isn't this in place in Fort Collins with PUDs building residential/commercial restaurants/grocery in each neighborhood to cut down on road use? 29. Need for unincorporated portions of counties experiencing large growth to step up to regional planning plate and participate in meaningful land use planning rather than allowing every proposal to be built. 30. Poor land use management is what is driving 1-25 congestion. We must have regional land use management. 31. 1-25 is already too congested for this alternative. (Congestion Management Board) 32. Note that Denver and the NFR are now in the ozone non-attainment boundary and there may be more interest in congestion management type controls (as well as other mobile source controls). 33. These are not conducive to current variable work schedules. The 9-5 job rarely exists in reality. 34. This seems to cause problems since everyone slows down to read the sign. (Congestion • Management Board) 35. As ultra low emission vehicles become more common place associated pollution becomes less of a problem. Encourage carpools and drive efficient vehicles with at least three lanes on 1-25 each way from Wellington to Denver. 36. VanGo works for Denver commuters. How about other closer cities? 37. We can't mitigate these exponential VMTs by building more roads. More cars equals more roads and so on. 38. The 1-25 corridor may infringe on the Peebles Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat. Will grade separation be built to support them? 39. Impact of new roads on land use (sprawl) habitat and farmland are key. 40. Aesthetic? Imagine looking down from Longs Peak! What would you see? Recreation and tourism is in top three for local economy. 41. Impacts from fuel production (supporting exponential unit growth). 42. What are the "proposed improvements?" 43. What is environmental justice? • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 urtonnotio'i coupe a on : o isprIcitun 44. Air Quality is also key. We are already in or approaching non-attainment. Chosen alternatives must demonstrate how air quality will be improved. 45. Air quality is number 1. 46. How about view sheds and agricultural land? 47. For regional rail movement through communities where does liability lay? If there is a large hazmat spill because of an accident, derailing, etc? 48. Please evaluate projected costs and availability for oil. Byproducts of incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and the health impacts. 49. River corridors are a major consideration for protection. The river valleys are also the place where air quality tends to be worst. 50. Clear evidence that commuter rail is needed now. 51. Rail service indicated now! What are 10-20 year projections like for these areas? Can • we really wait that long for rail service based on preceding board? Tom Norton please says commuter rail is possible in less than 50 years, you should be a leader. 52. 1-25 needs more lanes in both directions now. It's long past due. 53. What if any effect would parallel roads have on the two zones of 50,000+ travelers? Such as what was talked about in the 1-25 corridor plan. 54. Future short and long term volumes? 55. Consider Loveland Urban Renewal Authority funding recently pledged to 1-25 interchange improvements (Kudos to Loveland). 56. Let the appropriate developers fund improvements of the SH 60 and SH 56 interchanges in compliance with CDOT. 57. Biker/pedestrian projects are worthless without giving biker/pedestrians the Right-of-Way at the major arterials. The Mason Street Trail will not be functional. 58. There is a funded biker/pedestrian enhancement project on 3rd Ave in Longmont. 59. Should expand Poudre River Trail from ELC through to Windsor. It would make bike commuting a lot easier. • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS Fort Collins • February 10, 2004 Information cooperation transp[Ytat o-r 60. I don't drive and would like other modes of transportation. 61. Consider all options equally. Why are you pushing roads and not rail? 62. Rail makes much more sense than adding lanes, more cars and more pollution. I like the definition of insanity. Explain what HOT lanes are. 63. Add lanes to 1-25. The single family vehicle is the primary mode of transportation. 64. Let's add a third lane on 1-25 ASAP. While working on the rest. 65. What is the air quality analysis comparison to existing quality? 66. All future lane additions should be tolled. 67. Lower the toll to airport on E-470. Cutting the toll by 25%-50% might increase usage and keep revenue neutral. 68. Add toll trucks on US 287 so there is an equal cost on 1-25. 69. Why is there no cost per mile data for roads/highway? • 70. Express toll lanes create a "privileged citizen" lane. Only those who can afford it. An HOV or HOT lane should be installed instead. If more lanes are added, it should be easy to make them use a HOV/HOT lane. 71. Adding lanes of any kind should be the last option. Public transportation needs to take precedence. 72. Adding lanes will only lead to more vehicles on the road and is not a real solution to decrease congestion. 73. Emphasize fact that more lanes or roads will only increase both air quality and congestion problems. 74. More lanes are not a solution for oil wars. 75. Move highway lanes. It is the least efficient in the long term. 76. No more lanes. It is time to do something that will have an impact on future generations, rail is the future. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I ZS „Amu Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 77. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Studies in a variety of areas have shown that urban areas that have added the most lanes have had the most increase in congestion . Please emphasize alternatives. 78. I don't own a car and I 'd like to be able to get from Fort Collins to Denver. 79. By the time the roads are built, they will not hold the increased traffic. Use commuter rail . 80. Even if the rate of growth in vehicle use slows over the next 20 years, 1-25 still needs more lanes now. Too many people are dying . Not more of the same. Commuter rail now. 81 . How does the passenger mile death rate compare between Rail , highway, and BRT? 82. Any thought of a loop highway around Fort Collins/Loveland? 83. I-25/US 34 needs improvement, not evaluation . 84. Most bridges over 1-25 are deficient, and should be rebuilt to accommodate extra lanes and rail . • 85. Need to address US 287 truck route bypass with all the growth through northern Fort Collins this could well be best solution . 86. Need to assess 1-25 and SH 14. 87. Developer need to pay for impacts of growth, greater capacity needs paid for by development it shouldn't be developed on general public 88. Every time you widen the road you make walking and biking harder. 89. How long does an asphalt road last? What about concrete road? 90. Needs a fix before Centurra is built. 91 . What are the capital costs? 92. What are the costs per mile for concrete and asphalt? 93. What is the dinner bell triangle? (Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley) 94. Will roundabouts finally play a role? They are more efficient, cheaper and safer. • 95. No more lanes. It is time to make commuter trains a priority. Excuses like "it will cost too much ," or "it's not the right time," are lame. Do it now. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of l runsportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 -15.1‘ Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 ;nformation. cooperation. transportation. 113. Go to the malls where everyday people are . Hold real public meetings where education and discussion will take place. 114. Health clubs 1 1 5. What can be done to get younger people involved? 116. Would prefer an open Q&A session . 117. So what is the "proposed action?" 118. The EIS should account for negative effects of wildly increasing VMT and burning more oil we don't have. 119. The EIS should put the environment, especially air quality, above the needs of development. After air quality the river corridors and wetlands should take precedence. 120. If there are no state and federal funding "No Action" is what we will have. 111 121 . US 36 from Boulder to Denver is always a zoo. What is that about? Need alternative transportation for those folks , preferably non-polluting . 122. Finish improvements to US 287. Synchronize traffic or limit signals through urban areas. 123. Why not stop doing studies and build some roads in SH 14 (bypass) North of Fort Collins? 124. Purpose and Need - Mountain Range Shadows Sub Division vs. 1-25. 125. The diagonal is an absolute zoo during rush hours. So what's new? 126. Rail system is in place and should be clear and used . 127. How would these projects be funded? State? Regional? Local? 128. Maps should show railroads more prominently so we could compare them to highways more easily. 129. Why is only Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Denver water projects listed as "other projects?" The cities of Fort Collins, Greeley and other participants are looking • at a joint expansion of Halligan and Milton Sewer reservoirs. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10 , 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 147. Stay true to the Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (TAFS) adopted just a few years ago by the MPO with a large commuter rail , regional rail , bus service, and HOV lanes. 148. Consider an investment in a toll road just east of 1-25. 149. Don't forget noise developing methods. Can see where this would be a prime problem . 150. I would like to see the TAFS recommendation implemented . Hopefully the EIS would be Step 1 in this process. 151 . Light rail or bus to DIA. I fly 8-10 times a year. Why do I need to drive? 152. We need passenger rail from Fort Collins to Denver with good bus support in the metro area of Denver. 153. As Fort Collins continues to grow we need to get the railroad out of the center of town . Use it for commuter rail not freight. 154. Build it and we will ride. • 155. Freight lines can be moved out of Front Range cities and commuting by rail should 9 9 begin by 2005. 156. Get freight trains out of the center of town and let light rail or commuter trains on those tracks. Bite the bullet and put bridges over RR tracks in town . It should have been done 30 years ago. 157. I am very interested in seeing commuter rail to Denver. 158. Light rail between lanes (Northbound and Southbound ) until median disappears. 159. Light rail from Fort Collins to Denver. 160. Light rail would be a far superior way to move from Fort Collins to Denver. It is clean, quiet and passengers can read , work or sleep as they ride without fearing an accident. 161 . Many of the early commuters recommend serious considerations be given to rail . 162. Rail line specific for commuters needed . Send it to Union Station and entrepreneurs would come to provide transportation within Denver elevated monorail . 163. Regarding commuter rail along 1-25, it is highly visible compared to what (a Geo Metro • or the long string of semis)? Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 179. Do a cost/benefit study between improving and using rail to widening 1-25. Use life cycle costs. 180. Existing rail is in place. It should be negotiated or condemned and used for commuter rail by 2005. 181 . Extra lines are not necessary use the existing tracks. Use cars with gauges that can be used with existing gauges that are now available. 182. I appreciate being involved this early in the process. It is discouraging to read CDOT's director Tom Norton's comments that commuter rail won't be feasible for 50- 100 years. I want rail as an option as the community sets its vision . 183. I favor rail routes that serve the most city central districts (western alignment/eastern alignment). 184. Need to consider incorporating commuter rail as an alternative. 185. Rail lines are in place; service could and should be started by 2005. • 186. Regional rail from Fort Collins (possibly from Cheyenne) to Denver needs to be done 9 Y ) now. The longer we wait the more expensive it gets. 187. Regional rail would be efficient in the long run . Use existing tracks as much as possible. Over or underpasses would need to be built over many streets and would be expensive but necessary. Should have been done before now. 188. The longer it takes the more pollution . Why not use existing rail lines like number one suggests? 189. This is the best alternative, do it now. (Regional Rail Concepts Board) 190. Yes, the initial capital investment is great but it will payoff in the long run . Look at the C- BT project, can there be a bond initiative to help finance the rail? It seems the public wants a rail . 191 . Regional rail lines will require never ending subsidies that will take dollars that can be applied now to proven measures (interstate highways) that move more people safely and efficiently. Fix the highway. 192. #2 is a great idea . (Regional Rail Concepts Board) • 193. Check with Northern Colorado's Authority. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 p. Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Fort Collins February 10, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 211 . There is a carpool lot west of Greeley at the junction of 10th and Highway 34 and it isn't on the map. Are there no carpool lots on Highway 85? 212. Transport keeps cutting service. Does CDOT trust that Transport will follow through? 213. Maybe beyond scope of this but need expanded carpool lots on 1-70 west of skiers . Parking should not discourage people who need to carpool . 214. Should include Dacono regional carpool service with 230 riders. 215. Need public transit needs to be implemented either from Fort Collins Station or Union Station . 216. We need more of all of the above (Rail , buses, lanes). Colorado is one community from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs as people commute the length of the area. 217. We need public education on advantages of public transportation . 218. Would like to see rail , and other forms of mass transportation . I feel that Europe has a • good mass transit infrastructure with trains serving city centers. I believe that more effort should be spent educating people to learn how to carpool . 219. Bullet train from Cheyenne to Denver. 220. Commuter rail to Denver and other towns is feasible. We need rail to Denver and DIA. 221 . Everyone I talk to, from those on the left to those on the right, would use rail from Fort Collins to Denver. 222. In order for the rail system to succeed the long term commuter will have to have a high level of confidence in their safety and security. This is a major dollar cost that must be included in the plan from the beginning and includes lighting and terminal . 223. Rail and alternative non-polluting fuel makes sense and enough space for bike storage. 224. Rail needs to be put in place ASAP before development makes it impractical . If we even had a rail plan , development could anticipate where rail stops would be. 225. Rail to Denver soon . Lives are lost on the highway. 226. Rail to Denver. Rail will reduce traffic, pollution , commuter stress, death on 1-25. • 227. Rail , Rail , Rail ! , Tere are tracks go for it. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS iFort Collins February 10 , 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 244. Please indicate on the boards that CDOT is working with other agencies besides the lead or cooperating agencies that are listed . 245. Rail considerations - boards are alienating and antagonistic. 246. Speed up the process. 247. What are the funding sources for water projects? 248. What do we do about HAZMAT spills along Railroad , who pays for clean-up? 249. Trains won't work. They are too costly and inconvenient once you arrive. Would think that bus service is a more viable option . More effort should be put into placing park and rides along 1-25. 250. New widening of 1-25 will not solve our transportation problems (eg . , see LA, Houston , Atlanta , etc). 251 . We already import 57% of the oil we consume in the U .S . and this number is growing rapidly as DOT continues to favor highway widening while neglecting mass transit • without even considering national security concerns over oil supply. 252. Widening 1-25 at all will make all our problems worse and harder to solve. We need to stop building roads and start building light rail now. We need to invest in mass transportation between communities. 253. How does decreased air quality affect outdoor recreation? That's what a majority of our community is involved in . 254. Please try to notify as many groups as possible about up coming public meetings. Turn out today was good , but could have been more people. 255. I commute 46 miles each way each day. Before layoff & reemployment it was 2 . 5 miles. Am interested in this process like never before. i Federal Highway Administration m Federal Transit Administration . Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 18. Consider parallel freeway (North-South ) to the East of US 85 and East of DIA. 19. Enhance US 85. 20. Plans to widen SH 52? 21 . Firestone - Where is the bridge? 22. Heavy truck traffic along US 85. 23. Show 1-25 widening to 66. 24. What are typical highway costs? 25. Carpools are a better use of HOV lanes. 26. HOT — Should have HOV lanes as well not just ones with charges. 27. Build a thru lane for regional truck traffic. 28. I-25/SH 34 absolutely needs to be fixed . 29. Building more lanes isn't a good long term solution . 30. What about 1996 CDOT study on rail? Any useful data there? 31 . Erie — two shopping malls on the south side of SH 7 , is the development at 168th a mall? 32. What about the impact of proposed shopping malls be? 33. Wyndham Hill 1 ,700 D. U . residential plus commercial/industrial/retail being proposed in Fredrick at NW corner of 1-25 and Hwy 52 . Annexation and zoning will be considered this month . 34. Consider tourism in evaluation of alternatives. 35. Any studies regarding the Fredrick and Firestone growth and traffic flow? 36. Fredrick — St. Vrain State Park expansion development. 37. Residential development at 1-25 & SH 56. Currently undeveloped . 38. At SH 52 and US 85 there are safety issues at signals by gravel pits. 39. No east-west mass transit. • 40. Note the ridership numbers on Littleton commuter line that immediately exceeded projected line. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex , Longmont February 05 , 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 61 . I am a retired director from engineering firm . Mass transit has interested me for years. We have no coordinated transportation system . 62 . Begin P&R at Mead US Great Western to end of FasTracks. 63. Believes that LRT is antiquated . Monorail seems less susceptible to maintenance problems. Front Range has real opportunity for a monorail system could it do with CDOT ROW? No need to acquire new ROW. Volume of traffic is now in situation of 1-25. 64. Consider light rail/regional rail along Colorado Blvd . starting at CR 7, but only continued to CR 2 . Will this be continued further north? 65. Consider passenger rail from Greeley to Cheyenne. 66. Consider peak hour use rail from Denver to Greeley along US 85 then peak rail service along Great Western to Fort Collins . 67. For rail alignment, it is a dilemma which alignment would be better for central or western . 68. In favor of passenger rail . 69. Is Great Western still the same company from Greeley to Fort Collins. • 70. Need light rail at SH 119 and CR 7. 71 . Need to consider rail . Forget expanding highway infrastructure and put a lot money for rail and alternative transportation . 72. Push hard for light rail in US 287, 1-25 and US 85 corridors. 73. Put the train where it is needed not where it is easiest. 74. Rail not bus. 75. RTD should be acquiring land along 1-25 for future transit improvements. The land is cheaper right now for rail than it will be in 10- 15 years. 76. Run light rail up 1-25 then to abandoned UPRR tracks or hook up. 77. Send rail data and San Diego commute to: Jeanne Bolton P.O. Box 497 Berthoud , CO 80513 78. Should build a rail from Cheyenne to Denver. Start getting people used to using rail . Would definitely be used if a transit station were at Del Camino so people could park there and take the train to Denver. 79. Should make sure we include assumptions for external trips (rail and highway) coming to • and from Denver and further south. If we don't, could doom passenger rail . Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 101 . Should limit development. 102 . St. Vrain State park development. 103. The three shopping centers that are being considered at SH 7 and 144th will increase traffic even more. 104. White Dovehill is under construction . 105. Colorado Front Range Trail alignment (Trail issues) 106. Great Outdoors — Colorado 107. Be sure to include Legacy Trail Project in 4F analysis. 108. Legacy Trail to Firestone, Frederick, Dacono and Weld County. Loop Northern Barbour Ponds thru Firestone, Fredrick & Dacono and Weld County Trailhead at 52 and Colorado Blvd . 109. Recreational trails program . 110. Have circular buses at intervals to move people from small communities. i111 . It would be nice if the bus went more destinations that just south of SH 7 . More and better transit options: Light rail , heavy rail , more regional buses. 112 . Should consider smaller circular buses to transport people from a station on 1-25 to towns like Dacono and around there. 113. Shuttle costs operate locally. Why are they less than half? 114. Transit is fabulous. I love taking the bus from Longmont to Denver. 115. Speed limit on Highway 56 is too fast at 65 mph . 116. Why did you raise the speed limit along 1-25 from 55 mph? 117. Are you keeping track of the UP proposal to move east and abandon track around Denver Union Station? 118. Ben Herman — 1-25 corridor plan Loveland , Fort Collins, inventory may not go over 285. 119. The exit north of the Berthoud curve is bad . 120. CDOT does a good job of keeping Front Range road open ! • 121 . Consider "progressive" and "interesting" as criteria for evaluation . Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS r '' • Southwest Weld County Complex, Longmont February 05, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 144. Previous Studies — California, Bay area go back 30-40 years ago. Compare to transportation now days. 145. Put DSC down every highway. 146. Can the distribution of gasoline tax be used for funding? 147. Send rail issues map to kraftmatheis a�earthlink. net. 148. Should consider changing some laws like not letting kids drive until they are 18 or limit the number of cars per family. 149. Should look at improving system of arterials/front range roads along 1-25. Do not want a Super Slab for 1-25. 150. Stretch from US 66 to SH 60 has accidents almost every weekend . Friday afternoons are the worst. 151 . The local road system for Dacono/Fredrick/Firestone is getting overloaded . 152. The No Action Alternative is not an option — we are already 10 years behind . • 153. The pool should be blind ballot. 154. Timing of lights. 155. Traffic has greatly increased on SH 66 in the last 30 years . 156. Tri-town area officials should work together. 157. What happens to the No-Action if FasTracks passes? Does it change then? For both this project and US 36 EIS . 158. What is the date of the existing daily traffic volumes? 159. What is the list on "Highway Considerations?" It needs a title. 160. Will transit pay for itself? 161 . HOV Lanes 162. Increase toll roads to put more people on the bus, then maybe more people would take the bus because it would be more reliable. 163. Tolling makes sense since financial resources are so scarce. Could frequent users be given a fare break? 111 164. Why not research if you incorporate the carpool lots along 1-25 into the RTD boundaries. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. Purpose The purpose of the scoping meetings was to introduce the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement to the public, help define the purpose and need , and identify environmental issues that need to be studied . Attendance There were 37 recorded attendees at the meeting . Questions and Comments Received Questions and comments were gathered through comment sheets, postings on presentation boards, and verbal conversations with project representatives . 1 . Bicycle and pedestrian concerns shouldn't be the last item considered and the first thing out from the budget. 2. 1-25 is not a street. Bike and pedestrian is inappropriate. D. Supporter of high speed bicycle facilities. • 4. Coordinate with local transit agencies to figure out where hubs need to be. 5. A bus study recently completed did not show feasibility in the North Front Range. All bus service should be privately operated . 6. Carpools and land use controls are good alternatives, but strong public education campaigns are needed to get people to accept them . 7. The NFRMPO has over 30 vans and has spent approximately $9 million since 1995 on vanpools. The vanpool trips (5 million/yr) amount to 0. 1 % of the total trips in the area . Not an efficient cost or benefit. S. There is no statistical basis for this statement. People want to be mobile. ( Congestion Management Board) 9. I expect sound science to screen out alternatives which do not relieve congestion on 1-25. 10. Improvements to US 85 must be a part of the "alternatives" that are screened . 11 . There should be a good sense of balance between demand and investment for all • alternatives. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Adrninistration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH I-2S II Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center February 03 , 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 30. I agree that the 1-25 and SH 34 interchange needs to be changed ; it is very dangerous at those speeds. 31 . Improvements along Hwy 34 bypass into Greeley. Will interchange improvements keep pace with growth? 32. Need improvements to US 85. 33. This is a three year study and who knows how long to design and build . 1-25's capacity should go from two lanes to four in each direction . 34. #2 on board - Rivers Parkway (83rd Ave in Greeley to SH60, to US 85 and North to Windsor/SH14) is preferred . (Highway Issues and Ideas Board) 35. Extend "0" Street from 83rd Ave to 1-25. 36. There needs to be some consideration between rural and urban interface on SH 66 between 1-25 and US 85. 37. We spend way too many fuel tax dollars on studies that go nowhere but on the bookshelf. 38. Improve US 85 with fewer lights and more overpasses. 39. Have an Environmental assessment of W. 10th Street. Study will impact development proposals in this corridor. 40. Identify projects in Greeley and Evans. 41 . Loveland is doing development on US 287 at SH 402 . Check with Berthoud regarding development. 42. There is a lot more on-going development than shown here (Greeley, Berthoud , and Dacono). 43. Should have a location at the Ranch . 44. SH 7 EA Cherryvale to 75th is starting spring 2004. 45. FTA is heavily biased towards public (government) transportation . I have a concern about that bias written in this study. 46. Improve US 85. There is too much pressure on 1-25. US 85 would reduce pressure and • improve movement through the Front Range. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 Scoping Public Meeting EIS • Greeley Recreation Center February 03 , 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 62. You should consider economy of change in delay hours both for businesses and individuals. What is the cost of current delay? 63. Electric trains are the only answer. They help to build a stronger sense of community. 64. It would be nice if the trains used existing tracks making it easier for the public to use transit. 65. I would like to see trains go to Denver and commute daily. 66. Are these all single track? (Rail Considerations Board) 67. Does Union Pacific still own the abandoned UPRR? 68. It is not appropriate (perhaps illegal) to use highway ROW for rail . 69. "Demand for rail and transit must show reduction unless both are present (crossover demand )." - This comment is representative of Americans' shortsightedness. Rail must be viewed as a viable means of travel if we want to avoid being L.A. • 70. Regional rail works great in Boston , NYC and D .C . Denver area and Front Range should study their examples. 71 . Need a per lane mile cost to compare with transit. (Regional Rail Concepts Board) 72. Need to consider planning horizons well beyond the 2030 timeframe. 73. Rail must not use ROW. Needed for highways now or in the future. 74. The Greeley/Boulder alignment must not be ignored ! I drive it every day. 75. We need a train . 76. US 287 and/or US 85 must become expressways to compete with speed and convenience to 1-25. 77. Front Range toll road "Super Slab. " (Study Area Board) 78. Improve US 85 from Denver to Cheyenne. Fewer lights and more overpasses. 79. Look for information on Road conversions with Weld County and CDOT Resolution . • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation. Meeting Summary NORTH 1-25 ell Scoping Public Meeting EIS SGreeley Recreation Center February 03, 2004 information. cooperation. transportation. 98. It would be nice to have "real time" signs making travelers aware of congestion ahead. 99. Please expedite improvements to North 1-25 more quickly. 100. I 'm a VanGo user. HOV to 6th and 1-25 is an efficient use. It rewards people. 101 . Check projects in Greeley/Evans area . 102. Erie wants one interchange. Developers want interchanges. Buyers of land should know early on what the standards are for spacing . 103. Front Range Commuter Bus said bus is not feasible. 104. Access control on 1-25. 105. Are all of FasTracks planned improvements contingent on passing FasTracks? 106. Concerns about FTA being involved in this project. They are too biased for public mobility. • 107. Contact Greeley, Loveland , Berthoud and Dacono regarding development. 108. Every five years Greeley is adding the equivalent of an Evans (average over the last 10 years). 109. Federal fuel tax dollars is the vast majority of funding. 110. Portion from SH 66 to SH 402 will be closer to 50,000 as soon as construction to the south is completed , at least to SH 34. 111 . This project should have been started 10 years ago. They knew 1-25 would have a deteriorating level of service so why didn't they start looking at it then? 112. What do you mean by capital improvement projects? 113. What is the dinner bell? 114. What is FasTracks? 115. What is the "Dinner Bell Triangle?" 116. Evans should be listed as the "City of Evans" not the "Town of Evans." • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of'Transportation. • ,�;ik"� . ; .ii.• .. tea, T, !'.j1 ` « ; ;�t :. E7.t1 .'� ' ., a. ♦ •.I • :.>. �• , i9 . ' a .. '�rp.�, � ._ -a . tlY North I-25 Front Range HIS Regional Coordination Committee Meeting January 28, 2004 Page 2 MEETING MINUTES MEETING TYPE: Regional Coordination Committee Meeting MEETING DATE: January 28, 2004 at 2:00 PM ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION : ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION : Paul Carter City of Erie Don Marostian City of Loveland Mary Gavin City of Dacono Bill Swenson Trans. Comm. John Taylor Town of Gilchrest John Bramble City of Brighton Jean Wallace FHWA Steve Shafer Town of Platteville Rosalie Everson Ft. Lupton Press Alton Dillard Sen. Campbell's Office Dick Leffler Town of Frederick Keith Meyer/Glen Vaad Weld County Joe Racine Timnath Jan Pawlouski City of Brighton John Dow FTA S. David Norcross City of Ft. Lupton Larry Walsh City of Loveland Tim Holeman Broomfield Marti Morgan Sen. Allard's Office Cliff Davidson NFR MPO Roger Longe Longmont Cty Gov Carl Harvey LaSalle Jenny Foote Town of Berthoud Glenn Gibson Larimer County 1111 Cheri Anderson City of Firestone Don Feldhaus City of Greeley Gene Putman City of Thornton Gina McAfee Carter-Burgess Holly Miller FHU Tom Anzia FHU Bob Felsburg FHU Kim Podobnik Praco Matt Witten Praco Karla Harding CDOT Bob Garcia CDOT Dave Martinez CDOT PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Holly Miller Presenter: Karla Harding 1. Introduction • An EA conducted in the early 90s (SH 7 to SH 66) recommended adding capacity to the I-25 corridor ■ The Transportation Alternatives Study was a 7th Pot study that was similar to a Major Investment Study. The EIS is the next step in the process. • An EIS looks at many alternatives to see what alternative makes the most sense. It will be a decision made by FTA and FHWA as lead agency. • CDOT is the lead agency on this EIS study 2. RCC • The RCC is an opportunity to get input from the local communities and will act as an advisory group. The RCC will also be a conduit to the public. ■ Project milestones will dictate when meetings are held • J:\03225\RCC.Meeting Minutes\RCC012804.doc • • f Yr '� .t. .r Y5f.4 .y�•. S 'L� t, f4yi��`,� r�vi',Y `�h r.• l ) .y�� {'� f�� t '� •r , . North I-25 Front Range EIS Regional Coordination Committee Meeting January 28, 2004 Page 4 ■ Wyoming public radio picked up the news story illustrating that this project has an influence beyond Northern Colorado. • Group was asked to give recommendations on other ways to disseminate information. 14. Information Gathering • ■ The team will gather input from the public through public open houses, small group meetings, project committees and special events. The public is welcome and encouraged to give comment at any time through the process. 15. Targeted Outreach ▪ Special attention will be given to groups historically overlooked in this process — minority populations, low-income populations and seniors. • Outreach efforts will includes providing translators, information drops, small group presentations and cultural events. Presenter: Group 16. RCC Input and Discussion • Is the study area truly from I-70 to the Wyoming boarder? — It goes south to Denver Union Station to accommodate possible rail transit and west to Boulder. It stops short of the Wyoming border. • ■ Would like to see public meetings held on south end of study area. The locations seem to focus on the north end. • There have been five studies already done. This work needs to incorporate previous work efforts. • Coordination with RTD and the North Metro efforts is needed — RTD is a coordinating agency. RTD boundary today ends at SH 7. Meetings are now taking place. • Why will this EIS take three years? Today, Greeley residents avoid I-25. Creating distinct milestones would help with the long three-year time frame anticipated. • The study should consider the use of tolling — Tolling will be considered relative to revenue. • • Attention to interchanges along the corridor. • Report Executive Oversight Committee work efforts to the RCC. ■ Would like the team to get input from motorcycle groups. • Congestion is the biggest problem and safety is secondary. • Congestion and safety are high on the list of needed improvements. • Implementing the access control plan along Highway 85 would help to improve operation along I-25. We need to find funding for the grade separations and interchanges. a Study should look at funding options to implement improvements. — Funding may not be available in the near term but the plan will be ready when funding is available. ■ Don't want this study to stall other early-action items being considered along I-25 • J:\03225\RCC\Meeting Minutes\RCC012804.doc web, i v) rJ -N C C)0-. z : g ,.„, a c____ . ct Ze .ci; g CC Jj a 6 (41 qi c civ ; . e R 2 b � Al U aC- 'cis 1 2 .,,,..‘ J --, t. . ®to . › ,,- ,, - ..g Fe: Ci %I a d 6.3 .._. pi 0 ti Ca z n " ta . -- a c'"N ci Vt l,, (r- i.Q N l M ai M V o t . gym . 4 ,,,, 41., _ , - ,. 1 . (Li - T (- 3 r--- >,„ , , 4.7, •o -÷) cs) $ \ill. I 1 0 C cA 2LL Iir a C\J C C� r y -} J 1 . i JJN1ScCJ ,3 .. a • !. g _. , v sr V r • 4. v, g 9 \lib . - -1) I > % Q (5 (..L. ) --- /may ___J i a_71," , c- ..---1-- < --C ‘._ .,-/.., ),., c 0 44 --.g 4 0 iii S 1 II L. : Po u 0 :: ___., ` fC I Cl•tip cli � .� v �; o C v er 0 t i elUJ Is T1 cu ot (.1) V M � N Li. 0- aj to -1:3I Q Q v v ir Cki 3 `� crt r IX i o ` 3 \ l.Z 1 O ' '-;.%-: tr- . .) „Q• 9 M S9:- 1 •. N P-t: ,..q \it:i cr ...... ...i. 4 .141 ICN 14\, 1--.1/4. 1 . NJ z..t . ,.....,, ...N, \ -- c •4 'NJ) J 1/4.) l'•.. 'I) ,T, i 11 Si ^I\ W 1 • r 1...C-1 •ul 4ct . . `t: t 0 s.4.� C •%,,, Z ? • .l z . , a• • i. a4. ., :!..,.., ,..., .....,\.,......,... ,i_. „.. ,. ....,,:., ,...‘7...f.....7,..yritic....;. .. . i. t_ _, . . .. , • . . •.. . , .. . • 1. . . . . i . i ..... t . .. . i . ,. . ., ..; . 1 t..0 ci ) .: ..z .. , . , i . ... O O > >....._,•1/4_, .5 w - �\CNA.\.1� Z...0 Coo _ - k:•gm- r .?..,)' o C�^ . *,......,...<,:e.i .4w 3 `tit: t. , E- , • NORTH 1-25 vet,. EIS �.. ��, - : MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee June 9, 2004 Page 2 of 6 • It was suggested that the goals be reordered and that those that sound like Needs from the Purpose and Need statement should be removed. They should be kept simple. • It was suggested that the last three goals listed identify just about everything. • The team will review this input with the TAC and work toward updating the goals for the next meeting. 3)Alternatives Screening Process • A member asked if PAT was included in the alternatives screening. It has not been included at this time. It was felt that it was not appropriate for this length corridor. It has slow speeds and travels shorter distances. • A member asked how weather would impact the different alternatives. With snow and ice, a rubber- tired vehicle may have more difficulty meeting schedule and a steel wheel steel track can't exceed 5% with ice and snow. 4) Public Involvement Update • Kim P. gave an update on Public Involvement Attachments &ailed to you on June 2, 2004: • Agenda • Draft Purpose and Need — 5/28/04 • Project Goals - 4/8/04 • Alternatives Development and Screening Process — 5/21/04 • Draft Evaluation Criteria Matrix — 5/24/04 • Level One Alternatives Screening — 5/28/04 • RCC Membership Directory -6/9/04 Handed out at the Meeting • Sample of "Contact Us" magnet • "Imagine the Possibilities" handout Action Items: • Send Mary from City of Dacono the RCC Meeting Packet Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCCtMEETING MINUTES106-09-041RCC - 060904.doc d U .....`• f0 V/� • Y a C .. . ♦J V N1.--4g f (,j F---i W 0 Ho Het E Q Z o ` G W Z O ti o gi ea a q b Q 0 Co) • ■ O 'C CS A t o o 2 ?. OU co -c `1 4-, CEi = -o a) O C C 0O Q O O •` ` O .r , = co t O Q C) O O :g c0 t W o c ►` J z f = Q = I- O m O u- en O 0 O v- O 1-L l� " E 2 CL cc so O C O O 4--- L;,3.: . Q 4- O a--' t ro Z Cr — c O C U U Q) J T _C O O O �. L.-' z i__ f— f— o } .) C •f b m q b O U usieC C C C do � cb � Cll a) m C Qi 4-8 ,54 CD E O v C o 1_ rrl cv U E °J ca = c a C x ll ' VJ CelCt3 U Q� O O Q� c0 �. aJ `- O Q] CCI cry Q7 co N c o CO CO = c0 0 Z •- CO O O L.- `o _ F� -o o w o �O tQ a) a) a- = cv CJ co a.. U p • — "Er) as a c c0 o c cc u cc N C ai Cu O 03 CD -� • C c6 4-I Co in _ o C C? M. t 0 0 O. c v r:t.!42:ril; .� O > r � ••-• 0 vJ H 1 .1 1.14 a- 8 ca ro o ` ca c � cJ To C O cc o O O O o . SE 0> q .v tr Cl.) v • O .A Pmg = Q o •en ca o C E o E -4-• o = 4- a -L CC; LL.. o m 17 .' t Q O v � n co C co .r. u I - ' A C,Nit 2 C C C W III) C) a ,b 9- E o c_.) c o c CO 4 CD -CD C a cu E C 11 • CI) L.- 'En Li, v o C a (!Jo cu U F-- ..C O N N 0 o •O c c c) ZCC -� 1 NORTH 1-25 ,51:;t:: • YL EIS Oa _ MEETING MINUTES information, cooperation transportation. Regional Coordination Committee August 26, 2004 Page 2of8 • The group had discussion about the comm unities' efforts thus far to pre serve ROW along 1-25. • People turning off 1-25 to the Frontage Roads are a safety issue. Would like to see it addressed in the P urpose and Need statem ent. People use these accesses to get around accidents. • Reevaluation of EA from 7 to 66 for WCR 91/2 affects tying in to SH 66 east of 1-25. 5) Travel Model Update • No Action Network Definition o Chris P. gave an update on the travel modeling efforts. o SH 56 should be changed to SH 52 in the No Action Network Definition o An RCC member asked that we check on the status of funding for WCR 13/Colorado Boulevard improvements. o Are we constrained by alternatives that are NOT on Interstate if our analysis shows they help I-25 i.e. WCR 13? o Important that Boulder/Longmont commuter rail in FasTracks be included and coordinated with this project. As it stands now, it will be included in the No Action Alternative if FasTracks passes. 6) Level 2 Alternatives Development and Screening Process • Complementary vs. stand alone alternatives • Develop stand alone alternatives • Level 2 alternatives will be presented to the public in October • Continue evaluation through January and present draft results to public in February. • Revisit naming for stand alone and complementary alternatives. Don't want packaging to be precluded by the naming convention. • Will the study discuss methods of financing as part of the practicability criteria? Yes, this will be discussed in more detail as the process continues. 7) Public Involvement Update • October meetings planned for 19th, 21st, 26th, and 28th. The locations are currently being determined. This round's format will be a structured presentation round table format. 8) General Discussion ▪ RCC is invited to the next TAC meeting where Peggy Catlin w ill be giving a presentation on the Statewide Tolling Study. She will give some background on the CTE and the prelim inary results of the study. • Preliminary results indicate that 1-25 is one of the best corridors for potential tolling. • A recent newspaper article claimed that tolls aren't popular. Be cautioned that other studies indicate that people view it positively. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCCtMEETING MINUTE.5108-26-041RCC- 082604.doc • >O En >' • I D p � I o > O D cA C O CI) N ' O. V -0 E O � 0a n O V ' E; a +.,� CD pI C � ! tII O , C0 ( U , d O O ! U =:I ,�°:4.5 .D 5 � o � of � , 6 o L _ L. (� , 4-- S p UI I a) czitE • : of N- +a UI U , L ' �� U � C 5 c C ! ,i • I N aI • I O � �� C I e.2co• L � O Y Lr E ; 2 C co _ ' CO C �/...y' U ' O O o L Q 1� N E o _o Z O Ci tai •� o U o U ID 0 0 'N -.6 N ,:, C Uis a) N E C OL CS 0.0 to • j W c Alt = J m o m 4___ O O laesa 4— LL 4_ H CC 4— O C p w- 4II !:O O - O 11" 0 0 (II p z - C L _ Z _ .O Q U U a O a N- c o U e3 U LL rr^) z Zs° en -g b O U CD I.1 Sa a) QC) a) CD d iv to 0 -i H- Q w W �' 1l E: C ` an C I j .� �a a) a� a) 13 C D to o O ON Lb 6 CU SN m V cot C O L t� Z E C � o L m v v al o o E w • .1.--. _ _ CD U Z ~ N Q E �_ m CO o c LLt o u- U C j O ;jai -0 L O co cu 9 'L c (1S C % 0St O U ~ Y U Q Y Cn o cv ( Q O It o • cn D O Dcn o >1 in U ci aid • E c o o o L o 0 v 0 0o , -o in ci U) di o 0ttiti ai. o Q '_ 10 D 4f ...di -o N ` --4 0, W o o o ° _›" C o \ C $ o O 0 E1 O Ects o o E oC D E t ° s of as H a v 5i H. o O 'o b (1 ta p 0 Z c . _ EZ _ 4- C O C Q ,ca o � t u Fel o 0 C L.) • Q, L ■ 0 0 b E 4-, v- o U C U V - 1 CO C O a C a 2 E a) ca o o_ v� c E.r - O O) QJ O J .C O L .a p U) E C L o p D U O > o J = C oUc �, U o a o o v LA- coil z -o o �, Q C U as O o o U o ' tt o Z.' U F_ -1 U U U c) U z NI: ry It U U E t Q. a. 0: a. 4 0 ILL' bk1 Is O lib W c LIJ O '_' C a o L U) O U N L C N ccn N `1 Q v C E s) * C Ca O OL co -- N L —, L c0 = O z o P Z o Y Yo Z CD 0 Z Y rn c� o o ;C a-i .o o O� s ts � ¢ wD z O Y'5 co Y I— o ti 0 O p u) . � 0 • O O ; 0 O D •= S 0 U , CCS N co L Q; co co a Q. O a 3 o .f- - 1 Q O Q� ' C 1 M CO CO (— Q� C Na ?'fr.-$-4r""4 o CO V o Q) 2 n O 0 kri (O Q a O p. `ti 1 'A ti w �' q 'b V d o 0 ,Q, o O O 4.4 t , , , • CO i'l 13 O O k. LL N -o b e _ R ati V CD 0 I- U Q k4 hti W W 0 Cam, U O CO o .. C C k Qj Z c� N Di i ais mZ z a) c a 0 a, C0o • NORTH T • 2 , .n, • EIS {4flT . MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. try, Esportat ion. • Northern communities are trying to create regional transportation authority. They would like to see CR 19 not 14 upgraded. • The team will consider CR 16 as an alternative. • A committee member pointed out that bike lanes would not likely be usable during the winter months. 7. Transit Alternatives • Craig G. provided an update on the commuter rail alternatives. • Glen Gibson suggested reviewing Japanese rail examples. • Include other impacts i. Traffic that would cross rail tracks if it were built ii. Highway does not yet include ROW iii . Need to create a level common measure for comparison of Alternatives • Acela in the north east is high speed rail; • Check difference from operating cost between HSR & CR • Julie M. provided a summary of the Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail alternatives • $/passenger may be a better measure in future • Please review station planning process and Interchange Process in packet Action Items: • Next Meeting: November 18' 2004 1 :30 to 3:30 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:10322SI TACIMEETING lvfINUTES110-14-041TAC-101404.doc NORTH I-25 EIS %S. . MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee February 24, 2005 Page 2 of 8 • Tom A. summarized the EIS process and the projects current status. • Level 2B will involve a long series of technical meetings . • The Executive Oversight Committee directed the project team to recommend an interchange plan that is best for the corridor, and not to steer the project too far in either direction of accessi bility or mobility. • Tom A. went through a sum mary of screening results for Level 1 and Level 2A , and then the screening approach for Levels 2 and 3. • 6) Level 2B travel dem and model data • It was asked what the capacity of 1-25 is today? The 4-Lane capacity is 80,000 vehicles per day. • Karla H . asked do new interchanges/widening attract traffic fr om other roads? Yes, but the total number of trips i n the model doesn't change. More accessibility possibly attracts more short trips. • It was commented that adding additional intercha nges attracts development. Has this affect been considered? At this stage of the analysis, this affect has not been considered but will be considered in latter scree ning efforts. In level 2B screening, the focus is to compare data between model runs, so in this analysis land use patterns have been held constant. • It was asked if land use changes due to transportation alternatives. Transportation improvements will probably result in a redistribution of future land use in the study area but may not necessarily attract an increase in land use. • The purpose of modeling 1-25 with additional interchanges is to test the model 's performance in redistributing traffic to new interchanges. • It was commented that the modeling results show that adding more access increases traffic volumes on 1-25 and adds additional cost. • It was asked if the model considers growth in areas outside of the study area? The model takes into account growth outside of the study area. • It was asked if household and em ployment growth numbers come from the State Demographer. Indirectly, the projections for households and employment do come from the State Demographer since the land use projections developed by DRC OG and the NFR MPO are based on estimates from the State Demographer. • It was asked why an 8-lane 1-25 was m odeled . It was modeling to understand the possible future capacity needs along 1- 25 and to understand how much additional capacity is potentially needed to accommodate future dem and. • It was asked if trip origins and destinations will be reported? They w ill be evaluated by sections of highway. • It was asked if VMT will be tracked between alternatives . VMT will be compared between alternatives. • It was asked why the ba se year is 2001 not 2005. There are two reasons, the base year for the NFR M PO and DRCOG travel model 2001 and census data is from 2000. The model needs to be calibrated. This is done by running it with 2001 data and reviewing the result to if it mimics known existing conditions. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J 1032251RCC200512005 Meeting Minutes\Word DocumentsVRCC - 022405.doc s > w > C7) D > a) o o E O c C) o 0 o a` D cn • o acid c�oa U � c ._ ) C j �. N E ° , o E ' o cn , j +-, E u �. o 0 o c _ o c o o _ Cl)pO �- U O 1 • U 04`y. L c1� O > �M • O cr. f I O p �...;; :.fir cn a a tp; E •5 •-J'a) i c� v' >c cz - c ,•. ii I' U O C rNi fr.--4 uj w E a) -O E E 2 m a) a5 — 4. �? O r� c1 c fl tII :o U j C o H UJ0 C O c 0 _n O 4 L tl ti Z g Q 0 L.. Q U S Cr) O 'ES ' r .ti n 4 C oW' L 0 0 O 0 2ate) ti O n w u) r w O a) -o a) d ni LE =NisZ LID O �] w O O 22 .17i O L. Ur (2 4-- �/y� r+N U • ti- o O O �j a. LL. C 0 • o • U U 11:3O c FoO U q a) a) Z. a) o CD : 0 y - E CLi El. a 4 a. R E W O C L 69) U C i co C in ccnn ozs V) p a� • O 'U - vO) J o v/ O Cv cts C com -c-c E oO "Cl ca 1D - j • j L o Z• UN Q L._ (42) m m ) r( U E W -- _ .€4 _ E °' m a' m _ C o c . 1 in 0 TD- � I- Y Y cn o n izi cc LL 0 u) u) u) o 6 �, 6 E Q) > E o aB o : z, c o o 0) t o U c o E ' of y ca El ° c y C U O U •�_' O O Q1 C . , O — I U thi A` '^-,l .. :•-1V LULL a E C /f 1 Vr E r--0, •�,I : Q. " . co a) r E ��+ ° t .., .t�'.I , U ' © a V i � I _• a a)u.1•^rte. .r, g M w a) U• . 2 g lo ; © •.t-, a) _ a a� " o a ' a� o D E slz E E c: U . LE 5 " (7 z 124 U "� � O a o 4 c A A w o C) Iii CO o -14 a) 0 fl., o Q Cl, cC v • f-- 0 0 0 _ ,I r : ' c c U '@ O • • O O rn a) o •C c cn cn C n _c c o E a) c� a i •� o a) v) ate) > H 1 a. E) a o m 0 > E o u_ o 0 2 = m = szi 4- 0 E _J -a o 03 c r 1 o o U o U o ° o U la-) u- U) o CU r eN o- �.° U H U 0 0 c) U 1 a w w w w Is 4 a) a) a) a) CU CU CD tio o C b 0 a) AW` Ei 5 0. & Q. & 4 is o 'CC ta PI Lii o ea _ (1 � u) 0 c a L. a) ai C3 r o a) c C 11)c o 0 o a� E v c ai c t ca ° o 0 g N cosE cog a) c a) Q J = L •- w Z• a U Nas a) Y L -o ca ° N Lkil Z c Al — 0) as •c o7 r �` o 'Po o (' ? k•-, Cn C0 �.co U o al U 2 c EZ o 5 3, 0 o 0 al o _ U� Q, U E ° �V p, 5 ° o y o c . y o ° 176 i-ti o `n v -ciic� a m � c o , o CO QCO v In o ° c Fas Cn F RS CD d 06 ca ; o g 0 ca I t RI {� h- � as W m y E4 > • N )...it �,j.1 QY m� o O r' 3O d D E 0 k. O kes 7; r Ei `ti ia ki o C q N C k. 0 C?Q cliC o O Co.) U U Z O a t i •ti — 0 +-; L- E 0 etz ,C a as v o c Q i ,c� U y- U o ❑ o u- - I o 4°'-', ec m U ° c 0 NI Q o _�' .D O 0 0 U ~ U u ~ o .N go Itw I yr q at CE' to b F"' O cu CU CU E Qtu O 4. tio 1 U Iii 0iik u) L _ at- to t a o 0co i.o ° M EQ. • .... U 0U in (� m -03 c °� C� ni Co n m • NORTH 125 2 a �•%F r� �::7? EIS : l''x y. S MEETING MINUTES information cooperatio:i. transportation. Regional Cooridination Committee April 21 , 2005 Page 2 of 5 existing Limited Access facilities experienced. The Project Team will research these issues. • Suggestions were made to show separate volum e-to-capacity ratios for the different lane types; and to show more bars that match the various term ini of the alternatives. • It was asked what the working definition for congestion is. T he project is using the North Front Range MPO's 0.87 volume-to-capacity ratio, at which point conditions becom e congested. It is not the high speeds that a corn mittee member witnessed along the T-Rex project in southeast Denver. • A comment was made that the favorable safety evaluation for the 8-lane alternative is surprising since the southern California experience is that 8-lane highways have twice as many incident calls as 6-lanes. • The Mobility graphic that shows both the Northbound PM Peak Travel Times and the % Congested Lane Miles will be split into two separate graphics. That will allow for a larger vertical scale to show differences between alternatives, and also the possible addition of southbound travel times. • The Aging Infrastructure graphic prompted the question of why all of the alternatives north to SH 66 are given the "Worst Rating". That is because the • 2030 No Action Alternative will have replaced deficient structures and Poor/Fair pavement as far north as SH 66, so only the alternatives that have limits further north will further improve aging infrastructure. • The practicability bar chart compares alternatives in terms of their construction costs divided ny person-trips, not "per annual user" as shown. Operating and maintenance costs will be added to construction . The intent is to develop a measure that can compare total costs between highway and transit alternatives in Level 3 screening . The key point is the relative difference in costs between alternatives. For example, Limited Access Lanes to SH 1 would cost five times as much as HOV lanes to SH 66. It was concluded that this graphic should be revised before it is shown to the public. • Gina M . presented the environmental screening results. Level 2B analysis used findings from 1 A and new data such as total vehicle miles and hours traveled and peak hour speeds for adjacent residential development, but air quality, wetlands, and hazardous materials are potential environmental issues . • The differences in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) between alternatives are relatively small . • The two highway alternatives that appear to best meet Purpose and Need , 8 General Purpose Lanes and Limited Access Lanes, also require the most new right-of-way and have the highest costs. • Based on the screening performed in Level 2B, no highway alternatives are likely to have what would be considered significant impacts . • The question of what difference new fuels by the year 2030 might have was asked , and the response was given that they would likely affect highway • alternatives the same way. Federal Highway Administration - Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCC1200512005 Meeting Minutes10421051RCC-042105.doc :1 S ' . . :In �: n .1.4 W E-4_ , RI O Ui _ ' = > 1 Z C E o a E o 0 • E °� v ° E c6J a E "• -..:o U o .r "WI O C E -a O O C Q1 (A W. N O CD +r y c A% C o 0 0� • . E PI 3 ci • _O @� ° L o o c O E _w0 s a E 9 .g.). il' g al c Q N O , _a .0 • 1 @M N = Y • OU� q � , rft C _u) ' a { c � ' ( E El .Q ' ' 8 Fa _ � ' Z E etic .si 0 .n l rn (6 4_CO v ?- . ; -o co �, LL1 H C) mN H E • ' E o `' o' c ' Ct CQ•-, Y. E 2 0 �c • I sE q q O 0 V tUI • ,O _ a • CO _ . d 0 t3 C 0 n a u) a C CO a o O o 0 • N OO) 0 O `j' O ` CC coLl m CO -c •, 0 D D 0 ° E O a) O U C) D Q LL O O LL LL O O J 0 0 LL LL O CL O LL O w h a a 43 C C C C C C l'iC C C C C C C U a 0 C0 C) 0 4) C) 43 Q) flfl W 0 43 Q1 0 C b y V) u) V) y U) V) y y o EaLis a,hat a, 4 a. a a, a,Las . Q. a, Q. a s o Q O o ° c c P. N n CD c CD O O Y C 0 oa iiE .5 a. c o c a� • N c u) 0 0 N . • •c (U E cn a as o c`C o 2 = -0 •c a) a) o cV O Q m I- LL LL o cz 0 C 2 2 • it a a' (I) • 3 E C c "t7 al C N CD J+ • ,y (I) a)arc o o 0 0 o co °J c o 1- o E .c o = o CL Q Z }-- - ) (1) CO I— co 2 0 Y C9 Z 0 0C 2 0 n m • NORTH I25 EIS •iy{r -r . . MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE : May 19, 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions • Tom A. — began the meeting by giving an overview of the Level 2B Screening process and • reminding the RCC of the upcoming public meetings. t 2. Presentation of Transit Results • Chris P . described the process for modeling the transit alternatives. The process is defined as follows: 1 . Code in rail alignment. 2. Code in station locations. 3. Code in feeder bus service to provide transit access to stations. • The basic premise behind modeling transit alternatives was that they had to be comparable and have generous service. Generous service means the alternatives were frequent, fast and accessible (i.e. Generous feeder bus service and Park-N-Rides at all stations) • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCC1100512005 Meeting Minutes10519051RCC-05/905.doc • NORTH 1-25 2` ` E TS MEETING MINUTES information cnopeeration transportation. Regional Coordination Committee May 19, 2005 Page 3 of 6 day. Because of the relatively few trips heading to the Denver CB D and the general dispersion of the NF R trips it is difficult for transit alternatives to attract riders. • Of all 2030 trips in the NF R only 6% are between the Greeley-Loveland-Fort Coll ins area and the Denver CB D. • Projected commuter rail ridership compared to similar existing rail systems is on the low end of current existing ridership on these systems. FasTracks ridership for 2025 is 10,200 for North Metro, 8,600 US 36 Corridor and 30,400 for East Corridor. • The origin-destination patter ns in the model were derived from journey-to-work data, household surveys and the DRCOG roadside survey. • • The BRT ridership projections are also lower than ridership for similar systems. • Alternatives would use the same F asTracks tracks, but the ridership numbers are only riders to/from the north to the Denver CB D and do not include those riders using the system between Boulder or Thornton and the Denver CBD . • All transit alternatives included the same feeder bus network. On this network ridership was high ranging from 700 to 2,100 people per d ay. 3. Environmental Evaluation • Alignments along 1-25 generally had the least potential for negative impact. • Commuter Rail A & Commuter Rail F had the most potential to impact environmental resources. • It was asked how alternative can cause a hazardous materials impact. A hazardous material impact would be caused by any alternative that had the poten tial to impact a • hazardous site as defined by the health department. For example, a hazardous site could Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCC1200512005 Meeting Minutes40519051RCC-051905.doc A 0 __�� 1 N rH >o co CM r = `� o O iii 4 c w L E > ° 9 cti E pHaa) •J U 0 -' . p a O o (-) -°o C Cr), C E � `� -Q O E � ' V0 N0 c0 © �j EO O O Uri 0 O N OE a t — ' ad u) © (0 L' . , • Th "the0 t I 64, (B A) N `'- r- O C NCt E Oa w `�• .D N r N C — al -0 4O- Et; O (0 c ,41 O O sa 0 O E C . cu c > U LA F- , :13 < U) 0. CO H1 Cr Ca Y - - . 0 E eg .64 f, q 4 0 0 I-- U W • 0 Z tat ri 0 0 •M 2 a, C r Cail IP it L. a) Cr': U O 0 0 u) 0 12 C Q N O a C W c c CO .r O t ° ° c .. N m E • w m N O 0 U CC m - 03 •oo t5 o .� 4 I— 45 F-- Q) ~ N c F tei3- D s,, c O ,,.,. D DO O .�• .c O 3 O ,t a 2 O 2 2 a3 0 to o O 0 co t "c( a. ow o b EL tl. 0 0 _, 0 0 03 H 0 0 ki a 0 In it o w w w w w w w w *ad w w w w.. ' q a h... a, a s Cl.` I. o E Cr a Q. 0. a a v U O 5 C c :a 147 CO C ` L ^� O • 0 0 U QTo c3 E O✓ -c .g. 4 L° 2 a) O C Q o N . . N N i E 73 0 •i L to a3 i_ J 'C .c N u cc O1- w Q m m W EL EL L : C3 O c .. >s o) --) E E c c c c .O -D _O al a m c U C a) co MO O O2 Z H - < CO 0 m H m 2 C7 Y - ' 2 O 0 C7 azi 0 NORTH 1-25 .;WI .; u •: ti EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE : August 18 , 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Schedule ■ Level 3 screening began this month and will continue through November. • • The project team may need the RCC to meet in September. (It has since been determined that the next meeting will be scheduled for October) 3. June Open House Comments • Leslie C. presented the PRACO Packet. • Greeley citizens are interested in transit service to DIA. • Concern with noise, development along 1-25 (acquire ROW soon). • Members should contact PRACO with any questions. 4. Household Survey Synopsis • Holly M. presented a 9-page handout. ■ 33% response rate was very good. ■ Contact Holly M. with any questions. 5. Transportation Improvement Packages ■ The Value Engineering process, once focused on Design, is now being used during NEPA. • The Value Engineering team reviewed our packages, and warned us about Level 3 process getting too complex. • Level 3 will address the critical questions to define the DEIS alternatives. • Holly M . and Julie M . presented the 8 alternatives. • Package 1 now extends bus service into Ft. Collins to increase ridership. • Package 2 is two Toll lanes with commuter bus . i. Bus service along US 85 will alternate buses to DIA and to DUS . • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J.:1032251RCC1200512005 Meeting Minutes l0818051RCC-081805.doc NORTH 1-25 '- •-.. .. _ ._7. .<< EIS • r • �x`^ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Regional Coordination Committee August 18, 2005 Page 3 of 5 • The role of the groups is advisory, meeting every other month from October 2005 to April 2006. • Membership is open: TAC/RCC members are welcome; residents can volunteer or be recommended by TAC, CDOT or the project team. • Contact any of us if you or someone you know might want to serve on these groups. • Station locations may be refined beyond Level 3 in the DEIS . • The intent is community involvement on a regional basis. 8. Transit Funding Concepts • Gina M. presented 6 possible transits. i . Formation of a Regional Transit Authority (like RTD, collects sales tax) ii. RTD's district could be expanded to portions of our study area iii. RTD could, through a single private contractor, Design , Build , Operate and Maintain , to provide service further north. iv. Joint Powers Authority — government entities form a separate board (like BART in San Francisco) v. Transit Development Board — as has been done in San Diego • • CDOT could fund and operate new transit service • Ron P. said that as a legal technicality, the Regional Transit Authority should be a Regional Transportation Authority. • Ron S. (FHWA) asked if listing CDOT as a potential source for transit operations creates a consistency issue for CDOT on other corridor studies. Next Meeting: Tuesday October 11, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm Topics: Screening measures • Alternative Development • Interchange planning • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:i03225tRCC200512005 Meeting Minutes 1081805iRCC-081805.doc nt '' r it . 4. .eV; • H U) d o d N O o in O E O O L _ tQ O O a E E Q) v) E E U O o = o O o E -o o E N ID O C.T. Q) to 0 c� a/ _CDO C C +- 0 O y U• O o0 c) N p O N ` n O 6 E� s c 1� E i U) U) CO U �� © C Le Q) 0 0 L E N . CS ct C = L C E N O -'G Q + O 1 © o o CT3 ≥ E + — C (n� o � L .� _N C E N C .� L •E a) o Q) . (13 C = g N (� j QS O D To c- io i E� C -D O N O = Q3 0 O E C i Wt. E _ cn 0 .. sue, Cr if) d q I o vo leo L1 W o Cll CZ o-) U) C (.) in 0• E .-g .r W Q CO CO D :> E Co H U) FL— 0 0 R E,,,- 1 -. L b C O N tiry V '4-I r_+'Y C U) a--/ 0 U) "O U) C U) ~ 1:40zi 0 E a) a3 o o a) C -. C p •_E C 21 0 E 0 Pi O a m L '4.4 L a) 0 4....� m O COm CL LL Q CD L Leo -o o H U < H E (13o 0 0 cI 2 0 al10 .— Ccs Z C� cz Q U CO F— U U 0 W Li_ F- U IL. U U a. U u 0 _J - vi h co w w r e w w w it co v.. w w v.. v.. w 5. o C C C C C C C C C C C 6 C) 143 a) a) a) a) 0 0 0 0 0 G) a) a) C) 5 C) E t a a s o: 4 n, a s a 0. i a 0O O o c (14 o .`45 E O in o O Q) O C co -9-1 N �_ p� O n •_ (13 75 O C o U o 2 N t Q 0 CD - L U) = O EL- Ca To cV L J co p J as U O — O O 2 O z3 `_- a > n C OW C) 92 a7 -, ,c� 2 2 a) 2 D7 C % N OCDC .0 5 CO.a i 0 CCS .C L- 0 CST � L. - (SEE OC = o C Z -) • 0 Z C0 CC 0 C� 0 I U) --) 0 U ) CC 2 0 CL C Y .4 • NORTH 1-25 ,., EIS : _, s1.-. MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee January 12, 2006 Page 3 of 11 • Why does the B package make sense? Alternative A focus on the study area while Alternative B only focuses on just 1-25. It seams unlikely that people would travel to I-25 for bus service, but they might do it for commuter rail service. • It is actually faster from Greeley to Denver to go west to 1-25 than to go south on US 85. • Is there any information available about public acceptance for the Toll Lanes? • If population shifts in Weld County, do the packages properly address this issue? • If the adopted Land Use shows this shift then the packages will address this issue. • Why is the BRT alignment down the middle and not commuter rail? • BRT is a joint use with highway improvements but commuter rail is in a separate right-of-way. Also BRT would be more cost effective. • Provide a connection from Longmont to the north metro line. • Analysis shows it serves only trips from Longmont to north metro does not meet • the purpose and need for the project so it was eliminated as an alternative. • Add a description about what vehicles could use the HOV lanes. Commuter Rail Comments/Questions Comments • There are no commuter rail systems that have subsidities, around 40 to 60 percent make up for the fare box. • There are also subsidites for highways as well, and maybe as high as transit subsites. • Placing a commuter rail in existing right-of-way is less costly than a new system. • Would the highway need more improvements if transit is not implemented? The highway volumes are more sensitive to parallel arterial enhancements than to transit improvements . • Have a hard time envisioning commuter rail through Ft. Collins and Loveland due to the impacts. Light rail may be more feasible. In the commuter rail category there are engine types that have different level of impacts. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J::103225.RCCl200610112061RCC - 011206MM.doc REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE NORTH 1-25 ; ,. March 9, 2006 EIS ` {�.• Page 1 of 4 information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE : March 9, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig , , • :4, SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION , .° + � . • 1 . Introductions , •'. 'do-. 2. Public Meeting Input Summary � r :.5 ■ Kim provided a verbal summary abou i ' 12 public - eetings held i e study area, the number of participants that at • - d an or. e of the prima comments and questions heard from attendees. , '� 3. DEIS Package Discussion Wo . t o • Participants were asked to idea I , , . re the . :.:,considerations that should • be addressed during the DEIS? • he re .' . e su : . rized below. A. Regional Sys ' b � : sit . f •.4tr Votes 9 a) Rail 10 — 20 4 , years? i b) Bus & rail ri to be con: lent • c) Seamless tr g ors be eg t vel mote d) Intercity trans( fit - 'I •• ``• '± ' 'e) H . I is stab( . ' cations for commuter rail? Pg-A4N„ ---i, . st. Al �,r"hative Modes" tions�.s , 1/4 f 1-". 'II the users o?d ' clest�motor) have any commute surfaces, trails? g) BI ,,Ele paths . . h) Alt It Lives to driv �' i) Multip1' �, vel mo ' j ) Alternate to, c _ , k) Maintain m jrt .. dal focus I) UP Rail on 8 .'s) m) If toll lanes are a must, why not combine with commuter rail in 1-25 corridor to give drivers within the region the two best or fastest options? n) Are we "building" our way out of congestion with roads? Is that possible with our current rate of growth? o) 4/4 Ft. Collins to Denver p) Public preference for rail? • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation C:\CFusionMX\wwwrooticfdocs\i25northforty\private\RCC 030906.MM.doc 1-25 ```` " r NORTH REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE • March 9, 2006 EIS H1 ? t` w. Page 3 of 4 information cooperation. transportation. k) Will relief of congestion come from side/parallel roads along 1-25? I) Package B: US 85? m) US 85 — CANNOT continue more Traffic Signals. n) US 85 corridor growth in future. Equitable Service & Access Across the Region: o) Easy access between feeders and transit 1 p) N/S service across region q) Package A: More mobility for more people. "n♦} r) Support existing population centers s) Population B : May not serve all communities. A -~4 at br ;f. ystem on Greeley — Commerce City. r��x kk. E. Look at how plan could be updated t :�•"cfdress Votes 4 . , . expandability needs beyond 2030. �;.:�:�:. , • z a) (Preserve) Right-of-Way on 1-25 - Roa : .+ . �Bus�, t Rail? b) Plan timeframe, Must extend beyond 2031 `y � - �se of time to construct. c) Plan needs to stay flexible f ure changes F. How Do Costs Compare Be end f : ? Votes 3 (All Cost Categories) :. : -4 • a) All cost must de `-t e best b . fo ;iett*• n other highways have ne . b) Are costs e ur k cka e r � Yneeds. q � � � g c) Data prese t '- ,. ust trut , ly pres - ros & cons AND show individual component comparison d) Incorporate -- effectiv 4t'L critert. #.o evaluate transit & highway alternatives . G.fEbimize Aria [.rave :4 a 4 I Votes tin _ , DUb nimize trave •:L14. - to iatransit. c r '� ' imize portal t:t octal tratit time. d ) lanes for corm: uter buses, need maximum priority. e) F3y , plan for *.. .ervice level B or C? r f) Need &r tes fror - $wy 52 to Hwy exit at Harmony. Build 6 lanes now and the other 2 lanes later.?t- . r res g) Congestion t be less than today. Better than D' . h) Decrease travel times . i) Quick Travel to Denver. H . Prove How Safety Will Improve Over Current Condition Votes 0 a) Safety must be better than today. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation C:1CFusionMX\wwwroot\cfdocs\i25northforty\private\RCC 030906.MM.doc 7/27,40 Tu..s;.. -Ca,-`.r.4C r NORTH I-25 -- .{ = : n Meeting Minutes #4 s `= = �.� • Regional Coordination Committee EIS g ' information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 2 MEETING DATE - May 11 , 2006 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Fe(sburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1 . Introductions 2. No Public Comment 3. Design Development a The team is currently integrating highway, transit, traffic evaluation, stations and environmental information . It will be presented at the June meetings. 4. Land Use -- Presentation by Ben Herman and Darcie White e See presentation for detailed information. • Questions/Comments 1 . Don Feldhouse — Why does growth include US 287 and 1-25 and not US 85? Please add US 85 information to presentation . 2. Ron Phillips — How do you define a TOD resident? 1 mile, 4 mile, 9 mile? Darcie W . stated that it is defined as 1 mile for this effort. Ron P. asked if we know what percent of people within that distance that use the system . Ben H . said we don't have that data . Ron P. stated that he felt that the presentation diminishes the information . We can add total ridership. 3. Cliff Davidson stated that the San Diego system is about 20 years too late. Densities limit ability to serve the areas if they already exist. 4. Tom A. asked Cliff D. how he would rate Denver timing vs . other systems. Cliff D. said that where rail exists, it will work well but some areas are developed and have no way of being served . 5. Don F . asked how the team is accounting for household income and cost of insurance. Ben H . stated that the model does have the ability to estimate ridership with increased costs in travel . A sensitivity test was completed that indicated that doubling auto expenses would increase ridership on transit by about 90%. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225\04. RCC1Minutes RCC\051106\RCC 051106 MM.doc a' 7.%—rte rs-.' "K- • N ORTH 1-25 p EIS AGENDA information. cooperation. transportation. p R REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE Southwest Weld County Service Complex Thursday May 11 , 2006 4209 Weld County Road 24 1/2 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM 1 . Introductions 1 . Public Comment Period 2 . Design Development Update 3 . Land Use Review 4 . Expandability Discussion I Next RCC meeting: July 13, 2006 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex 4200 Weld county Road 24 1/2• Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225104. RCCMinutes RCC0SII06SRCC - 051106 ag.doc • NORTH 1-25 Meeting Minutes EIS tlk Regional Coordination Committee Page 2 of 2 information, cooperation. transportation. ■ Cliff Davidson , North Front Range MPO, reported on the recent transportation summit held by the MPO . Participants were asked to spend 1 .3 billion dollars on transportation improvements . The 1 .3 billion dollars was a result of approximately what an RTA in the area might be able to generate with a 1 -cent sales tax. • Karen Wagner was on the SB1 taskforce. The group discussed , at length, the need for the state to fund transit. Colorado is one of a handful of states that does not fund transit. ■ Cliff Davidson pointed out that the MPO is working on a regional transit management program. • The group discussed the need for a champion of this funding effort. Recently Longmont hosted a meeting of Mayors to discuss funding. They will get back together in the next few months. • • Lee Kemp — Southwest Weld County may become part of the district. Internally, there has been discussion about their building the Longmont to North Metro piece. Please Note: There will be no RCC meeting held on Thursday, October 12, 2006. Next Scheduled RCC Meeting: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration ■ Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation RCC 091406 MM.doc • Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 Regional Coordination Committee EIS " At . • November 9, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM Page 2 of 2 C. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY SITES ■ Steve Silkworth gave a presentation on the rail and bus operating and maintenance facility sites being considered in the DEI S. D. LONGMONT TO NORTH METRO CONNECTION UPDATE ■ Paul Brown provided the group an update o n the evaluation and sel ection of alignment V to connect Longmont to the F asTracks North Metro line. Since our last meeting with the TAC we have met with the tri-towns and Erie two times, we have collected additional data as requested by those communities and have identified alignment V as providing the best travel time and having the least i mpact to the human and natural environm ent. This is the alignment that will be carried forward for further evaluation in the DE IS . E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE • Jessica Woolery provided a update of upcom ing public outreach activities including a highway small groups, south area public meetings and environmental justice meetings. • Next RCC Meeting : Thursday, January 11 , 2007 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration ■ Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 125 Meeting Minutes ti Regional Coordination Committee EIS January 11 , 2007 3:30-5 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 4 • Q: Looking 30 years out, will there be some information that addresses hybrid and electric cars? Are you looking at futuristic items that could have an impact? That will likely be addressed with energy. • Q: Will you talk about land use with station locations and areas around the stations? Yes, it will include information from our transit station working group. B. Other resources to be examined : 1 . Social Impacts — includes a look at the changes in population and affects on community activity centers. 2. Environmental Justice (EJ) — Jessica Woolery and Kim Podobnik explained outreach tactics and comments received from the identified EJ areas where outreach has been completed. EJ areas include: Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland, Greeley, Gilicrest, and Brighton . A summary of all public comments including EJ comments will be presented at the next TAC meeting. 3. Economic Impacts 4. Right-of-Way • C: You can never have too much ROW. It will be cheaper to obtain it now than 10 years in the future. Then you can prevent future building. 5. Water Resources and Water Quality 6. Wetlands -- Quantified by acreage. 7. Floodplains 8. Vegetation/Noxious Weeds 9. Wildlife 10. Historic and Archaeological Properties 11 . Hazardous Materials - After identifying where there are hazardous material we look at a way to contain it during construction. 12. Parks and Recreation Sites 13. Farmland - impacts are classified by acreage . 14. Energy 15. Public Safety and Security • 16. Construction Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation N oRTH 1 "25 "��- =mot::. Meeting Minutes h '• � '3" EIS � �� • g Regional Coordination Committee =-�. 3 • January 11 , 2007 3:30-5 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 4 of 4 4. FUTURE TAC BRIEFING AREAS OF INTEREST A. Members expressed interest in hearing impact information regarding air quality, noise and vibration, environmental justice, water quantity and quality, land use, and transportation impacts at a future meeting. NEXT TAC MEETING: THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2006 1 : 30 PM - 3: 00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex i S Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation e . __ - Y. 't /'l' C l,T��r-r 0 CD ,4r grxr CO a_ -7 o cA O Of 4,2 i m dee 6 6 O o ! ! J ! ; i ! ' 111 R7 ° U 2 c O N ( Yom/ Cl Iti v; CU o cu n ro .4-----c s Y m v 0 E U 0 a) > E J �a..,, ..C !A E a) ca U •= cu rtu =• cu z c m 0 E E E '} �` � c� a) _ Sc E Q OE •k �; ` CO L D V) E C .c (Q '> 0 co L. - m o t` 1 - _ _ 1 . *21 0 S > > a) L a) aJ Li L C p c.) o a) nx (t!' to a) U. a) t m C j y _ '$i." IV O ol.l y ( ' • � LSn - ti 0 O^' 1 2 .' D O •.C •C '..e' ,:,j c a> a� c Co c - ' rn - ro o v) `i.a4t7 6 j O) 'C. B. a) c 'E c N c c I ' 0 a)L.~~: o c rr w > L a = ca E 0 H a) cLT t.0.4078. 0 It tai 8 -E 0 c ,72 ,... a) v O 4- MI sc- 9F5 co a ri O L7 > O U O LL 0 C C U 3 N rr J n f- U U m oLL U 1 - U O 1 - U fix„ ~ W z rr�n t f 1 —, \r. at 1 kroz z ti o _ _ �" k rn Cl) z < a) L 0 co ..-ti� 7 N Hi _ üi ❑ EhI ,mac 1:1 U _ O -aG o a) —U ,. e,kV hQY 3 ro —1 cfl I•- C7 C7 co -) Q C7 -) U Ow 20 > IN-• an0 O A o Co a• __I O N., O _t`t. • o _O a) �` 2 tI Ni m L a) " o o N 4) o ` NJ (,� > .'f ,~r `� U C O TD Q) Y Q C a) Q. C_ to 0 N a) C b- m a '- U a) two �`y Li > C M :" : ei`Q E U .- - Y U tom. coC (�S (LS U U O 7 C • E E c .__ a w -) i4 °D • ;i�' 1s�r % O N C CO3 :S a slf 1'J�"J % s�c r cr, are.•1... a62 In U • �'• Mme ' rq 36: •y �Lsr1 L - b vide: •f3„ •'� ''4 4ti E • TA o Zi x , }`F1t = L ;y� • T ' 4-- 74 c ' - •41:4-4.6.- - ▪ , IR '' O v ��• • :3:• Z'•!�.,.`.., -C 7 .' _ rte.-�.''.. E •C :.:: .. -'p fl• . :•..c, /1 • , ._Nl" ,_• =� , a'T ..KL-K4-- •�;.. ,fir 7. y co. }fi , 0 07; • c �,z U ir 0 . 't. ' llit f _ ; • `;e :;- - I. l w • __; O mow! �. , E `f, h O w • . �61_i�:-i.,: ••]y: r,�.. • •_:,_:▪ _,.„( µ� _a:.r -_ :`fir 1:1,C7.1.7. 1.7.^4 1 .S'-v,E.:Vii:--tit. �r�3.... .((...perp ""�.�'•].. �Q�\,, .:*-,�� `i2- to • G '1 •mi l -.•i{`L..-; U _� -'k" 3 - X Z. es- --r• .c. O ms. co F. X �{ . L C Q QJ 1rir5 - Q) Z cm Q r" .Ia.!. a• U .. :ct>:. O o E re 0 - x•_, Jr- CO U a O (/) I ... i ,..s. , C‘ • a �//� 0 0 b w▪ _5 y ri ..1 • • ^ Lis rni y. 'E co O Y -CS i• t �..3• l ; , O O a� t+ ng - .- • E NORTH 1-25 EIS � . • '�« ;T'.?'. fit. ._ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 2of6 Do you have maximum per mile, regarding cost? At about $1 .75 people lost interest in paying . 4. Chris covered daily volumes: Existing volumes are 60,000 northern up they are up to 125,000 and as we move towards the metropolitan area. No-Action volumes increase 60 to 80% over existing. Package A attracts more traffic except for metropolitan area where, Package B attracts more traffic (since Package B adds capacity in the metropolitan area and Package A does not) Package A increases 80 to 100% over today. • 5. Effects on arterials: Chris covered change in volume's compared to No-Action. He reviewed changes to traffic on arterials parallel to 1-25. Someone raised question about how transit alternatives would effect arterial volumes. Chris said overall transit would not effect these numbers much . Generally Package A offers slightly more relief on Package B. Package B, will have slight reduction on arterials. Package A has slightly higher reduction on arterials in northern region . In the south, package B has greater reduction on arterials in metro area. David B. asked if that is because of all of the congestion in metro area, and Chris confirmed . 6 . Holly covered traffic, existing, 2030 and No-Action . LOS is used as measure of delay, except on mainline it is density. A = good and F = not so good . Queuing creates problem with circulation and flow so the team looked at this, the team has recommended improved interchanges, increased ramp spacing and frontage roads. • - 210 rate at LOS 1-25 mainline under the No Action alternative miles operate the AM peak hour and 49 miles in the PM peak hour. For Package A and B the miles operating Federal Highway Administration 1 Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 4of6 Paul will be issuing report. We haven't reached out to PUC regarding this specific project. We may be able to reach balance. If they want us to grade separate everything, it will drive up the cost of Package A. Someone asked if this is major issue with LRT. Paul said LRT in Denver has at grade crossing "street running scenarios". Outside of Denver there are lights , gates and supplemental safety measures. Mark J. asked does FRA has different standards for LRT and commuter rail? Paul answered technically LRT is not regulated by FRA, it is just shared by Union Pacific so there are safety regulations in place. Paul not sure how FRA will rule. David B . said if commuter rail is separated from general system it will be PUC. Where • sharing it will be PUC/FRA. 8. Chris talked about ridership. He covered magnitude of riders on commuter rail going from FT. Collins to North Metro. He reviewed the types of modes used to access stations are included. Commuter bus ridership grows from north to south as well. There are 4,300 riders a day from Longmont to Ft. Collins . 1 ,200 riders on CB between Greeley and DUS between Greeley and DIA 350 riders. Chris tested a different option. Longmont to Ft. Collins from NW rail service. It resulted in 3,300 riders per day. Commissioner asked if you had 3,300 riders a day — what would be the cost? And how much would have to be subsidized? Those costs can't be addressed today, they will at a later date. Dave clarified, we have included a fare to use for our model. Ridership results for Package B: 5,800 riders per day, 5,600 are on main BRT, 200 would use alternating route to DIA. Would this put Shamrock out of business? They currently run this route . We haven't figured that out. Dave B. asked under Package A what would happen if you added bus service along 287? Chris said this is a lot more dense, we may look back to get this information. Action Item : Chris P to follow up Federal Highway Administration O Federal Transit Administration / Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 6of6 Action Item : Add US 85 Auto Travel Times In summary, Package A generally has better travel times in the northern study area, Package B generally has better travel times in the southern area . Transit is generally competitive with general purpose lane travel times. A question was asked about Two River Parkway East, it will be improved, is this reflected? Karla H. needs to check regionally, constrained plan. 10. Jessica provided Public Involvement update: • Interchange working groups wrapping up, memos available on website. • Open houses mid — June. • Jessica went over latest public comments received to date. 11 . Next meeting May 10th — Land Use. J:\_Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\RCC Meeting_030807.doc • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration / Colorado Department of Transportation ill . ,... O Ca CD r f0fi.: r3 1.+Ci) o a a :. a G, r 'V c.) O CA ) _ • *- o• E o , a; o �. v, E ? E > o ' '' > a "2 E cn �S ° E 0 P > o p o o a rU -a : �4: ' • ° a E ° o E -a > o 0 o v, o E O v o (a. mickT; �! icv a , > U 3 OC , C V c-? aJ L- ° O C _6 a>) C ° cv, N1'.T4l c> y n a4.1 u• . UO U UA O r} O U_ C 3 �_ aVj C UO to Ycow : , s� O a)• 0 ` v� a) m V1 U a) O O U C -02 4- '•' O u 'r_;, Kam' i L CCf O p' U ``- 3 O a O C C /Qa�g t' lti ` C ' d) O Y l= O U .L] c 0 a) EQ) •` t_ G) QC 0 :n o o ax;x. :.:�= O (D cell 0 V Y �c 0 C ` CN4CO 715 4 C ro — cn x a) " -Y a) a) a E w E E. a •.rte . �- co — E 1O —``4 E oca E > ct3 CO ,L•-•• r� •, E ,. �`' i.••• I ii....._ , ,,..., . , kliiIs , 241: op..10 .........7.. _3:..t..t .." > -4.---- ell C IC-L3 vies _0 a) 0 E Q) a) c IL& � f— . 1R � m cn U re'r • E c i a.III g. I a.. 5C�I " t C i fltie- , -0 co >, O L "2 I,(D C, I c� a) D C O g. 0 c c E a co c° a) t'' pf w o o' U o a o a) o �- °' m CC ' a) = D 3' )!ea, p o m v U co U Uu 4-O 0 m t- a m I z O �: _ r L ' t ' 0 Q O .t' v O5 u- }— O 4-;' a) CO U O C Q) O ire e 01.Pk t O F- U • i P la tYA W ,.�; 'n1 W •3:j A tr c, 2 fir. f gil - -17) C5 . 0 2 En Z r---. : c. al C z -a. ti - r ,.... ...;, . --I -6 (13 a) -a CO LY U Y U co 0 D m cn ca o CU o •E w ca 5 E c• 3 a) v 0 N � r _ _ m C7 CL' - O i— _ C9 0 cf) -,, Q 4 C� -, U) EL 0 v °- . ttoi U > o ry{r' = sue_: _$ 1 0 V . Q 4 tY� Y I S _ , o Ili •� N 'Q U N p � N a Z -rj ++ • : a! E z7:rr ^n C) t_ co _ a) Ni V /py- -1-4)(_J. '.< : to 0) C w e O Q �� to cn �a)� C am' O / N_ O` a6 m� I >r 4 `.-• 3_ • t: " {v.. j O cn y.. Y C Y 2 V/ w i 8 ` ` g ,v 8 W cv M : >` s ' ' CO ca a) a) o a) 0 as as 0 o ca 03 cv 00 0 = 0 : J 0 (n • - _ . _ _ 0 ea o i •:, • }If") (1) i. Ertri.( ;fib'.► � W a N .� t ''�y +. Z •c ,•r 31:, y, -Q S.: O U O 1 :s ,obi: ,ro, O E - L tt .:*•*,)X a c.) a „,_,‘ eLlit bia\le• } 3 • - Y.�:� u25 ,C x J r•;t,_ • E c j cs ;stet ••= 7,•:,1 :i. -C ik * ••'f :i � fir..;; :iv �..,y_�;: 0 � `. 9 ! a , 74X75:•._5 te tiii rife. , C V y7: O r• rt' ,- lay Nm!IIIMII4 44. r.: t ^yS 3- Itodst,..t -11 `t-Zii :at,: O ?.irk• _ -5-1:1:-M. V cvsp.is-..z.• an;. '-'•.. . �� .••:;. Lu 4 1::.en, 4.4,:::, -.4: :„..„ ,:..., \I\ \ .-)_ W.. 0:i iiiiii,v ).? Q?.. :::::„:„.4:.. U ,{. Tt X•)Y' Z il fa ?eft..c,„ CO p n • 2 X ` :'- F- $ f• 3.'-' . -, c•... S• Cr U C4 i Q wio zit 5,,' O V d 2 Q : :.f : 1 ... . , c 2 t . _ T _ cC •cn T. O .'�r 0n S —I U o led t�p` s:''• • 7 L N Z .� `� „ r o . p u o �- ti, r IX cn el ` . o Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 Plail Regional Coordination Committee EIS • M30 10, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 3:30-5 PM Page 2 of 2 • Doug Radenmacher — Does N 1-25 EIS tie in with Bob Driggs' rail plan from WY to NM? Discussions on how it can marry up with the long range rail plan. • Doug Radenmacher — Weld County is pretty well set with 85. There is little unincorporated along 85. It will be within municipalities to consider. 287 has much more unincorporated area. • Cliff Davidson — Utah is great model with rail as municipalities had to bid on having a station located in their town with T0D. NFMPO is considering 5 TOD areas in our 2035 planning . NEXT RCC MEETING : July 12, 2007 1 : 30 PM — 3: 30 PM • SW Weld County Services (Combined Meeting with Technical Advisory Committee) • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation 0 . C. u l i co O Q. r_ O 7 z,....-4z,....-4to a _• O �3 I O E O p o (n U u) i. t ,• E �' > o . E S D () E o m g > p' '' �: y 'r� � t- t- � p O O � I?) �- p � E .�.: N U IB O O �' o �l O O E .n t U O E 0 U O O v) > ` .'.' V r�-c a a) o o' ° _° o o r� �' a o ai 3 v �' °' ° o N rT ` � { �y v E E vi c E a r� 1-- i W-1 O T Y•. .6 ► . v`- O O L (6 _ V O p •L 5 6 'C H O cn U p _ O —1:2-- O O N Q o a- •• '`�ry� C N C i_ c .� 7, p U -...-D CCS O O O U c 0 a) E P4 o a) -O v L L L .- E 'r3 W CO b L ,N O rG o a; j ti) Ea. c @ (� v0�- L o Y 1 fll L C 4U E �. (� co L `c c _c E LO E m E :o o o v o f c� -) Z3 L. XI o o -c E t� (v a)in 0 ti O N II2 a) 1O in ri �� O C n al cu m co a. .!FM• lin*: 1 — 4. N O..- I l 1 /74. a. a) ' p 10 c c o is c d .a) cm w c co c .� co o p m Co 4e OO O C ' CL 0 =C D 'C3 0 ca 4 W C C E v-.. C C o _ D E o air) �° U o o c U o U m m U o U r o -c O m ,� t^` 1 O C O c ,_ N -O •C W 0 U .D O J = ;.> Q ` W , �sr k' 6 .. i- (D - U �-- �' CO O lL m Z C O U U ez-� J c U U co k- .6U di o U < .r . InIn � tr$* i,V S• tt, r Ni_ �j i ^r i 2 : - 0 1 - - _ oP x z O ._, .� h Q exs o c p E r L C COQ) .c ca L _ a' p > E co _ c L _ _ _ co 0 c 5 U U e� 0 Q x 0 J -� O S m _ 2 _ o) m 0 CC •-� J O i-- ' C5 0 a UIII , > o S O N M ii U o O r� o Z � N � ' ` o C. w N �- O N O O •a ► CD O = O o 5 0) s, 0 - a 4 C o , •- 0) x a) c w O a n cB w O 0 m 0 C C `s w ti W «s CI s� L co v cn x t EX 0) 2 r'i C.) . C! I I I Z I - , Y Y Y :is -� - ..j ..pJ , 2 2 2 2 O------ [ I • • •T-�- '• _ - _ it _ _ _ _ I N_ v.O = '• fpj.n. .§ N co s g (n, 1 5 v) it (8/)). 1/J +� O ,_ § (al E 2 , V) 0 '5 wl Cr4.t . to C -Q O O a) O ^'7 'I= U O J 1 }V--{� rJ O V N U r.ty.. L iiio1 0 0 c ttet, I— .C 3 - = o o -rte; cc 2 C c 7 = Q1 c ,: cc?) E J •, -2 c > c ' v 3 E • --e5o _ ,r. . N .A C co • Y. :n O ... t CO .Ni U Ca _ C Z. • }ten � _.: 1 CD U ,I.. u . 0 to m to a c I -�., E? N. o --• Q cr. : •t O CI E ETo to ca i c Z T U b 1 E C o 4) 1-1 f a O W © a. D CL ..tr. _J, 4) illa a t '-}".://;. '�-I f U iii • 11 W Q � cco c fi r Y c o j .0 � 0 U m 0 c_co 0 4 c v im. O O O a)F` 0 U �P . .. z.rii? 1 , . • - —$ 1 , 1 1 Ill W _. . r 1 . O RI • ... . . %ry - / Z a•�- � )- - 0 r 0.1 C fth Est. IF% I C a1 r t. . .: a.) COJ ) oa O Cr -ENQ : `S : s cr las V N O t a) a) �` t=- O U• O Z -OO Q cc . c .c a5 a, 0) E a W ca ch ��; a) " cv ca a) 4) = a C5 a . s '.� �7V�"f i1 NORTH 125 MeetingI Minutes C ., EIS t Technical Advisory Committee sue} Regional Coordination Committee July 12, 2007 information, cooperation. transportation. 1 :30 PM to 3: 00 PM Page 2 of 4 • Gina M. said we do this in compliance with 1990 CM. We need to make sure that it won't exceed established NAAQS conformity. Transportation projects need to go through analysis to make sure they are in conformity. We look at mobile sources. Projects must come from a conforming plan and must be in the STiP. The ROD needs to be fundable and come from conforming plan and TIP. if it is in the plan, FHWA may still sign it, as long as it will be included in TIP. • Conformity requires that the project cannot contribute to CO and PKo, no new localized hot spots. • Plan and TIP must be consistent with omissions budget in SIP. We do analysis with APCD and EPA. 6. Jill Schlaefer discussed trends more than specific data. Jill pointed out attainment areas, NAAQS, measured by matter in the atmosphere, plus MSATS. EAC for ozone covers most of front range counties. Ozone backs up against the mountains. Ozone is created by a variety of chemicals, and then combined with sun, become ozone. 7. CO has been declining with time. This is due to emission controls. For PM, owe look at emissions by engines. Airborne dust is ten times the emissions • generated by engine PM10 , but engine PM,() is more dangerous. 8. NO), (many oxides), plus VOC's are primary concerns generated by engine exhaust. Powerplants and other industrial things cause it. Major concern is in Larimer and Weld counties, which are in EAC areas. Increased VMT in 2030 is what is evaluated for air quality. • We are also looking at a change in the economy. Agricultural activities generate pollutants, but agricultural land is being developed. Engines will increase pollutants. We are already at the edge of non-attainment for ozone. The ozone threshold may be changed or lowered . With proposed change, it would definitely be in non- attainment. 9. Other problems are nitrogen near Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), which is doing environmental damage. ■ Six toxins have been analyzed in MSAT's. These MSAT's will go down between now and 2020 due to emission controls. 10. There has been an eighty percent increase (49M) in VMT over 2001 on North 1-25. New proposal could add 40 to 60 buses. Rail makes an incremental difference in system-wide VMT. 11 . Summary of results: • 2001 - 28M VMT daily — Looked at interim year and 2030. Emissions are affected by not only VMT but speed as well . Increased speed increases emissions. ForIornl Friahwm) 4r1minictrnfinn • Forlorn, Trnncit A elm iv,ictvntins, ■ reanvn-1n NORTH 1-25 Meeting Minutes ' ; ' Technical Advisory Committee EIS • Regional Coordination Committee • July 12, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 :30 PM to 3: 00 PM Page 4 of 4 • What happens when we end up in non-compliance? That is to be determined, but transportation funding may be at risk. • New ozone standard has been proposed , which may be primary for secondary standard. This may be finalized in October, then non-attainment would be official. SIP's would be modified to address this, i.e. more control measures , such as vapor recovery and VOC's from paint. • Do they limit fueling times? Lisa S. does not know. They need to look at new list of control measures. • Bil Haas asked what is short-term implication of non-attainment. Lisa S. not sure what it means for projects like this. Gina M. said Denver was non-attainment for many years. The analysis does not change, but SIP commits the region to control measures. If those do not work, transportation funds could be at risk. This happed in Atlanta, GA. EPA and CDPHE would work together. • Brad Beckham said emissions budget would be tightened and harder to meet conformity. Many projects may not be included in the plan . The budget is related to standard, which becomes a difficult policy type of dilemma. • Bill Haas had comments about EAC. He said this approach is novel . There are about a half-dozen around the country. If EAC were not in place, we would have had non- attainment a while ago. • Jason Longsdorf (CCD) looked at tables, and Denver, CO exceeds emissions budget for CO. NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday - September 13, 2007 i Time: To Be Determined SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Adminictratinn • Fadvral Transit 4rhninictratinn • en1nrnrin l)onnrtmont nfTrnnvnnrtntinnr • . . . o r — `L 4 ` E IE 0 0cil > E ° c00 ti.Ii° •U o c is vo °c U L a) a), O o 0 �` • -- O so C N O cn L 0 a) (II C ! n (t5 U a) Z iv L E a� E o n o ro c _E o E E c m ® o . . v a> , . c m o• o c v .i o L c E E 0 ` c • (d L ro ro d N to L E c o U • .c as c o c cn ca �::, cq L c c U U O 4i (� O ,cn > •c V> > E C� • S. . fz'' :.>c a) > s 1 L a) Iii to ik m w•c•c-5) i2 c = i . ~ ≥ a) n•- U cu c 43 Q • ki w. ► I - i t G. ,t-,.....,r4 1 CD CD E c :I, o O 1- O O Q ° O c ° W 0 U ,.._ 4 ` O oCl = D O O ° U CO f— I-- U o I-•- cn F- w C C �' U U U o U TB COt l o CC C E CC N U = O U I— Q `':, U tit•r- Fri:: .._ [i ' �� r• r 1 * v -• .° W I 4.- 2 .,Ha O i , U Ztii o C • Q aXi r... m Z .. Coo to ° Ti.,t . ) p E cn -O a> >, o) c o) > o in o o a> >, i L... a, -3 s... m O .,... al = G Ll CD _C a) .a O td CO CO O Q C O . - - tx Q o • 4 o • � 0 � 2tri V O p '-- �_ OL. CV o Z a 0? C O d a M . 1 O a7oi a) c c C C cn C c� a a> O) as L v) N L 4? c O E Y U - ro cot _c o > C >t O ,• <;`: U N E a) a) > j O a > 7 't7 E C .a 0 Q> 12 en . W M % U = O O D a) O) ca CO cu CO o o 'L O a (13 U E L .C O_ - 1 Ce U r `) -� 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z 0 a. , a. a. a_ d a. CL O_ C� CY co (n to wen U) r'T±4 I " fI`.9MR i� a 'F 4 pst 4` I 51;..! YA � ! . lcL • CDOT Region 4 nt7 CDOT R-4 Loveland North I-25 Front Range EIS 2207 East Highway 402 TAC Meeting Loveland, CO 80537 February 12, 2004 (970) 667-4670 2:00 PM MEETING MINUTES MEETING TYPE: Technical Advisory Group MEETING DATE: February 12, 2004 MEETING LOCATION: CDOT R-4 ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION : ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION : Dan Dennison Mead Mark Peterson Larimer County Rod Wensing Windsor Chants Brockman Windsor John Franklin Johnstown Beth Chase CDOT Deck Leffler Frederick David Klockeman Loveland Dave Lindsay TST/Firestone Dennis Wagner Windsor Mark Jackson City of Ft. Collins Trent Marshall Northglenn Jeanne Shreve Adams County Michelle Kayln Adams County Larry Ketcham Town of Milliken Jim Sidebottom City of Ft. Lupton Gene Putnam City of Thornton Vicky McLane NFRMPO Frank Hempen Jr. Weld County Public Works Dave Downing City of Westminster Tom Anzia FHU Kim Podnblik PRACO Bob Felsburg FHU Gina McAfee Carter-Burgess Holly Miller FHU PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Holly Miller SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION : Introductions and Welcome 1 . Bob G. — Unfortunate to report that there has been another fatality along 1-25. Reiterating the importance of this effort. Thanks for participating, two lead agencies Jean Wallace with FHWA, John Dow with FTA. Bob read CD0T's environmental ethic. The NEPA process helps with good decision making. • Power Point Presentation J:\03225\TACWIEETING MINUTES\TAC021204.doc T• y - z p/ !d°filC• `�• ) 5�?y �(�'�J��y�i:. _ (•}:y:��[ ,.�f(,j({��,(, �. • �r��y�•" 4 ' jA 1�,; �'• y� - ., i , {.iY 1. -. ` z.CY 'Q .f �+ ^,.�•=t1 1 ?I��i? l J��Y.Z.{�/.1�/E :Si Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2004 Page 3 ■ Why is Diagonal Included? To include the BN rail from Longmont to Boulder. • What is the objective of the eastern boundary? To include the UP rail line and Highway 85 ■ Would like to see transit down Highway 85. • TAFS had a large study area and it was criticized for being too large to generate accurate forecasts. This effort will include modeling efforts that combine the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range. a. Modeling b. Other evaluation tools c. TDF group formed d. 2 national experts e. Effort up front f. MPO land use model being developed ■ North boundary terminus may change with freight movement ■ Goals & Objectives a. Don't forget about movement to the north b. Safety comes first c. Mobility NOT just faster, should have improved safety d. Mix of vehicles on 85 and number of intersection controlled and uncontrolled more intersections e. Modes f. Include freight movement considerations g . ITS, auxiliary lanes h . Consider eastern bypass • Make history board studies available • Move meeting to Southwest Weld County Service Complex? • Use electronic format — reduce amount of paper • Would EIS interfere with other improvements? a. Safety improvements can be made Next Meeting TAC Meeting 2nd Thursday of the Month March 11 , 2004 Location to be determined S J:\032251TACWIEETING MINUTES\TAC021204.doc 42-. ., D , . .r. b I N a � • F�, C) La I or- h ar r 7 3 4., ,. q--- .,.: .s. t (110) \ig :1) a N - 1(q NW\ I , I .1.', % rabl 0 .f d N Na I n ', ,Noe Q climb! Ukk el t 'dr i A18 111 rce-i C) y�Lct -' a 1 it.It km:, _,_ FVVV Tj ifre'tie O I. FNa Q IA 6.4 k t.,.. *it dz , 0 .„, (., ,. ,4., ii,...„- >4 • •il 11 t.:: r q 9oa • : , le9 t% • k tz .5044 d es I � Z hi cN North 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES: Technical Advisory Committee March 11, 2004 page 2 • 9 . Chris mentioned we want to use existing data to be cost effective. 10. A comment was made that if you use household data survey belonging to one jurisdiction it cannot be extrapolated for the entire region. We will also supplement with DRCOG Travel Behavior Inventory data. 11 . There was a suggestion to make graphics larger. 12 . A comment was made that people divert at Platteville onto Highway 60 and avoid traffic on US 85 in Greeley. There has been a great increase in traffic since Two Rivers Parkway was built. 13 . Why are you going from vehicle to person trips? Is needed based on the available information in the regional travel models. 14 . Will you use Traffic Analysis (TAZ's) Zones as basis? The answer is yes. Interregional trips are based on a conglomeration of TAZ's . 15. Dave Martinez asked if the Technical Forecasting Working Group agreed with the proposed methodology for this travel demand forecasting. Chris answered "yes". 16 . Dave Krutsinger (who participates in the TFWG) said this process is probably the • most suited for this project unless we want to wait a couple of years. 17. What do the experts bring to the team? They are also knowledgeable about FTA regulations . They have devoted their careers to developing regional travel models. They have experience at combining regional travel models. 18 . Bob Felsburg addressed a question to people who aren't modelers but use the outcome. What is it about the output is most useful to you? . • Someone said that some models don't take into account localized access . We should send it to people in local jurisdiction to QC. The person from the local government has a lot of knowledge for modeling. Chris said this is good advice, we will plan on this. • Someone asked if this approach precluded use of a new household travel survey. The NFRMPO completed a survey in 3 months. This was done by ETC out of Kansas but it's from 2002. Bob asked what it cost? It cost $ 120,000, Vicky from NFRMPO felt its confidence level was high . • We should get traffic count data on other routes (parallel routes) we need to take account impact of our project on these routes. • Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig has done a study, which had recent traffic counts that • should be included . . Federal Highway Administration i Federal Transit Administration i Colorado Department of Transportation North I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES: Technical Advisory Committee March 11 , 2004 page 4 • 28. The NFR is lacking any institutional structure to address transit in the region. We need institutional structure for all transportation needs . 29 . There is no RTD. There are a multitude of CDOT organizations in this region. We need more agencies to help meet the jurisdictional transportation need. 30. How is the fiscal reality incorporated into this? Gina said funding availability will be included in the evaluation criteria . The Record of Decision must show that it is fundable, including a financing plan. 31 . A question was asked if we would look at the cost of rail and what little impact it actually has. No one is asking if rail would actually be used, we need to ask this. • Gina said this will be addressed . We will ask: How much will transit cost? What is capital cost? What is ridership? 32 . A question was raised about land use around interchanges . Will we look at future allowable development at interchanges? • Gina said the model will output what future traffic volumes will be at interchanges but we will not be doing traffic impact analysis at each interchange. • • We should look at access as it relates to intersections. 33 . Someone said there is an adopted access plan for US 34. 34 . There was a question raised about, if the ROD will indicate what people have wanted all along. Gina said the NEPA process does not make everyone happy. Hopefully people will understand how their input is used. Gina explained how we track comments and how we respond . 35. Will you validate comments comparing vocal minorities to general populace? • Gina said we won't just do public meetings, we try to do outreach at numerous venues to reach all segments of populace. 36 . Bob Felsburg asked if safety was an issue? Everyone assumed it was. 37 . We need to consider the frontage road system, how it is being used . 38. We need to also consider nearby parallel roads. 39 . We need to look at interchange upgrades from safety standpoint. 40. Limit additional interchanges and upgrade existing interchanges. • 41 . Roads coming into 1-25 need to be efficient. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration a Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 • EIS 1,111 MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Meeting April 8, 2004 2of5 Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: April 8, 2004 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe MEETING PURPOSE: Monthly Project Update & Review MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Objectives: 1 . Travel Demand Forecasting Update o Gina — Traffic counts taken in February o Discussion continues about preparing a survey o April 21st is the next Travel Forecasting Group meeting o Provided copies of Existing Commuter Rail Systems Report o Tom — Schedule • General 6 month schedule • Meeting will be held monthly at SW Weld for at least the next year 2. Purpose and Need - Does the group have thoughts on this draft Purpose and Need? o Modal Alternatives and interrelationships important o Vicky M. thought Karla H . had said at a recent meeting that the only reason we cover such a distance east and west is for rail alternatives o Bob F. — Maybe we should add a strong focus to 125 in the project description o Public commentary will be addressed in the document o Are there current plans for improving aging infrastructure? Stan E. said he didn't recall any improvement in the next 6 years included o SH 52 - SH 66 improvements should be included in the no action alternative o EIS will not hold up the SH52 - SH66 process — lack of funding is holding it up o Focus appears to be north are we going to look south of SH 7 too? o We are discussing our role south of S.H. 7 with EOS and how the different corridor studies will interact • G yr tat.O ■ . 0 ( �` E o �� a O O ,0 O c cc 'It o U 3", D L o n o o e; Q E O o (r. 0' C O 0) • E in Cn ` E C E cri U `- E i N O O N l.--4 0 CU O O o E c O N, a j -a U U I--4 F�+--� o 0 O g j O O E r -Q c� O'� • o g E O iO t I c UJ OVA a) 4- { O �.c I- U U, U OO g C @I a) c c , c ►� c r c c�a 1 '" - C (4 `a 0 E co a ca (4 Ti O 2 O O U c Y 0 L I Li E P 2 n Ca 2 z E 2 -J HI > O . cn; Y 2, a O) L L a) L a) ' ■ O C C E C U L C 1 N C O) N (a (a (13 a L in Ll co c 0) ■, Q) c c c c V o N O O u L) Ca O O 4) O_ co o c 'C O Y >' c C U w Isi -C U c �°C.. Si cjm o_ 1 a _>-„ mc a n.c> j �„ c — c i_l a U H H CI 2 < 0 I- 0 E W 9 Z Z 1 Z ■ . t` Q0 X O) �o E >O C C 'c c RI G) O - C C -O C C C Q CO � a) d L = C O co C O C i O > c M) 0 O ca U a) 0 O U 3 6 0 c v > i.; 4- 5 L W C� CJ 0 O O u' '`_ E E m L- v- E C o c E o -a o 0 o E R. o o _ .c 0 o D W H 0 H < 0 -) m Z m 0 0 0 Q W C O LL! U W cc = G. o co E Z c Ca 2 C 'q. ca 0 — W cn Q L U) co O .Y as CO C v) 3 2 o oC N a N Z c Y _o ° 0 0 o ()) 2 r o >>o a) Y _ O cc m U? 0 - UN �� 44-. O 7 > .c •• c >• Y a) t _� ` Q c /� .2 cu U L c U > O (a (a cUZfw— Q V� ef- 0 Z 0 0 -, H > O co Y m -o) NORTH 2• te:%!-:17: 5 1 i- MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: May 13, 2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: SEE SIGN IN SHEET PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Self Introductions I) Purpose and Need Review — Gina McAfee The following comments were made on the May 10, 2004 version of the Purpose and Need document: o Add a description of Western Transportation Trade o Add Weld County Mini Bus info to modal alternative section o Under Project Purpose change Denver to Denver Metropolitan Area o Vicky M . asked if we need to mention air quality in the "needs" section? • Jean W. responded that our needs should be transportation related not air quality, but goals will reflect air quality issues o Vicky M. stated that the area is NOT locally referred to as the North Forty and asked that we take that reference out of the document 2) Public Input Summary - Kim Podobnik Kim provided HIRSYS summary report for review by the TAC. The following comments were made on the summary report: o The term sprawl is negative and does not require the word anti with it. The summary report text will be changed to reflect this comment. o Kim P. stated that she would ask Matt to provide an outline of the guidelines used to categorize comments at next meeting o In the chart, move pro-highway and anti-highway next to each other for a better comparison. o We will have a two-page summary of the categories for the open houses in June. On the TAC Agenda , please change the July 1st open house location on the agenda to Ft. Collins. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1MEETTNG MINUTESITAC - 051304.doc NORTH 1 -2 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 13, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Attachments: Meeting Sign In Sheet Bus Transit Technologies — Dated 5/13/04 Public Comment Report from HIRSYS — dated 5/6/04 Action Items: o Matt to provide guidelines for Public Comments o Add Ft. Collins Transit Plan to Transit Alignments drawings Next Meeting: June 10, 2004 2:00 pm SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TACIMEETING MINUTESITAC - 051304.doc • pi" �'areci :y "( L. .,;_h-, rA s O. Y1s4 V, ' 4u Q r' ni„_i a 1 .1 it 0 0 O g ,4- I._ ti ea cli C- rn co cr C- CT) m r--. C• 4 C o co Lc.) Ln o� r� Ln I --- O LC) CD O Q C" N CO Lf') N Clilt .D CD O COla I CT) OONO ct Ct..�O CO N C• O Ct N N CO O M O M O a M O O C7cm) V • co op co C3) co co C7) C7) CO Z Lici 0 4 •L O CO I C vAj c a N......... N4 Cam ' C cn U -D O CD •C v C C m o ....Ha)` 0_ lid O` = C a) oc j C9 oO ii J GL c CD �- ❑C m c O 0Lrz U E O p LL O ,� Q c� o -' z 0 C� U U `- U C.., izc 0 k. U Cei h tO c e cn L W C c c ca -- •— _ O O E co C CIJca 0, O 0.cm N Y Cll L o J -d O coo CD p C� Ctf O N O w 'J O CC N a O O- -C=1 E~ Cr Lo.Cr C L-- (CS 0J CC7 •> C U > • o c a U f'n cc� a 5 p E U En �n N p N cc N M 85 C---1 O U ca M p z Q o , NORTH 125 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee June 10, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Heavy Rail does not provide improvement over commuter rail — technology not appropriate for this corridor. By electrifying and using commuter you will get a better system. The group discussed dropping all heavy rail alternatives. They suggested screening this technology. High Speed Rail (79 -125 MPH) requires long distanced between stops - 10 miles between stops . Personal Rapid Transit will be added to the list of alternatives but will be screened because of its impracticability. TAC asked if magnetic (IVHS) will be looked at. It would not likely pass practicability. It is an innovative technology being developed in San Diego. 4. Public Involvement Kim P. provided an update on the newsletter, activities planned and done to date, and what public meetings are coming up in June and early July. Attachments: Agenda Draft Evaluation Criteria Matrix — 5/27/04 Draft Purpose and Need — 6/8/04 Draft Project Goals on Power Point Slide — 6/10/04 Level One Alternatives Screening — 6/10/04 TAC Member Directory — 6/9/04 Action Items: Send CCD a copy of the May meeting minutes Bring copies of Transit Map for TAC Send Wendi Palmer, Town of Erie Notebook Send Michele Kayen packet from May TAC meeting Next Meeting: July 8, 2004 1 :30 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation g y P P J:103225105. TAO2004 thru 200612004 MEETING MINUTESIWORD DOCUMENTSITAC-061004.doc Id (i) • In ni H 6 y a) o Q.L. U 6• O E o E Vi Q o g o cn 00 UU Z3 11 L- t V cz W C U) -c U) V z o o c ci L O a, z e ti O 1- 4 lis :4 o c a , (. o CD v 0 CO C Ctl It L a v b - NI: o b O U U) up c > so CD v a c O >, >, M c — c U all CO U C c �-• U) •'—' 0 U) > co .0 Cn 0 " j O 00 O DO < t Y R 'or 4.1 `� _ E W U) U —. " O (� 0 LL o Q Q) 2 ca a w t4 u it c o m C Q o ff o U -- ."" COL I - o c ti H U U U 0 —� 0 �- 0 0 U ~ w 11:3 CI a) fkb k E Q o E _ - e 0 O N L' c ccn c c O L c o ch o .L- a co o o °.+ a) c U—) O) c > U) co U) N Ni. o • Q c) in U) Q W Y Y e Q) (n J co• CO C c Q) > `� a i _ T3 LO E U f o .E a> a� Q CO 2 Y (0 co — c c (o .o > ca ', L . Z 0 k-,--1 c cc5 CAS N a�i p CO p O Z 0 co _Ic . F- - CL NORTH I-2 • EIS Meeting Minutes information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: July 8, 2004 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Complex ATTENDEES: Adams County: Michele Kayen, Jeanne Shrene Broomfield : Tonya Haas City of Loveland: Dave Klockeman City of Thornton : Gene Putnam Town of Frederick: Richard Leffler Town of Mead : Dan Dennison Town of Erie: Gary Behlen City of Fort Collins : Mark Jackson City of Fort Lupton : Jim Sidebottom City of Greeley: William Andrews DRCOG: Jennifer Edwards NFRMPO: Vicky McLane RTD: David Kutsinger CDOT: Stan Elmquist C&B: Zafar Alikhan, Gina McAfee • PREPARER: Cartereurgess Gina McAfee COPIES: TAC members, Bob Felsburg , Dave Beckhouse, Jean Wallace, Holly Miller, Becky Noe, Craig Gaskill, C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Tom welcomed everyone. The majority of our time is to follow up on the No-Action Alternative and project goals. 2. Any comments on the June minutes? No. 3. The upcoming schedule will include monthly TAC meetings, bi-monthly RCC meetings, development of Level 2 alternatives and screening of those, two rounds of public meetings (one in the fall and the second one in January 2005). 4. Level 1 screening follow-up: in response to a TAC comment, we evaluated PAT and then recommended that it would be dropped. For heavy rail, we have not carried it forward. For high-speed rail, we will develop an alternative to present to the public at the fall meeting. Commuter rail includes DMUs and traditional locomotive. We should obtain information from Tri-Rail on their side-by-side comparison. We should also have written material about the different technologies. i Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 125 •• EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. - --- Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 8, 2004 3of5 SH 7 (1-25 east to south of 164th Avenue) will be widened to two lanes each direction with left- and right-turn lanes — by June 30, 2005 (will be open that date). Fort Collins has a ballot issue that includes some capital projects. When the list gets finalized, Mark will send it to us. Improving Colorado Boulevard from the south county line to north of 52 is on Weld County's list. Weld County is also doing SH 7. 9. Regarding the travel forecasting effort, we are collecting information from the census regarding work travel patterns. We also are collecting information from the NFR household survey and COG's roadside survey. We will present this at one of the next two TAC meetings. 10. Project goals: We have received comments from the committees and agencies about goals. There were several goals that seemed like statements of purpose and need instead, so we reworded those. The remaining • "additional" goals are now recommended. The term "additional" is confusing to people — these are additional to the purpose and need and not additional to other goals we had considered earlier. We should not call purpose and need "goals." We should modify the final goal to read: "Protect the quality of life of the citizens of Colorado." The goals are, in essence, tiebreakers, which can be used to help select a Preferred Alternative. How do we measure quality of life? There is a lot in the summary of comments about quality of life. We also will solicit input at the small group meetings and at the fall public meeting about this. Why do we even have project goals? The first two seem to be evaluation criteria, and the third is too nebulous. Do we need project goals? If we do not have an environmental-related goal, it may be harder to justify to one of the federal resource agencies why we cannot impact a resource that is protected by another federal resource agency. FTA more typically includes project goals in their documents. Should this be project vision instead? Or should we roll these into a project mission statement and then follow this with the statement of purpose and need? 11 . We need to provide the TAC with the most current purpose and need statement. 12. Where does the word "practicability" come from? It is in the Clean Water Act. 13. What does "level of safety service" mean? 14. We should have a definition of terms when we use these words — and have a definition of technology terms too • (like BRT). Federal Highway Administration o► Federal Transit Administration / Colorado Department of Transportation I.:, 0 ri•:::. . rl t--t Co o vy Z = %.,) o 1:3 00 cLi Q -tom Q) Z co 6 O U E O I ;. ?cci (� E 0 .z- E `o, ti , • C E V N� W L. O_ Q O O Q O wJ o • 444c LLI sl.O -� I.. C� N h p Q Cb — -o TIS a >. C E L a C O -o a c +O-' o ? O E-4 i--' 0 O Cll O O — C O _O C O �-- CJ O CS > — •— O sr o 0 C m -= m o) --. v n E w` � o c Cl) t Ctl U U `O 4--- 0 ` O 00 > t O v) O 1-1-3) -Uc -co O t E -a c o o 4- 4- 4- Z C 4_ o o CD Ca = w U o 0 0 O 0 4-- C a p CC O Q CO E.-3 U U U V U I-- O I—O o O izt U • b o NC CIO o IZZI - e a4 C) C) 18 - 9 ibgam?...t. C: ir.)iHN tll •E -.. U O Q� ell v) U E a) O (O EE C_ O a) ` C ' > a CO CO Li C L_ N 0) (� `v •C E Lint O — 'V O Q) CI vJ CO CO D 4- C 15 >- C CIDo CC L = cc E O m U co O O if co roc Q O _ ?- CC3 O _c 0 1 g .:1- C.-D co =_ op tcy) �[ O ' '- a -- ON _c CO I. C -o 0 .Y C C a C n v v — ) Q C •- co a) O O > O C) 0 O Uo U ~ co Z = CO f C_ p� Cr I. [ . .• 0 4O ( ) — co ,flUTi a co ceiS O N O a 0 E Cu ._ g o (O _ 0 0 �, o v C a) o 0 J11 C .V ci j t: 0 4-1 o 64* C g K.tl R, q * o 11 R3 O i.e._ L. CU o a v 0 C 0 L. ti ti •ti C r C cp D J� V Q }J �) C 0 C a tl c �, o 0 1— E Q 1— o ,V b .R3 0 = r m CD O I-- c 0 U �� IR. LL- LL O 0 0 • 8I c O E e C o F\v \--- C.) s . b o N 3 U (NO I ICX +-4-. 0 113 o L.\*1/4--- 4, N. rift 17 - E e a 7) o ..... +� ? v c o a co a� ca a) a3 c o d z Q Q (13 -ca co a o E q, 0Q � � cuo CC C a5 _0_ a � re Q E 0 c E C 0 co OC w L) - 03 1 - _ — — \), CO -7 CD I-- ?"_ c o LL- Y C CC) cN NORTH 125 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee August 12, 2004 Page 2 of 6 (Since this meeting, FHWA and FTA have agreed that if FasTracks passes the US 36 corridor and the North Metro corridor can be included in the No Action alternative . ) • The figure and list of No Action improvements handed out only reflect improvements included in the no action network model. Other short-term improvements such as the median barrier safety project along 1-25 are included in the overall no action definition but are not included on this list. • Chris P. provided an update on efforts being conducted on the No Action network. 5. Level 2 Alternatives Development and Screening Process • Step 1 is to provide more information on alternatives to the public in October. • Some of the level 2 alternatives will be considered stand alone and some complementary. Stand alone alternatives are those that are qualitatively identified as adequately addressing the study's Purpose and Need. • Beyond 50-year horizon planning efforts are being discussed with FHWA. This could help with looking at the bigger picture. • A reasonable range of alternatives will be developed and screened. The team will solicit public input in February on the preliminary alternatives screening results. Action Items: • • Add SH 7 improvement between 1-25 and 164th Avenue to map and list • Update Adams County projects • Add Denver to the Quebec improvements identified as Commerce City. Next Meeting: September 9, 2004 1 :30 PM SW Weld County Services Complex• Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAO2004 thru 200612004 MEETING MINUTESl08-12-041TAC-081204.doc rill r IC4 N W E tH 0 0 O Co -4e;c . . a) E �J C O O a) U) > Q l + 3 E = (n C Cl) 0 c c'� O E oCl) a) > U o oti 6 x U) C O O .C E O a O v, O C Q S. > C O ' o O C -t O' E , c Le O 0 (I) o .� 0 t Cl) 0 6 a) c.)� O a) E o a 0 O (I) 4-- \ (+- a) co > ci -Y co wJ -6 o 0 O c o E 0, o r3 = O a .� O t Q > a� 3 .r� a)c J v`,a a3 c (15 ci 3 — O uct g c •v at c a o v - 4-f t�` - o 4.4 r� c a) 0 O o c Y >, (z > O L— Lr 0 0 p ca _c a) C a) t C = 0 O caU - (O �— CJ F a) aJ o F o .� o (>13 0 Eco o E l ELLB � w .O E E _t Y o o� -o El E > --) Z Y o n h 1. 0 ti:: N V a. c o . , o 1 ••y' c0 0 c3 O v S C Qo LT V . 'ZS .y a C _ m O C to a) C L O • • E 0 C o C - m -0 cn o) w 0 ° a -c, ) o c a) > U .- a) a. N �' CI ry .o -3 O Co i cn w o o LL !i o cn d c cts o J C (+_ U o O LL w 4-o o o Z CO 0- o 0 0 U a O (t o -O c c 0 E co a c O c3 2 CC -O H o -.H ., ° a� 0 0 — 10 0 o 0 0 - 0 � 0 a cC H && G ED H E- U Q H a f H f— v 0 z f-O H -t LI0• Ca w w w w c c c c c c ct. cp Z a) a) a) a) a) 0 a) l. (24 CD ICE Q. a. 4 0.. 0 � Q. a E - o Eto O 0 U N Z, a L O ,a -O C = c c co - Mc L v 0 O> O 3 (q O_ a a) O >, a)C _V — 2 L Q) C 0 o Q N C C c� E 1 3 S ca O O +' a) v- J 0) a > G ct3 a) co O O O Y `_, _O i -j C (0 Q O O) O >, co 1 all a) 0 _ all _ in LO O E c = C C c * _ > -- n C (�S >' — -C N 0 Z O -C O L 0 (t) (3 •-(-2 ct co (o .S-2, co 2 ,c v_ a) O N en 0 -) 0- H Ll_ -� 2 2 2 -J 0 0 0 H � > ° z Y 41 s r, itn � rH O O O E y Z• °• , 0 o E o > c . c a) o, y O -n o E . E Q y o a) a E � . Q g a) *a L. -o C @ .) C O 03 to ci) �j L O CD ' +_ .- _B Q� p W C Zr . 1-4 a in Q ci o C m n m m q C cA b o O CO b o 0 .a a w = c a Q w _O c p .� CO Q H Z 7 -4 '11 .ti EL--; -a a L. (1) LO = c 0 L O ' o a) a) o p cn o 0 a) o Ili: m O COm ` T: o o E.- E-- Q H E _� c � �`) � p � O O � O E < b 0 o a3 F- Cu 0 0 cm Q t— H O U OC O O U w U U w c c o j a w � w .4-Z4 w w 44 '4 . ta Z 0 CD a) CD � 0 0 0 0 a) i i i i . i 4. i tq Cr a a. Q. a 0_ Q. Q. Q Q. Q. E ' E O a c. NJ U E N 0 O 'd' 0)I _ a) a) C L- o Sr �- E U L co o -0 N .- a Y a cU as co a) m C D E Y — , •_ a) c c Q) N O O) c13 o E .2 2 a) L a) cu c?) 0 2 -o M HQ Z 5 Z 0 1 O d 0 m ft o NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee September 9, 2004 Page 2 of 8 ■ As part of another project now under construction, the "Downtown Express Lanes", the existing reversible bus/HOV lanes, are being converted to a HOT lane operation ■ Since the HOT (and bus/HOV) lanes operate like a pipeline, the traffic capacity constraints at their south end near 20th Street are a significant operational problem • Potential solutions include reconfiguration of the ramps at the Speer Blvd interchange, constructing a new collector-distributor (C-D) road system, a tunnel from southbound (SB) I-25 to SB Speer, a flyover ramp from SB 1-25 to a C-D road to a signal on Speer, and extending the HOT lanes south to 6th Avenue ■ No studies have considered any changes from the existing 2-lane reversible operation, although the current 50-50 directional split disallows further extension of the reversible concept ■ The issues of how buses can make return PM trips to Boulder on US 36, or SB I- 25 north of Speer during the PM have been raised, but not yet addressed • How the cumulative effects of the potential multiple bus/HOV streams of traffic from North 1-25, US 36, 1-70 East, and 1-76 (a "Perfect Storm" analogy) will likely have to be addressed by top level agency staff 4. Summary of Public Comments Received ■ Kim Podobnik distributed and briefly summarized the over-400 comments received at 18 small group meetings, six special events, and four public meetings held since July ■ The handout cuts off some of the longer comments, and that will be fixed. • More specific categorization of comments was requested. That will be done and the results posted on the project website. 5. Stakeholder Interviews — Congestion Management Alternative • Julie Morrison distributed and briefly summarized the interviews that she and Zafar Alikan conducted with representatives from four cities, two counties, and the NFR MPO. • TAC members requested that Thornton, Adams County, and RTD in Denver also be interviewed • Julie also distributed a 2-page draft outline of the Congestion Management Alternative's purpose, role in the EIS, and strategies under consideration; and requested review and comments on it from the TAC 6. Level 2A Analysis process • Tom Anzia briefly informed the TAC that validation of the travel model, highway and transit projections, will delay the near-term project schedule by 2-4 weeks • Results of the "Off-Model" 2A analyses, with recommended screening out of alternatives using data on Purpose & Need , Environment, and Practicability, will be presented for Transit at the next TAC meeting. Highway recommendations will be • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\032251TACIMEETING MINUTES111-18-041 TAC-11180-!.doc NORTH 1-25 J''C EIS j' MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : December 9, 2004 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on November Meeting Minutes • No comments on the November minutes 111 3. Travel Time Surveys • Holly M . presented the AM and PM peak hour travel speeds . • End points for the various highways studied will be added to the maps. • Questions to be researched : how can the segment speeds shown that are all below the posted speed limits be reconciled with public comments received that speeds are now too high and sped limits should be lowered? This question would be more appropriately addressed through a speed study. ■ Are the times shown affected by construction zones on the roads during the survey? • Why is US 85 shown as only 52-54 MPH when the speed limit is 65? The speed shown is the average travel speed over the entire corridor. • Will 20-year predicted future speeds be provided? (Yes) 4. Existing Interchange Operation • Members were asked to review and comment within the next month on traffic counts for all of the movements at 18 interchanges along 1-25. • The daily counts were taken over a 2-week period in September 2004 . 5. Highway Design Criteria ■ Holly M. called attention to the 3-page table in the meeting package and said that after the meeting Michelle S. could answer any questions members might have. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TACt2004 thru 200612004 MEETING MINUTES112-09-04I TAC-120904,doc NORTH 1-25 rt' .c t;?? ire-�� n EIS ,.., . • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 9, 2004 Page 3 of 8 intermediate station , which may serve fewer riders. We might run one HSR alternative through the model to validate assumptions made in Level 2A. • There was consensus that Alternative BRT A (along US 287) should be advanced. • If our ultimate purpose in transit alternatives screening is to identify one rail alternative to advance, we should retain Alternative F, with a spur line from Milliken to Greeley. Building that may be less problematic than Alts. C, D , and E along I- 25. Suggest that Alternative CR "F" replace D or E, which are much more similar. • Much more information on why alternatives are or are not recommended to be advanced needs to be provided . Response: We will produce a document with comments for each rating and will post it on the internal project website. Many of today's concerns will be revisited when complementary elements are considered in Level 3 screening. 7. 1-25 Interchange Planning Process • Todd Frisbie and Tom Anzia presented the proposed planning process. • There are four criteria to consider where new interchanges on 1-25 might be proposed: (1 ) AASHTO minimum spacing — one mile for segments classified as urban , two miles for rural; (2) adjacent to a congested interchange; (3) serve significant future population and employment projections; and (4) connect to S regionally significant roadways. • How the existing urban/rural classifications might be changed will be researched. • Two scenarios are being developed that will bracket the potential interchange plan and its effects on 1-25: Accessibility and Mobility. • Running the travel demand model will require assumptions, so both scenarios will be run to identify traffic issues that are sensitive to new interchange locations . • This process will be driven by policy decisions since it affects both regional and local issues. Next Meeting: January 13, 2005 1 :30 to 3:30 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex SFederal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation .1:W3225105. TAC12004 Ihru 200612004 MEETING MINUTES112-09-041TAC-120904.doc N (1)• �+ Et, z i_J w O o E o O U . F L U ++ (U o E E D cn c c N co co c Q C. O O = a) >1 N U Ol O O �; • i ,n C O O a C CT O U L OU OUO O O O Cl o 0 a •o o •v a) v t vi 0 via)a) �� v o cll EL , o O O c V E 3 C) co o ci . CO & U .C O U E a O o °; C 6 �_ c a Q - 49' c -o @ N U © I -§ .U I {u'' 02 -- © © O Ci TD iCC (31 crA C -0 I.E.a` CO 0 c o v ca i` 0 D, co a. O co L - L cJ _ `- o{ CO o c co U U ELI E a 4 I- a. E.,_ .o E E E _`_J Y ' o o -o 9, E ] E( -' Cg r..• V A l q I 0 U OO y viona }a3. L. d L .!tri O ,ti • 0 a - �Q L. b Jz O ti 191 C T, a) d L ,_ o 0 - a) c . C N U C C Co C , N C C L . . a) C E j a) C -O 4 Y C O O Cr) C 'b b Z C CI O C >Li j (� C = a) it. c a) ao q em V.+ v- .--J P t+z- O `+- `F- L . C.) `4- J ` 5 `4- Z m '< CO 0 O CE O O o w- v, O 4- O O .,_ L a) °° O ,� C C O as o -0 c C O E co c c O Q) E , 5 o o = •' o O O .t-- -o O • o 0 0 • CD CO L. o Q H H u_ O 0m 'S H H O d H O it F- ►- U U _J 1 r2 4.4.1O c Co c c c c c c c C a) a) ) Cl) vyi vii vim) U) y n a a.t CD QL.. a aL. Q. a E - _ o o O CI) C N C CD CO ac) c = c 0 EE c ":15 >. CO .E • Qrn a° • c c E .x _v O v' en .- 0 a • • C 2 .C c�v z = o z co 0 a) o Y m Q w as IL LL " I -O — Y Y J h c E C) C� Co .. C Q) "C3 CO +- o h U V CU CD r V = C V �' (1).... > L C C C N a) O o O n O O co c� 0 c0 Cu .U cu 2 •C D o H C - 2 -� H W H u. —) J O O E O H C� cc s • N ~ , W Ha . U) :_.e D (,) O O . U OE 4 E E B U 0/ O U ff > ' >f •• E U O D` CT p1 OU C a) Oi 61) -C O kO' 0 -6 O E 06 `- cc. E ( ' E n. o o z L. co oo `a) o �, Ca vcyJ E o o .3 s ' 0 E U .fl , A. Q O m" O = tll +_J1 . O ! C` O) .U `+L- c` .D a q `� @ Ci C @ O •--- O C a3 a O (s c ' c 4 Y -0 as p F 5 co o 0. U O o W U) (3 Cr C 1 D a� C, . .pt W, —) eg i 0 m Q O 14 0 0 U O) ■ C o x _ C C �C 'El O co O • e Q) (13 V Q UJ E C 0 n H a. Z @ ci h a a m Lt 0 a)U . a c ` D • + �, . +''2 w O O C .4 U u) 0 O O a? co -r E u . . ? 'O 'O -C E t!1 (n 'Ci b _ _c C t 0) a) a) U ' o .O Q cn CD D Cl) c t- a) a o D U N [tt 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 4.- J m CO C X40 e c a c c a a o as 0 F- Q }— E O O O O O O •— 0 H ca O = Ct H H H > H H H U U CK U U U ti_ U U in t=i_ - N ti CD fi aa)) CD CD lias z a) ti lima 44 Niro Q a s a o E U a N o Q c k_ co Qa g cr) CDU C > c\J co C pa = d) 'J c t . c o Z7 = C L O) CE Q u) E U •C (X3o • Q c (f) N >, (IIC(13N `� p CO Cr Cu cz Q) C3) CCD 'E aEi E o ~ c E .c o) av 0 ED c CD5 as 4- a) 0 h CO 0 c c n a0i o o a� o E 9 t a� CD ID L- o a H O Z (I) CC --) O O OG R Z O 1 0 0_ CO - m 00 CY -, s H NORTH 1-25 • EIS it MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation, Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : January 13, 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on December Meeting Minutes ■ No comments • 3. Level 24 Transit Screening Update ■ The project team will request that Craig G. describe why a rail alignment was not considered on the WCR 13 alignment. ■ It was commented that Weld County population will eventually be greater than the Larimer County population. • It was asked in community land use plans were considered in developing rail alternatives because a new rail alignment would affect land use patterns. The project team used existing and future population and employment projections to develop the transportation improvement alternatives. • It was suggested that the planning horizon for this study is too short and a longer term planning horizon should be considered. • Generally, the TAC agreed with the alternatives to be carried into Level 2B screening. 4. Transit Modeling • The transit modeling approach tests the affect of the alignment of an alternative, the speed and the affect of connectivity on ridership and travel time. The travel time includes the time to travel between a home or work location to a rail station. • It was commented that the Two Rivers Parkway area is growing in demand. The TAC had some concerns that the alternatives being shown in the modeling approach do not serve this area. Carter-Burgess explained that the goal in the modeling approach is to test concepts and not specific elements. • The purpose of the modeling is to test how speed and end points affects travel demand and to compare the various technologies (i.e. commuter rail, bus-rapid transit and high- speed rail) against each other. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1200S12005 MEETING MINUTES10I13051TAC-01I305.doc NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee January 13, 2005 Page 3of8 ■ The TAC decided that it was not necessary to model US 85 as a stand-alone alternative commenting on the difficulty of converting US 85 to a freeway. Parallel Arterials ■ The TAC was concerned that parallel arterials were not being considered in the study. They commented that parallel arterials do provide some benefit to segments of 1-25 and that off- system (i.e . parallel arterials ) improvements can help to relieve some demand on I-25. • Parallel arterials are not being considered as a stand-alone solution but are still being carried forward as a complementary improvement. New Highway ■ It was asked if it is necessary to model a new highway alignment to determine the impact it might have on 1-25 demand . • These alternatives had the largest potential for environmental impacts. Congestion Management • Congestion Management alternatives will be retained as a complementary alternative but do not provide enough capacity or demand reduction to be a stand-alone alternative. • There were no TAC comments on the congestion management. • Next Meeting: To be determined Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC 200512005 MEETING MINUTES101/3051 TAC-011305.doc IIlii• P Li-4) rs, W _. , 0 O E E 0 4 o U C 0 E E ° o o 0:1 . c U) ( O U N 0 U cti 0. Z3' O 6 I - y o c c f a O cid -a UO E OU 0 OU y COO = 0' 40-- 3 U� Q) CO C U vi U — C O _C > E O C6 of L (LS (� �' 1 > O o a -0 U a 0 e 3 En 2 o .. w o U _� @ g -O `+- g o c s •V C 13 C U I y C 113 t 10 •= -- co C o W 0 T O L >_ 5 O t Y �o a) U F- CL > LL E E E ta a CS . C91' q I 2 O 0 V C C • • O O o " C. 0 -„, • N U) Q ,S1 (6 E� 13 L 'b EL z O .a tl O C v) . a) O O C �, O L. v) O (- 0 >, C Rs a C E D CD C p c 0) �' 2 0 U CO W U U 0 w 4- ---J p O O 4... a Octt O O O 4- Q C H U O O ti4._ N � 0 3 D D 0 O o 0 0 -� c c o E O 0 Z 0 0 1 O 0 -' _ 2 O a) 0 o ° o g`t 0 O H LL H H LL U O CU LL U Cn 0 f— t— U Q b _ (L j ab. cz a w w w w c n to v U) CI)U) 0 0 0 a a) tL. a. Q Q L. a L. L. P._ E Q z o O o in co O L O -0 C > N V) 0) C C) N CO 0)1 a) C = C N o� u) O O _C O O (II � U) C a w a) 0 ?, o Q _ ..Q LL1:1 N C •U (1) En � tE F -•0 0 m 0 -CFO r- U Z' a) w U LL C) N LL u- a)D LL cc) M _ _ _ N h E C U-I C Q C -0 C o. = > as C C •- -C 0 cB Ct •) C 0 Q) 0 O N O 0 .C = O (Q N 0 N C6 .U IN V) Q Q 03 -) H CC CL 03 a. En H Y U_ -) r . }q 4 _L4 W { n c n u) C O a � OC o E Oo E o D ` n 0 OO a) ` ) m o o O a) o > o -c• • > 0 L t 45 1... C U Q a) o n 0• C -D E O .5 -a E at E D N E O o L 'c '5 o '5 c c o • ca o -o -0 z a CO .Q .Q° @ 'C > a O o U C O •a cc o " © c oo -• at ° "-, a?r o /o�( § 74, � . J C C U pC7 " p a) N E i to @ c ca CU E a) v) t cn > 1 N 1O to CU O a) n U a) @ •- 0 •cn CO C E. o Q n &) a (9 w lai k. O V • O .811 Ia. •CU Z • Q) OW . • 1 ' • I Et; 1 W W c c o o 0 E tr E o O O O O C 0 C 4-a Z • C C p p c r N a +. O > U >, ,Z o o b o 5 a O > m C c� N _ c >C 1 0 a) U _c 0o v 0 -� w o < t co C� r a) o o `� o O E O a O O 0 O 7-o ;-7-,- ,..t: cp E E c C c c c3 t .� 0 p a3 o . . -0 '.', 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 L .13 q 0 H 0 0 CD U U < U f- OH H I- I- > I— 04 en o ci E. '� 4-1 C C C v„ +4 ... o G) C) C)) a� 4 L. ., i i U 4 4 S E E U o 1-0 -t LQ v) O I- C -C O O E c N o .5 N — a) O al c ° a) -L, > C C Si Q co- 1] E L N E o r O 'ti-j- o ci m o ro w o 5o' r • • � a. (0 a) o _ ' a) o aci c15 CO .c n E >, o - a) t -o L c u) c) 4-- o l— c r o e Rs Oa) o c� ° cca a E c a� -- o o a� aci g }- 0 CD co CY 2 -) --s < m co m CC -D 00 NORTH I-- � i EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : February 24, 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on January Meeting Minutes • No comments 3. Schedule • March 17th TAC and RCC meetings have been cancelled • • Next TAC meeting April 14th • Public Meetings in June 4. Public Comment • Kim P. provided a summary of public comments received. Gene Putman asked what portion of the comments are about FasTracks. Kim P. said she had not put numbers to the comments . • A number of comments received stated that while tolling is a feasible option, the toll must be reasonably priced. A TAC member asked what people think is a reasonable toll rate. Kim P. said that she had not heard people specify the dollar amount. Some people have said that E-470 is too expensive. It is = $0. 17/mile. 5. Background • Level 1 — 77 alternatives evaluated for fatal flaws and 34 progressed . In Level 2A evaluated these alternatives and 21 progressed. We are currently in the Level 2B evaluation process and hope to wrap it up in June. Today we will focus on development and initial evaluation efforts for highway alternatives. Subsequent meetings will focus on transit alternatives. 6. Modal Approach • Graphics were posted that illustrate the changes in households, population and employment in the study area between 2001 and 2030. ▪ A number of requests were made to get copies of the graphics. The team will post the graphics to the web site along with minutes and the presentation. ■ 35% of existing households in the study area are in the NFR. This is expected to increase to about 40% by 2030. 7. No-Action • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:4032254TAC200512005 MEETING MINUTES10224054TAC-021405.doc 1 . � • PIH E ! o 0O / o O cn y Q) , C C� OU O pU Q) OE E C3� O 1 `n E j c� 0 a) a) ' a) , C v) L E O . a) o,, C? CI i -C C O O Q) p 3 N` O EQ • U o • Q N �1 U Q) El D `J V �O w °o, � I c .(73 1 c N .� a) - 4O C C a RI a) p . -c E U p E U 3 (II E= "n ; E u) a) ca ; O O O co O co p c7 3 c : O C� .fl L .n ..C U 0 U D 't3 0 LL) CO F-- .n I CD :Q a _c v) 0 O E -o , W . r d J Q 0 0 U I1 C o"c LW O - C o z al 15 c d .� I oU_ U a • •- Z U)) 0- a- H x. _ d • C 0 U •d a) .t r, o L Cl) C N 5 Q) o '� 0 Q) ≥, ' E I c c E U .o /Q) o w �' CO O E o w C w m CJ _J V- CO 4-- W U O a) 4— 4— > C[) '- b ! a) 0 O c o 0 0 O p Oc cc O O Z' o co '_ p . p 2 C 0 0 p 0- L. CC O a it U F- U H O a. C) O O F- H O w O -,N c(*-) w C C C C C C o Z3 C) C) 0 t C) C) a) o t i i CD 0 a. i cD i L. E `- E - _ - - 0 o o a c H u3 Y D t, 0 V) U) O L _ P. �c v) O Q) Q) a) •- 4-4 L .1 C C (t a N i v) c U c a) U 0 •C (Q 3 o 0 v - C -O COQ '4' c3 C c1 m a) E o E c� O ° 3 -� W a N .1 Q .N ` C N CO O -C a) O E U C p ' 75 U co Q E c a) CO m .' m U U U C) Cn o o f 0 r cn a) a) a) ca a3 0 c N 4- CO ..C a) Fes- u- c. N > Fes- 1 O - O Y J C7 U) 0 0 0 O DC 11 ip_1.4w Z Eo o O Z4+ ri3OUE,o ° oc a` • o > c o 0 c E C o •L . o. ° alla) a) iii vi 3 -° � I ° E L: ° °' a) U c P D U, 13/4. Ct3 E > I&- a) c r- Li o I ; •� E o a) cE -0 a) o o13 o o v c U —, c a ca o �� ° rug C cp ca a) x a) 07 0 a) m c� Q) >- E• c E t Z co L � p U 00 E o E E O E 2 LL! E .J Y O 0 -o E, L > --)1 Zt Y Z U CD Q., q 0 0 U c c 0 o V CO 0 c •` C • U 0 1:24 2 Co F. d 1 L 01 c LL O U . c > O > ..4 a3 i - a) C O L CD U — • N t- 0 Cl) cn 2 .O •>a) . c •- C(7 c U Q) c U) - C - ) s Q) D a > D Cl) Q' = Q) Cl)Q) L L (L3 _ I C - L ,o o o' 11- u- oMc� 0 0 U) IT- C O > i •+N 4- -.J `*- Z W L L.L. v-- 4— O L CO -t O Is 0 0 ,�_ 0 0 L O O 0 () a) L co h E a o c C ° a) E c c no -o a) $ 0 - L my Q < H O (Y H. H C) O 0 __IZ H H 0 CO CO LL 0 PO 5 LL o0 0 w h . _ _ , Lt. N t . nZZ W U Z3 C)y Cl) a) a) a) a) a) a a! a) a) 0 0 a) ci a`. L. a a s C ICCkd E , . _ - g o ro U N co c L ~ O o c a) a L — N Q) 4 co O E E c a) a) a) c a) O >, Z7 >1 ..C - t CO r C• Q) CO C O L L I- 0 0 Q) o 0 C(S Q) c� O 4 - Q cz - ma - c 16 a, ai a) YTD. Y Y }2 c a3 o 01-1 2 2 2 a) Q' 2 2 2 vi >� o ci a) a) v (B (t) CO t? (� CO C D U v a) O L o H Z J 0 0 CC O 1-- O O Q' 5 7 Y 2 6 - ) CO N Lip • Ha , . . Dl a O • o U Ui O D•g N S O i UO OO i C • a) b • O L O O O a) E 0 Ti• -O , 0 U C 5 O C L co N c ; •c ` t co O a o its Di Q I 0 © a, e •c_ c o o c d m -O cn , C Q) � a) o E,-,-- co c c- a) mi L O E -0 `ti W ' c .3 z Q o L I:3 0 q 0 b ci L 0 0 U (/) C 0 V O tl V ,CC• . VCD U '� L R Et; t ` 1 b k. d b C O Zi i i -o - O O O 0 CO O C ' s- E L c O aa)i -. C c vC °p O U -o o o a) O = > `> 03 O , c� a) o U 'En P._P c® *5* O 14 ... T- T-- J � c -0 • - L. V! L a) m -C y ti .� O O O O 0 O E o E -o E t o o --- -o cc c co O E E O - a °o 0 0 0 D ' ° co O o O c� x. o Q S H I- I- O U co so co J U in U O u_ I y te a) **Er a v a a) 0 v a) a) a) C) C U) EI) v) V) U) v) v) E Q E 0_ 0 o c> 0 n` h a) in u O O 0) O0 C C c o cn a) o 'U _ —o °7 c E C o �, o JD a) c) • (ti >c0 to `� c L L A E c v N N C L O C C vi Y c a) o 0 CO a) a) o E .0 coct5 o . o C c Qs I- Z 0 a (Y Z (.9 in CD Q -D U Y NORTH 125 LIR EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee April 21 , 2005 Page 2 of 9 existing Limited Access facilities experienced . The Project Team will research these issues. ■ Suggestions were made to show separate volume-to-capacity ratios for the different lane types; and to show more bars that match the various termini of the alternatives. ■ It was asked what the working definition for congestion is . The project is using the North Front Range MPO's 0. 87 volume-to-capacity ratio, at which point conditions become congested . It is not the high speeds that a committee member witnessed along the T-Rex project in southeast Denver. • A comment was made that the favorable safety evaluation for the 8-lane alternative is surprising since the southern California experience is that 8-lane highways have twice as many incident calls as 6-lanes . • The Mobility graphic that shows both the Northbound PM Peak Travel Times and the % Congested Lane Miles will be split into two separate graphics. That will allow for a larger vertical scale to show differences between alternatives, and also the possible addition of southbound travel times . • The Aging Infrastructure graphic prompted the question of why all of the alternatives north to SH 66 are given the 'Worst Rating". That is because the 2030 No Action Alternative will have replaced deficient structures and Poor/Fair • pavement as far north as SH 66 , so only the alternatives that have limits further north will further improve aging infrastructure. • The practicability bar chart compares alternatives in terms of their construction costs divided ny person-trips, not "per annual user" as shown . Operating and maintenance costs will be added to construction . The intent is to develop a measure that can compare total costs between highway and transit alternatives in Level 3 screening. The key point is the relative difference in costs between alternatives . For example, Limited Access Lanes to SH 1 would cost five times as much as HOV lanes to SH 66 . It was concluded that this graphic should be revised before it is shown to the public. ■ Gina M . presented the environmental screening results. Level 2B analysis used findings from 1A and new data such as total vehicle miles and hours traveled and peak hour speeds for adjacent residential development, but air quality, wetlands, and hazardous materials are potential environmental issues . • The differences in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) between alternatives are relatively small . • The two highway alternatives that appear to best meet Purpose and Need , 8 General Purpose Lanes and Limited Access Lanes , also require the most new right-of-way and have the highest costs. • Based on the screening performed in Level 2B , no highway alternatives are likely to have what would be considered significant impacts . • The question of what difference new fuels by the year 2030 might have was asked , and the response was given that they would likely affect highway • alternatives the same way. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J.103225\05. TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAO042105kTAC-042105.doe 1^.nr.y rt: .1h tS:."G..r�"s .M .40:1.,' ; 'tt2' • •. .. :Y• V 1 ( ) a (..?1w X H (1 O E U . O r D 0 (/) OU i.:�i m >pr > U a U Q o 0 O' o in. d) � I > U v O L cii ,� Q O a) a• Q) OU C O 0 U E p I ° , (to Q) cn o a U et3 .0 L4-ci C . •j 'C. g > C± 0 —sr Ms .0— .... N C O E G (��• L 3 C o Cn 5. •� (-9 L a) a Y r- Q) -O C ` - cp .= a C , o E U RS L. `' E Li) a) ca O O c3 O : c� O {o .O SD UO U U a) -� 73 U3 O IA CO F- CI •t a _YI 0 U -OJ C W a 0 q O a O V W o W • z V U U n ID ID 0 o a b o O UL as ig a) � a) r S c r U a) c a) O 2 o W 'LT.' > > o U W o ci L 4 - o m oiii p 9- C� a) o 0 b0 Q 0 U u U H U H U a. U D U H— F- U W 0 cvi 0 a 0 it N C a) a) 0 "O 0 a) 0 0 CD i i . i i CL icta 0 E h 0 0 U Q. C u) N O L E IL o7 E -& • -c) in Q o m CO a) O O O C p W o Q N c� Co O Q o U C ow CM r C Q E Q a) m m m U a U U cn 0 o L N C6 (a ..C �' C L A N (I) •C a) •c r 4- Ca (a — N i c c C N C) a. re (6 o a) C6 O C Q) L }� s Q) CO C6 O Q) o f- Q Z N F- I O -) O `� .._! CD to 0 0 0 0 CC -> VA ______fr.- iPIw z E o a) Eb 0r l v, O L J o cn D = ` 0 > L CJ O E U O 0 ' ! O Ov O( I �' c y O > D Ovi U c id E c O o" •L o • `- @ I 0 Y a3 , " v a o a)E 12. o n — -6 a) 5 ciciC.) E a O o c O ca c .., o ao ; • — c� c), — c o a) d CZ CI c� a) a) s_ i E co, o.� a. � ; p r co cLn a) CO co 0 a) E c • d L �+- C Q) 0 . VD • E� CO C.C. o .> Q) c c0 U V , a O E O o ill E I __u Y . O O - E > 1 o Z YE ' T U C!) Z /` o� vg izi o i O U c r o o '4} `4 ,(� O C • .1:i ti v l C L . Oter 0 O 0 al 1:14 - a) C 0 ` ' U C c O C • C 13 L. O CD J.,, •- •c Z., E .�_ cu 13 can CD 0 c O a) c N b 0 N k t 0) 0 I L ' O 2 O U o iL O t5 O O � • • U .... 4-- J 4- 4- z co 4-• L CO •-• E c o c c o o E 2 c a) E D O t fr `� -c o — �H O O O 03 u- O • O co I L. v 'Q < H O it F— H U O O J Z t— m O LL vo b ry 'Y Qp T o .1O 0 Q) Q) Q) o Q a. Oft a s L. a 0 16.4 a C 4-1 E _ _ o O U O O c L- N O co a) E E °) >„ NI •c a) cn c 0 a > c� O •— c3 c c6 c t- ) O o• 0 � a) Y Y -2 Q 2 a)• ' 2 J 2 h .C N �' j -c.ca > c >O m j .L s_ o • M o a ca .O cB co c6 2 al •- n o O • — a� o I- Q c a J O O .Or 0 F- 0 6 CC > -� O --, CD N (I)i H El N D 3 • D O o OU 6 CO O > > > E o U E •. -a cn 0 O ( O ; • I D • : • (..) I •C E 0 a) E o O co a) 0 0 o ° D ' .� I o D E O .n o c s o ON D. P c , C1 c D O > Ui t E o c L O c 1 t ; • U) 0 U O • • a) • n o 3I Jo Y a � ; o • - 1:1 CO 0 o ci a O • ' •• � �' • ' U • . ` O 1-:: CZ N ct 1 C • a) r a) O U • c� c C • • Er � ' I N U • C � > Co (t `o, (LS t- ° LLJ • ' C_ C .� • Zi Q .1/4-I _Y U .C U) � C P. ci oai 0 b a) d C • o c6 (0 0 c U C Cl) 0 O • • G co C RS O t O La)Ct O . • v < C -ct Jo Co O-III • (/) 0L H Z LLl d k. L b To EZ o o .y O zi 4-- COL a ,� 0 CO • O O = O L U) C O O O C C U) U) 0 b • • C_C �_ t E 0 = = c U a) a) C O D > > m cc) o O 0 0 > > c 0 c U r3 >s z+ O 4- 4- 4- J 0 C D ; U U) L CD CO CO COI O -C 0 0 0 0 4- 4- ° C -E 0 .E Q) E L.. •O L 4- H Q -o c c c 0 O as CO -o C {a)� U }N� O O °� L ›l 'L... 5 E L i�.. 6 U °� O 0 0 `= — 3 o 1.... c0 000a5 O o a5 m _ DI �. Q CZ H H H O U mOoD __io 0) 0 0 LI. O O O w O o ta -Li N 7 44a N a (D a) a) 0 0 Q) a) W d) o U) U) U) U) a) a) 0 a) a) ow a) Q) O WO o Cl) t a a a. Q. a. a. L. CL E o U N o N a`ot_ a) C a) N E U Q) • Q CD CO C0 • O m @ Z �C U cv a) w Q) 5 C7 ,0 C CC V Qt--- C) O N C o c 'S } Y c _ . Y h -C N C C E -o t O U) L- .+� Co (II C'6 ca - N U '' R3 O Q) O E U tt3 CCS C a) s (TS �- a) o F-- Q Z CD 0 D! Z (� 03 O < - ) O Y U -) U) m NORTH 125 pi EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : May 19 , 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Comments on April Meeting Minutes ■ Minutes OK, no comments. 2. Project Review/Update ■ Agency review of Purpose and Need is complete. Copies will be made available June 2, • 2005. ■ There are four public meetings scheduled for June. On the 14th we will be in Greeley, on the 16th we will be in Ft. Collins, on the 21st we will be in Loveland, and on the 23ffi we will be in Longmont. These meeting will include the open house, and a formal presentation . ■ At the previous meeting, we discussed Level 2B Highway Screening. Today we will be discussing the preliminary transit results. 3. Preliminary Level 2B Transit Evaluation and Screening • Chris P. gave a review of how transit alternatives were modeled. First they coded transit alternatives into the travel demand model, and then coded stations. Assumptions for the modeling included frequent service, fast service, lots of stations, and feeder bus services to improve accessibility. All stations have Park-n-Rides. ■ Ridership is the most important evaluation criteria for transit. Chris P. presented 2030 daily ridership estimates. All alternatives around 4000 passengers per day. High Speed Rail is 20% higher. Bus Rapid Transit a bit lower. • Ridership numbers came from a multimodal travel demand model . Two models were combined NFRMPO and DRCOG . Both have recently been calibrated . This means that the existing model simulates traffic volumes and bus ridership reasonably well . • The Travel Forecast Working Group agreed that the results are reasonable given the land use assumptions. Also they are similar to existing RTD regional routes — a few thousand people daily. Some were surprised that there was not more variation between alignments . Experts expected 35% of work trips and this is what the model showed . s Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAO2004 thru 2006\2005 TAC105190S1TAC-051905.doe NORTH 1-25 -- EIS . : iMEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 19, 2005 Page 3 of 9 7. Next Steps ■ June 2nd meeting — Southwest Weld County Services Complex ■ June Public Meetings ■ Level 3 Analysis Next Meeting: June 2, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 3: 00 - 5:00 PM S • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225f05. TAO2004 thru 200612005 TAC10SI90SITAC-0S1905.doe , p. .a •a i ,7• • ril W X E El pct 40 O o O N L C 0 0 u) U) E Eo O E E 0' 0( c ' cn O O •c. 0 0 .� D .. C U 0 OU O C_ UO C C C C O V a 0 t O O 6 Q) ( s c ad t u) > Cl) a 0 4- 0 4) .C) 3 0 a� C +-' • C= 0 0 N ' y CO 0 �, �-O gi E 4) j 0 L a3 TO Q V 4J 03 'C� U C V _co o c C • O ci . r O 0 Tzi cu � ' L O) 1 -p O" E U 3 U E= C' C - _ — co 4) C 0 (C3 `ti U (� CCS � r o tl.l ) f coo E) ' H ci_ 1 -4Se u_ .o E E cg L O o L o O (3 c 0 V ftsi L .CD C 0 u cu CO o E� 1J -, 1 _, l v — A . ''E Cil Ectlit C • 0 Z .r O ( N C ^\ `v V 3 O U 0 13. O O O C Ccn a V) 0 V) u) C O a co CI) a U a (I) W ~01 0 Uta . TD C O C O 0 F- H 45 Q C E H ° O O CO U O _ �- O co C C ._ .c o a D 3 3 ❑ o o >, 0 0 3 3 C� " >, ❑ --� o = 0 0 1 ❑ ❑ 4-' I ' o ❑ a) 0 0 a) •� 4_' �- b Q 0 0 H U- H H a. O U U u_ Um U > H H ❑ U w, 0 c Ca "hat Z C h vv)i o N o a a L ` L. L. o q a t1 4 ki E o E ,o o �. O V C •o U O) C 4) (a (Ti Q) a N 0 o C CL 0 > Q in 5 -t _o .� l� C - C04 C L. E D O C U - o E R3 E '- 0 LU N N = co O O = 4) 0 RU3 kg c r c� u- m c -O a) O_ 0 CO i >, caa3 a3 a 0 co _. W C n 0a C Cl. n _ _ C Cen ev U ea —, C 0 a) O 0 0 0 0 - = o ca L. O N a) 5 c0 0 z w Q < CO 2 —7 F— a_ m a. En H Y L.L. 2c0I 2 FlU Q I 4` :i Jk.h , . ,.;: e � • r1rTi H � C C o O U' c n + 0 I Di VY C) w o O `.: to o ci 0 0 U rn > ; D� O -c ` • ; U > U D O Er a L v Q) ' L.: a) o OU C V1 0I .- •L U o n i U co c c O 4— , co O a �. ro oI @� o cc 0 0 ° o U�� c to o a a � � i 0 0 o Q �- o aU/ a E lE c a s : ! 1:(-) 7 in a� c c6 c o w L c� o . = I. `ti i c O N L C� -.c 4--0 CO D — , , . q 0 b 0 L. 0 0 U v-> • c C o o co d N C • 0 .O 0 W g Eti x_ m zi L_ L 1 > > r"U C c E .o D 0 E vzi U a Le-p p c o c h- 11 o c o c a� c a, _ o CD c D c U Z U o 0 0 0 -a o 8 > a) aai -O O U a) 0 r U o U O W U Q -- U) C0 O :�+ o -o •i' L H L CO - 0 LL Le-- N 4-- O 4— 4- -C CO U) C W Q) 4-. a) v— C Cl) 4 O O a O O be •` 1.- c0 c H E o O -O O (B E O c E c cn cc ' O O as _` o ?' -a o E a c�a o o b - Q -)0 -U F- U _I a. U m a a < a HO H F- H H h 0 a Q.) a) Q) z in 2 Cl) 0 ci a Q o 0 0 o U0 t o (1) c � CD E a) O . C c U -1 > O c ≥ o t L C C L> O •^ v2 c O N L �_ _ p • QoTo Ni . z c� o o cK ci a) E o w c > >' .C E 0 >" c p i a. C C:15 t C C c (j} C c n a s co o co c6 E a) ° as co 0 E c r = O 0 en I- Z Z F- > U 2 O U 2 2 -, Q m (n m cc triA _ __ • N � � W Z O z O Cl) C) y E a) L ,O d a @0 Q U o w Y ci Z O .14 U • a O •y VN • • O V C +.. •� C • 'O 0 'tom V COW O V 0} 1`V C ti C W Q) C C 'o O) V C �^ W >v cn O . . C) t O E, a) O O U m . yr s.„ CO do tts CD L Q C t 03 o I Q U H It o _ . H �, Lel It U h ca -F� i-+ .}.r , C C C o a) C) V) V) a 4;. Q. E CL CL CL Q " Q. o E _ _ - — o O O N L-, — O N N a .C a -p 4) o Sh 3 OGo _ as a U_ N 4 Q. C cp E i. C J, c N L C (B (3 o H 2 Z > '*. [ NORTH 1-25 EIS R ` MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Technical Advisory Committee , .L -A; 2005 Page 2 of 12 "CR13 is now continuous from E470 to HWY 14. How does this lend to the "most potential to impact for inland hazardous material & land use" statement? 7. Level 2 Grading results New Highways "Your graphic is misaligned - it doesn't show mead in the right spot. This may be true fort he entire exhibit - check_" Remove the comma from the first bullet on the red report card box 8. Level 2 Grading Results (UC) "Define Expressway * Freeway (or have staff nearby that can)" Correct spelling of 'Wetlands" in blue report card box 9. Screening of key environmental factors (for BRT) "BRTB good" "Add small note to all "screening of Key Environmental fact (see measurement used board) or flip chart nearby" In legend box (neutral) for "Needs improvement" 10. Level 2 Grading definitions "Need criteria explanation, 3 major criteria of 1 ) Purpose & Need such as . . . . 2) Practicability such as and 3) environment such as "Consider 81 /2x 11 handouts of Level 2 grading definitions for public to carry around as they review grading results put screening process on back" "It would be helpful to call out in a smaller box that the color here matches the alternatives color" • 2nd bullets "if this is true, why are there no "s" ratings?" 6th bullet "change to "determined that the alternative is too costly, doesn't serve a significant number of travelers, or has the most comparative potential for environmental impacts. Move the "Unsatisfactory" label UP 11 . Practicability Screening Information "Consistency — All to 1 decimal or all rounded to nearest integer" "BRT makes better sense" "How do CR and BRT M&O costs compare to M&O for highway lanes? • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1200512005 MEETING MINUTES10602051TAC-060205.doc NORTH 125 :�° ;:' 1: :;x:; em``'u-�a; rS):.ct 4; EIS ` • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee t Imo.%' May-1-9; 2005 Y Page 4 of 12 17. Wetlands and threatened & endangered species • "There is surely much more wetland in this study area then shown. Are you sure? Otherwise, clarify what type of mapped wetlands you are depicting" "Note: Wetland locations do not depict size or configuration of wetlands just location" Preble's not Prebles 18. Existing Land Use and Community Facilities "PVH Trauma Center/Hospital on its way up at 1-25/Hwy 34 interchange — NW# corner of Interchange" "On all of these boards — Frederick is located between Dacono and Firestone. CR20.5 is the northern boundary of Frederick." "New Avista Hospital on 287 @ Hwy 42 in Lafayette 19. Farmland "Place all environmental boards in flip charts — too much information" 20. LEVEL 2 GRADING RESULTS (BRT) "Clarification does "u" mean it won't be evaluated as complementary either? (As per the definition?) "Need legend for red lines" 21 . Future Generalized Land Use "Future Post 2030 Generalized Land Use (as illustrated on comprehensive plans)" "The area to the NW of the intersection of 1-25 & Hwy 52 shouldn't show residential for at least 2 miles west of 1-25. Land use Plan is being revised" 'Where are the 18,000 residential units (40,000 people) approved or nearing approval in SW weld County east of Mead? They should be factored into the population estimates" Correct spelling of Clarion in the legend 22. Low Income Populations "Transit and hwy are focus of meeting. The environmental info is good, but it's overwhelming can it go into flipchart?" "Some maps have shaded/fuzzy stud are boundary, others have distinct line, need consistency" "Ft. Lupton not low income" 23. AIR QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS I'm planning for the next 3-+ years, the "big picture" must be considered in terms of "air quality '. Rocky Mountain National Park as well as other parts of the state is experiencing rising ozone levels — nitrogen deposition — due in part to tail pipe emissions" 24. Screening of Key Environmental Factors "Why mixed results (some are unsatisfactory) for AQ?" Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J.1032251TAC1200512005 MEETING MTNUTES10602051TAC-060205.doc • .,.;.. 1 NORTH 1-25 rr� ,^' �:S,S'1 • EIS t• IVIEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee (o�2...Attay49; 2005 • Page 6 of 12 29. Level 2 Grading Results HSR Blue report card box — delete and hazardous materials Orange Report card box — delete and hazardous materials 30. Screening of Key Environmental Factors (For LR and HSR) "LRT better for tri " HSRB would be too costly " 31 . Level 2 Grading Results CR "Low ridership is not really compared to other transit alts compared to what?" Peer Systems" Purple is too close color to blue. . use different "Line G south to include connection to airport" Pink report card box — delete 4th bullet and 7th bullet, add bullet connects to corridor preservation for FasTracks" • 32. Level 2 Grading Results CR "All rail alts" "Can we show `)/0 active freight rail % inactive % hwy alignment % percent other?" "Low ridership is not really compared to other transit." "Compared to what?" "Peer systems" 33. C advantage "Partially utilized existing rail corridor that can be re-activated" "Should explore what is meant by "mix of transit needs"" "Comment on "C" could also apply A& B" 34. Level 2 Grading Results Light Rail "Low ridership is peer based not based on other alts" "Move light rail after commuter rail (put positive first) • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:1O32251TAO2O0512005 MEETING MINUTES10602051TAC-060205.doc .t a Y.- y.: S] !kie. ; N Ln • L1T1 u) H E . o o ', v FO ° " c > � ; o o v) cv n EE E cn C 0 ' 0 3 , 11 o ! • ° ° *� o C .. n ° • ° o D — 6 E . ) 6 o v ; u9 L c • CO vi 0 U0 CD o °' 4-, c o rc @, z cc: ITD a3 C o i CO c� @, c t o o © 0 o a -o cn t7; o 5 c� Cl) 2 0 C • ° ca Q � Cr i-,21 C _ O C D _ q, NO .4..... !Q) ca •- 4- 2 E g O. t a) O� Z 1 L .� i -6 — c6 E o Y Et; o cts -n C : -0 co a) c O s EL! a o m° . E t° 0 §- s U- ° E E E w b. r . O b L. U 0 a RS 52 CS E • Q 'a CD C R Et4• [ _ k. o• Et C I 4=O C /1•�( .-4 �V 4 il S 0 U Lr� a) O 0 C a ,O CC co CO --) CC0 U = CO W i_.-r-t 75O ° c c c O O ° ca o p C C o .2 o o 0 o M o o ' 0 0 _ ' 2 O 0 o o iv 'ti 2 Z' �t U H H H 0 0 0 u.. U to 0 F- �•- tY 0 U U a N a o 0 C CD P t E Q E • - - O aN o O D P 0 .c Q) C CO a) c — C o C v7 C O N co c O. O a) O Q O _ .O L.L. c n (� o3 03 E > C Y tn • U 'C.; . ` E _ Cu O C E .- 0 ccs 2 0 I cB _ ° _ � Ow ca c - a) W O u_ Ct u_ a. O O cI3 ca 2 I _C > -, U E w C Q) t -0 C O- _0 — C C C f C o i H N .� C O ° 0 0 0 O L O co 2. O coo O CC 0 i--- 4 Z Cl) < < m 2 F- C 0_ m CL flo H Y u_ —) 2 O = 2 - - - - :t, ;rk':.T - -1-- - N 04w H 4 d. c � 0 �Oj D' c n V4 a O u) OU U U E O n L n a) i Cl) Q) O U 0 a) SQ o > O C •• U > C O },. c o ai 0 00 L C o . E c N U ' — , a) ; E P E 5 u E O � .c O. L U � ; '� c c o o 2 O a L) = -U V c t p, 4- O U ?� pi cs ct gO U„ U C U � UO o (� O L C O f1' O 4) E i L) O a O. a)Co -� CO -C O '= o alZ H , ~ E a-, w i 2, .o) .� Q p n co 3' cx t U oAi Q 0 b t3 x. 0 U U) • C r O 0 _ n Ct Ct ' .C U b • ci) 0 a. £ n Et, L. m bL > > a) a) E O o p . >-, o o C 0 C 4 .. -), o U -4 cn • • O 0 C E : D C a cca O oC > o " Z O O o O O 5 O 8 -� > 0 5 Q) r st o U o U (� U o U U +; w Q v) C� yr 0 L I--L CO -o L.L. 4- 4- 0 y- 4- -�y' Ctate`) C C �' E o O -0 „ Co cv 0 O E O E 0cc O A0 _ b Q U U (1 U m U U Q U U Fo- F - e - -- - , . EL v - 0 Q) ai CD ai 0 CD P C) Q a a a a s L. z o tii aN wt w o c n o a) E c u) co Y c c.) -o > o c c0 Q. > O ._ CC 0 c co = O - S_ - c C L - Q) O C L 5 a) L O L O co O h c6 N Z O) a_ (75 a) "O — _ a) O 1O u9 c in >' • Uk. _ O a- O a- — a) U) C O N c_ L co C C C `.0 L C C ,--' C C C C C H aUi O co co - a) c ca ca N F c � _c — O 0 0 f—. 4 z z ►- > U 2 CD < cY 2 —, r) < CO co m —, iz tii:: ; v . Jz3Y: • al . N 0 44 W Z O 4 4-6 L c o . . L cn � co Q) U L E 0 of 4) c c o o 0 a © o a Q Ti)- @ 1 O c N. 51' m ti W it o •-' of W o , m V L i a 1 Iti . Q O I O o O • ' a Zli C _, CuIMO\ ii. C C C I 'ZS 0 CD Q W tn Is ' - , _ ts EL-4 ,- I *7--- a:: .18 a) 'di . _ , ÷31 .y 0) E 4 c W 73 C E •b o o mitc Cl) -c a) :3 a) G o Ea) --- .0 U = m 2 ats .4,. L m 4.- CO LL ,Cu L Q 4-- 4- Cr S E N c o O 4-4 v Es C t QJ O f— t.L C) C ) (.1._ C4) esi b LS O3 1E v.r ti a 0 0 o C (0 (0) 0 4. a. Q S o a U 4.1 O co 0 O 0 < o o o U N a3 2 NZ '` c E C 1= as -O m h II N a) a) am o m o O F- Z CC S. --) C O m NORTH 125 EIS PI • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 19, 2005 Page 2of9 6. Preliminary Packages ■ Holly M. presented a comparison of capacity that various alternative types would provide, and then presented the 10 preliminary packages. Julie M. added that highway alternatives were used as building blocks for the packages. • Examples of queue jumps for buses in other American cities will be included in the updated package. • Station locations in Longmont are being coordinated with alternatives in the US 36 DEIS. 7. Question & Answers: • Have you considered an alternative with bus service from 1-25 to DIA? o We will test 1-25 bus service into DUS and also via E-470 to DIA. ■ Why no commuter rail along US 85? o That was screened out as infeasible due to limited rail line capacity (now has over 28 trains a day), and also due to less demand (fewer population/employment centers). • May consider a scenario if freight travel is moved to the east. However, for UP the line would still be a valuable. ■ Comment: Investigate this further since CDOT has expressed interest in the concept. • o We will • Comment: Try Package 5 with HOV. o We will. • Must HOV be all or nothing with regards to having to go all the way to SH14? Why not take HOV north to SH 66 and then 6 General Purpose lanes north to SH 14, with parallel arterials between SH 66 to SH14? • Why did you pick congestion (unmet demand ) as the criterion for comparison? You should have other graphics for other criteria . o Agreed. What was presented is an example application of one criterion. It is not the evaluation of the packages, only the methodology for developing packages. • Suggested that a chart be created for each purpose and need category. ■ Suggestion that color-coding of improvement types be consistent for all packages. • Package 7 modification: o "Limited Bus Service" on US 287. Central Commuter Rail, Bus Service to SH 119. Take HOV all the way down. Take limited bus service out of Greeley in Package 5. o This alternative would allow bus service to develop the patronage, and then expand to rail when demand is there. • Is only providing a regional bus and nothing else enough transit? How do Packages 1 and 4 meet the Purpose and Need? • Comment: Recommend replacing BRT with limited bus south to SH 119, with bus options to Longmont and Denver. o This suggestion prompts the issue of project Purpose and Need. This will be further investigated . • Comment: The feeder bus system is not represented by any lines in the package graphics. ■ Is the project team receptive to the sub-alternative suggestions, such as a 7A? Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225405. TAC120041hru 200612005 TAC\0721051TAC-072105.doc jai • (J)0 PIH O E o 6 `� O U " _ LI C U Q1 O0 E of gl 0O " 6 I . > U o L` n I �, E y Q) U p • Q) C _ p Ci (1) p N° Z EE E rci O 0 E a) a) ° . -a • L E ', o 0 n E • _ I U U , O •= i Q) Ei W N C C o E L �1 C p g C1:1) — V i 0Cwii E wi w E o 0 0 0 � Co ti W C H n I 0 • a _ u) oo D, EI �I W 8 g .a) z ig A' I I 0 0 c c 0) • C W O0 .C c a o co 0 •• . Va U U •13 Q i7 ..0 N . Z 0 a_ CL H a h rl ) - - - , •" L (uk LZ o U d a) L C La C car) O •5 Q) O D - -0 U _ _C CC E U n 'N E a) a� .o n S.? = in ,_ >. > o /n� o W `1+i co CJ J 4-- CO 4-- W U LJ Q) �+- 4- O -z L 4- 4- O O 4- O p O E o o ``- O eo 0) o 0 C 0 COL) U C C O U coo :� _ - 0 0 4' ft tr o 0 0 a. e o 13 Q 06 W U H U H U CL U 0 U H H U W 0 b 13 e N ti C N O CU a) a o E Q Cl- a. G E 0 o U C H V C1) co _. -o 0 3 L-) E U_ v) 0) - - NP > C `- C a 0 O Q) U O (t) o • Qo � Co Too E o E P E o E o C > CD w G To N Q N N C� 0 -- a) O 2 O C 0 W W N *E cSQ Q s m C[l _ f1l U U cn !+�- o _c `-' E 'CCS Ca + C —cl) > to Q) C H N N - E Q) CB �O r 0 N N i a) cu co o c o t— Z N 5 H I (.`) --) O Y J CO U) 0 0 0 0 rY --) r......,, ...i.,„,..: .4 :R... .:: .. ,,.., ,fr.„ _ ______ rH Z F , 0 QJ C O O O s_ r O u) O U v U Li O -O O, c 21 O ; > R U L C Q) y © U O O O D = t3 O O1 I a) •- U Q) C O Q •c E 4_ , O Q) sc - OU UUr•Ar o C O 0 c U i- OC as o 0 0 t I a Zi Ct +2 L > •- Q) L - E C a �` 1 CO C N Q) E c tII o a o co O c? U ) E8 E Er) E N C , `1 L!1 .J Y� 0, D, F L. > •--)� Z Y, T . U 0I CO Z; H a cg 1...- 0 q. O L i O U 0 w(5 N(V • .... ' . c �^ -10 _/ ti r 1 CS L 16 C rr`` 1-41 o > 13 o o cts5 a_ �� c O L Q) �, O •41 ..1 C U c O — ••-� Q) C Q) O c u) c C b Y co L Q) U Q, t n O O C L 0 I D a3 Cn U O U d O O LL o O U 0 C 4- J I Z CO L. Q. 4— v— L. CO O cc O O F-- L_ Q1 O O U Q) s_ u) C ao O 0 3 O Q - cc — D -5 t D m cQ o o ' F-- o -- 0 ca CO LL O O O T O ct I 0 �" b Q HO f H 0 0 0 J Z H H > LL CO 0 LL — U ry N. 13 U EM I. Q. L. Q. 4 Q. 'a E In 0 E -- - o O 0 U O N C L V O> cu 0 C) c Q) C c Lew L L' O To Q) •— o • Qp to O U O a) (� Q) L- C O O a J _ Z .n o ) O J ca Q U U cn L m ti mi 0 (Is co co U RS C U O — o O L- (6 O o H Z J 0 0 62 H 0 CD (Z > -) Z Y 2 U —) 0 Z f __ N al � n H u) o o D 0 O ° 1 �, E o U o o°y 0 0 O > E O O Ql -O O O 0 Q' O " p �} 0 Q_' al CE L. 0 E O O V y D O C C U p .0 0 D E 0 O Cu L • C , - (n O 0 >O U, CM 0 © E2' � �, sil .� ,O 13 Q. 1 E U U U .O_ 00 o N. C O O © 0 m N (/) lC t_. a) C a R ' 0 r' ' O O O O� (t1 c C O) h Q) ; - W C .3 Z ""'7 < .O - U .C U) -, n Z. C t tl q 0 L TS Cl) l C O) O all C U c6 c 2 Cl) O o _e O cot O v < b • Ct W a� (� a H z w Is - d ti d I- -o b a� c O O o d 4- L L. L.. -o O CO 4- = C O O c a c �' L. Uri Uri c O �/� .°C E 1:5ci C E c = C C O 0 0 �-' .' O • °� O ° o o o P. C as a) v„, o m o c15 a) U U CD a = ,__(/) D -c Ci O : Cn v.+ w-- 4- J CD c -O t,= L U) L Q) CO = CIO CO I U m •c ct O O .�. _p C CI) O L _ ,� < L O eo c c O O cn TS p E E -a E t U 0 O 0 c o O o o O O c� : Cu _ cap d Q F-- H a a CO 0 Cr1 J O CO O 0 [-IL O O O w 0 O H I o O C) h •4.‘ y.. w �.. I . U Q) 4) Q) o V) 0 U) ry a) t io 0) O) 0) L. IN Q 4 � 4 4 4 En E h h E - - - - 0 o N UrtCrtt o �V N a O 0 N E L o C U O O C C O U) O = (� Y 0 a c• -O in C O +-� p _ `_ •- > Ct 0 +-' O o L C L _ >, d. 03 .. Q) Cn -c m ° (a vi .E • E4-1 O c; N _ c rri c c N U co p E U (t3 co : - •C O C � co co 0 = CD o H- 2 Z CC r) Z 0 CO 0 < -, U Y U -, U) •-, 03 -) - _ - - - NORTH 125 IS EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : August 18 , 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION I. Introductions 2. July Meeting Follow-Up • Craig G. (Carter Burgess) explained the ways to use Queue jumps/Transit signal priority to improve bus travel times on highways like US 85 and US 287. • • Gene P. remarked on the importance of getting buses in and out of traffic lanes so that roadway capacity is not reduced . • Craig G. explained the Freight Rail Relocation concept studied by CDOT: 96 miles of new rail from Cheyenne to south of Pueblo , far east of 1-25. • 50% decrease in number of freight trains on UPRR , from 19 to 9 per day. ■ CDOT study did not draw a clear conclusion on the benefit of CDOT financial participation in the freight relocation . 3. Packaging Updates • A Value Engineering process was conducted to provide a fresh look at potential alternatives for the Draft EIS. Copies of the Final Value Engineering report will be available at next meeting for anyone interested in the details. • Value Engineering proposals have identified key elements for consideration : auxiliary lanes, multimodal transfer centers, clarifications for Purpose & Need, funding and constructability. • The number of packaged alternatives for Level 3 Screening has been reduced from 10 to 8. • Holly M. and Julie M. presented the 8 alternatives. Descriptions of each have been added on the back of each graphic. ■ Different types of Congestion Management measures would be provided on 1-25 and "Throughout the study area." ■ Changes to the packages presented at last month's meeting include: o Package 1 now extends bus service into Ft. Collins 1 . A suggestion was made to inter-line this with existing bus service. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAC108J8051TAC-081805.doc NORTH 1-25 rzws. EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee August 18, 2005 Page 3 of 10 ■ Membership on the working groups is open: TAC/RCC members are welcome; residents can volunteer or be recommended by TAC, COOT, or the Project Team. 6. Transit Funding Concepts ■ Gina M. presented six possible sources of transit funding . o Formation of a Regional Transit Authority (like RTD, collects sales tax) o RTD's district could be expanded to portions of our study area o RTD could , through a single private contractor, Design , Build , Operate and Maintain new facilities , to provide service further north . o Joint Powers Authority — government entities could form a separate board (like BART in San Francisco) o Transit Development Board could be created— as has been done in San Diego o CDOT could fund and operate new transit service 7. Other Matters • Holly M. presented the "Level 3 Alternatives Development Analysis Matrix" • Different packages will answer various questions on which types of improvements will • operate best Next Meeting: Thursday, September 15, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 1 :30 - 3:00 PM Topics: Refinement of alternative packages > Interchanges • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation 1103225105. TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAC10818051TAC-081805.doc - :, — - : ,sM in s � ' r w D Hi E 6 � E O O U �J C O > (1) �� O1 p O O 0- � , 6 U U o jEQn 0 OO U C Q. c E E_3: O , , C • O � � t- 6 O c U O (LS — (/� c C O D O a) O U s N 0 C= Q) O s �`- O 4= C U p s ;,_ N 0 : U Q C O _C U C n. 14--- E s.a © L a cn o a E E �J o 0 -4-' — I (a to 2 Q) 0 (, = @� O .- Y c c co Si.:cio c)�, U Q C -D-Ci I O t (6 `� N cII 'ea— O (6 0 LLJ W ..0 a) U CD E H ' U -3, a 0- V ci Q ci 0 O TD o C) U a) 0 �' o O a `' ca .� 2_ •C 13 CD C0 Q. C6 0 1- H E� d a O • a. c o Cl a N N (�� a) +.. `O W (1:5 O ^ Y as c13 (1) c v) oc C C it E c b o 0 a n a) n c .� 0) 0 Q 0 CO 0 a' 0 0 c c U 0 CS ,o CD -J Cl) C c� U -v) OO a) O O RI o O O 0o o '- u) u J • - Q 3 3 H H o E CD E C o 5 L- a_ It 0 o Z o o I 00 CD co o On: I nom' o I b a .a 4E' c c c c c C U) in y (0 y U Q) C) 0 CC) a) L CD L o 4 a, Q. C izt E o o e U o 0 o m L ON L C O a O• > p (l m r N N = 0 E 3 0 o Q NJ -o W U' to n LL _co .0 r > -2 0 O co ti W o (a v : 0 t Qom) W O [L a) ct w it 0 cz 0 C0 to a) n o j E N 03 LL 0) -3 0 Cl_ L C 0 �, h C C W c a) c c o.. n '� �' 0 D -_ I C en N as O O —) C 0 O O O O O O t- co — C t _ 0 o F- Q Z CC --) (n < < m 2 -, H (Y a_ GO O 2 U' < a_ m H ci r • ' ,i N � • rH U) -16 U) 0 oo O ) E Q U O O �. ' " 1 O U Cr L- cO C) cn U) O , o a O O t 6 c O Q c N c= --ci a.) = d > N o L o •C U L O , _c O C U OU O CO E , O o a o ° a) - Q) . o •ri .� Ca) ° c -nii Z? n U� L O cn g © c CO p L " CIS E C Q' a) c0 o a) c a) CIS a > d a) a) ?`` Q ° >. c O E 0 cn a) a) LE --IL E E O E a) > c p •U ) Q, a., s o, LU Z, Y Z U C� .E Z H 2 .o E U o CO ti . _ q 0 0 O W a C o . I _O �ZN ,[ lV .� Vv • U Ua •t3 ti 0 °- . _ _ - I ci i Cs) L d Q) [i > c a) o 0 O d a) o '5 w c c -•?;" C ,_, O C W 0 = C c N +r c 'ts Z (O -C' O U U U o a) o P C-)- O n ,O O MM •MiL c L U OD rL c..) Le W c . Q D Q) L L W H L ^C CU OC Uo -o N 0 t_ CCa F— E C 0 E a a) 4- CD e O Cll = O CO = .'= N - O o Q O c0 L CO o i- b H 5 LL CD O a. O - a O O F-- O CL U U m o 0O 0 -1O V Z3 C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) o Z CI a a a a a s L. a a s 'V E . c. o U c) 0 EN L' N Cll 3 C w C Q) L. C L c Y C a > p L L-) >O O Cll - C ..Q E Oco C w c0 0 • Q Cr) �' L z Z m 0 0 `� u Icii ° •E °�' a_ o .C E ?, * Cll O7 CC C > -CT) C O L i N O CD R3 U p CO Q (I) Cll a3 (ski' E L Cll •C o F- Q Z Z Y I O -) 0 --) Z H (i) -•) O Y O C7 < rill . N � H Z U) R C O 0 kLi O O a > u) ' ° U) U > U) O) O n , o -. 0 O U -4--;CD CI t° 0 L O ��}} � O ► : O E U U © (d . G} 0 O E O J C C 'S E E o 0 '� E O -6 o (� 0 E o 0 L O OU O U O) a) © O o " d., o a CT 'c 1 a) .n U• O E .y 6 U U — _0 CO U 6 U; U y.= d q 0 _`L (� U C Q C . o tnr 44 o _ RI c a) -o E Et, • - -o c5 (o c c , c O W Q o n U •E cn -a') n n Q O L a)C C) c) c)R Ca co .1--.. o a C 2 U co Q) • o : o 0 ca O O) -Dx. L L C O .S' ro CL N . N Ill U CD Cl. c a- C C > W c C 2 P. (!) H Z W W H P. ti — , - d '3 a) E 0 r O E o O 2n CO ), 4 1 0) C c C c `= U) 0 O >, (1)) .C O N - I . = O D b O O .c �--• N t DC �' C CJ O O O 0 L �, 1? o 2 .� cs O 0 ' U L c c 0o n m U_ 2 ° CO m m = U m a o 0 o ° E E U o c c ' ° 0 0 0 �; c� O = �' (� o = o o b Q CO U m J O CO 0 0 u_ 0 U 0 u_ U 0 H L- H a.. Z v h O . , (Z °1° 4 o a) a) a) a) 0 cm co t L L L L03 . Q Q. 4 4 4 4 N E 6. E i OO o o C o (13N4 O O N E L ' o C U Q) O O c N 1 > O o oc c U) — > a3 U U �O E o • QN C cn E m N m = o v E o To 06 o co L .v Y C v U v0_ C' I— o C c (15 U) ._v) _ C L- C C ], C "C7 >,I L- H C CO (� C N C Cl) - ca s- C O Q) .. N O 0 c s E— Q Z CO co CD < - ) 0 Y 0 --•) co -) oo —, 5S —) H I Q NORTH 125 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : October 11 , 2005 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Package Design Development • Tom A. referenced the highway information in the handout for the eight Packages of Alternatives for Level 3, and covered the Level 3 Design Summary memo. • • The intent is to establish a consistent application of design considerations. • A single alignment for horizontal control and vertical profile were established to compare the eight Level 3Packages. Potential transit station locations have been added. • No new frontage roads will be considered in Level 3. Deletion of some frontage roads will be considered during the DEIS . • Members were encouraged to comment on the memo, before (via e-mail) at the next meeting. • Craig G. presented the transit update on design development, describing the process to determine where grade separations for commuter rail will be required. To date, it appears that only US 34 will need one. • No sites have been identified for transit maintenance facilities. • All train routes under consideration would connect to (interline with) either of the two FasTracks lines, in Longmont or Thornton. • Craig G. described some of the physical characteristics (stations, platforms, crossings) of the Commuter Rail and BRT. • Dave M. asked where cut-and-fill re-grading would be needed to achieve the maximum 2 '/2% grade for commuter rail. There are three identified locations. • Gene P. stated that some commuter rail systems can climb more then 2 1/2% grades. He encouraged considering these types of options as part of the evaluation process: the costs and impacts of cut-and-fill construction, and new transit technology that can climb steeper grades. 3. Transit Station Working Groups and Station Location Updates • Kim P. reported that the four previously conceived groups will be combined into two for • the evening meetings that will be held in October, December, and February. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAC110110S1TAC-101105.doc FORTH 1-25 çt� "� ,i�� EIS• a:. �. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee October 11 , 2005 Page 3 of 9 Next Meeting: Thursday, November 10, 2005 Region 4 — SH 402 Loveland Residence Office (Subject to change) 1 : 30 - 3:00 PM • • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-i 01/05.doc ke.r .''• L . .:I t •.Y 1 h: 0 ~ niH E' o iO O 0 kri o C 1 E co C O co CD D 0 o o E d o cy 6 C Di a . . i E D c 0 >✓ 3 C C U E 2 - : s (7) O ' 4) O _0� O O O CO co 6 OU - `'- O a OC U C a G Cl) E t' o 0 "ttog a C' o al •C L O Q) co Iw d) Ng? _ r ECr O _-a1n _c p No E a" C C-a . W J a� a) c) m E H U —, co � t O q O c2. O o > U C) 0) 0 C o a C) a O L co . i FL 2_ .52 .. III ri a) 0 t-- H -' t d o • a s✓ c a L �' O O O_ O C C .S •a o — L- V w o ' s_ co O C b Co C) a w 00 CO a r 0 O O c CU -0 o co _i U) -, a CD U •VS 0 0 N 0 U0 H o o C C O O a) ° E E L O (II E E C O -4. O S O o Z 00 cQ O O O U Q O W 0 O O H LL H H LL 0 O 0 U _1 U Z U O co t la U -3 Q) a) C) Cl) a) 0 43 a) 0) o 1. L.E Q a a a a Q. a a a a a E I o O e U 0 0 lin N LT. I � O 0) -2 i- a0 N t 4 . CD Coc cn 0-, -c, C3(,) .7 a0 C c� a N (o o il Q N , in L7 .D LL C .n CoC ] O C u O W E c� C ` U E c� a, (n a) I co U ` 1 ° -t a) W O LL a) Co W LL 0 co O (7 Cl) L h 0 _c a) E C w ca U- O) a -a 0 c L O_ >, H U p > .o C C a) s -0 C CU.. s 4) "0 C M N V as m O O ms -) C O O O o a) o O L- (o - C E O 0 H O < 0 (Y --) 65 < Q co -) F-- c a_ m O 0 < 0- H t.,x,t_ .,:%, vp,„--4:zari. ..... _4.,--W-77:- 7 • f. ...x. •�m2'.v N ! mow co H Cl) O � , D U I� E i co 0 ' O n OU >' 6 O U te c o O U . O E E O p � U ' L { j p D O , U Qi L U Q) O O c) c.) L C . O a) W L o ai .o O dI a) a) o c ' �'• a) L: y •: , a) b -o - -2 o s a); o E o a� a I . D. D E i o ' 3 sp �_ al N co E g It c cC3 O O j N O � OO d eT o , i. E C) g . p � @ QC �i ` ,,� , ,.1L� L L O a) E N 0 (ti O N c O L U CS �' O C C p ' •U O 0. CD r o LU --) j Z I U CO .E1 Z 1-- ._ 3 E v es r. ti q O I O O U U) • C z . , o 0 d .cts -Er?. o • .2.(#13, ` .� a V0 a. 0 L (1) a") ti C a) o O d L 4- , O • V O > u) u) C C ≥II ci c o s o 0 n a ,0 � CL. 5 a C) D •as C U 0 a) o w 4- 4•- CO O L CO m O -p N •L L CD -c O O L U a) L 4- w C I_- E W 1— a) L o0 C C C) -O t C O L- N C O O Ct I O a:5Z O O O p O 03 L (13 L -.es H H U 5 u.. co 0 !L U - , 00 0 H U .� a. 0 0 a) o a L. a L. ct 6 E Q v, E o o e U a 0 L.' N a) oL as L L_ C .5 g`n cL L LO - O O O Y o • -O N, a)• L N L C5 E (n • a) O O U) E L i \ +� O U LC — a. vi ..C /} L • •� O •L N en a o z p a a)C p O a o CO ° a) a) U Y a o I— O Z - ) Z -� Y IC --) CO Z H Cn —> rH seS 174 H U) D o 0 r O 0 C -0 O C o a _o L si _ Q '6 q O (13 O31 d Y Er 0o W2 ' V tt q 0 L O v C O . •o v L._ d V SW b Q U -0 ., V) a. •.. ti L.E L. L. co lu tv LL . C O .y V C L. -T� (V(� O }J .y O O • , E O m uw .4- O -C as O 4.- tio `, c O h-,"." o .� 8 k) Q H b h 0 0 t U _H C, Z o O. E Q h h O O e O o N O LI 010 > C E 4 Q N O 0 o CO r- O n o U L L ID E .Y tn U EN CD 0 U N I--- 0 Z '7 2 *.F`i'r ,.r NOR_H 1-23 • ie , M1 MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee November 10, 2005 Page 2 of 10 2. Lee C . (RTD) asked if roundabouts at ramp terminals will be considered , since they seem to work well. 3. The LOS D threshold is for the intersection and not individual movements . 4. Bob G. replied that they will be considered. 5. Stan E . summarized that Step 2 analyzes a maximized diamond interchange. 6. Dave K. asked if LOS C is the threshold for analysis. 7. Mike F. (Mead) stated his relief to learn that "Basic Improvements" also included new, wider bridges to improve diamond interchanges. 8. Kathleen B . (Ft. Collins) asked if it was necessary to name the steps. It was agreed that the names were confusing. 9. Tom A. clarified that the process does not infer any prioritizing among interchanges. 10. Vicky M. and Dave M . suggested that steps be referenced only by number, without any names for them . 11 . Tom A. said some slide titles will be changed. ■ Todd F. presented the Access Planning Results , as illustrated by green, yellow and red dots . N It was suggested that instead of labeling improvements as "basic or reasonable improvements" label improvements as standard diamond or enhanced diamond. • Kathleen B. suggested that a Green Dot be referenced as enhanced diamond . • Burt K. (Broomfield) asked what we do when there are differences between DRCOG and local government traffic projections. Tom A. replied that will be addressed during the DEiS . • Vicky M . asked how SH 392 interchange was determined to be a Green Dot. FHU staff replied the confusion lies in the current words, which will be changed as previously discussed . ■ Mike F. said that the 3-color coding indicates configuration , but appear to indicate traffic condition. ■ It was suggested to label improvements "Level 1 " instead of "Basic Improvements" and "Level 2" instead of "Reasonable improvements" . N Bob G. suggested that the meaning of the red, yellow and green dots be clarified. • John F. (Johnstown ) stated that the colors must be constantly updated to prevent confusion as we work through the process. ■ Another suggestion was to use 0 for standard diamond, O for enhanced diamond and • for beyond diamond. ■ Todd F. presented the list of interchanges shown as Red Dots, and the extent of improvements that will be evaluated , covering Harmony Road, SH14, US 34, and Johnson's Corner. ■ Stan E. asked if Harmony Road and SH 14 could look similar, both with directional ramps. The answer was "yes". ■ In response to Kathleen B's question of how these two will be evaluated , the answer is that overall operations will be evaluated with a reconfiguration and with a nearby new interchange. If either one alone produces LOS D at the interchange, then both reconfiguration and a new interchange together would be evaluated . • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-I11005.doc NOR". -• d , .r . � • EISYr y+1 '' ��l,s �:pet MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation, transportation. Technical Advisory Committee November 10, 2005 Page 4 of 10 5. Public Involvement ■ Transit Station Planning 1 . The second round of meetings will involve four meetings. 2. TAC members are invited. • Town Hall meetings schedule was handed out. • Next TAC meeting on December 15th will focus on the eight Alternative Packages, not on interchanges. Next Meeting: Thursday, December 15, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 1 :30 — 3:00 PM • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-111005.doc Lco 1,14• X H 0 rr, =I E O ♦off 0 c' Z V o cu w E ' E L o� 3 E cri ) D 0 o -- " o 0 v •c o o e cn i E 0 c a, c ! • O m . , 2 E! E '. Q` 5 o 3 c L � C o E 0 vi cn o 1 cn o 0 c 40� -n o o f Cl) N N p o NLe- cc O .C U c al t a @Ai O C -p p3 O' _. v'— b c0 i_ , O Q) a C " i 43 ad ID 3 C O �/ C c O N rr O • L (t1 •— w- r-- d) t..5 x �C -0 6; r- E Et; a) O Cr U CO 0! c -0 Cr 0 o W J E o W O o c CO E, H U E co 0 q Q o oL. ) o a) U 0) O ' c a . , Cl) •C cu ., L c -0O 03 y C CL _ 0 CI U C N 'd CO a_ H It R ti GL O • a. a o a) c a) �, 3 h O _o o c z c-0 Eo c (/) O ' CCf C C c C al Z a) w o cts n o 2 o O O C o a) M ._! CO M MC.) To" O -his O 4 - O 0 O O O COH H 0 N LL -bo te D 3 0 Q O n t1 U I—O o O OO t o E Et L cs h Q CL Is a in D U U H 11- H I— w DU U U a _JO Z Zi 01 1 . - i a C) Q) ala a) C) C)i C a) 0 Q) 0 a) a) aa)) U °' 4 L. a. 4 4 5 E ct i , E 0 O w cn , w 4—) 0 0 O C c , - (� cn QJ C C _ C N o > N 0 c (� — L. cq •— Q) an — 0 E p D7 t-' U) O Y a co Y a f!J O o • Q c-- ` C Q "O W O' O Q LL (A ` tLf C ') C� co o Q 4j �' aci D in E ti a) �i O C� U •c U D o W C M LI- t a) Q_ U L7) C N h c C a W C d� a c Q S2 " N II ri 0 > Rf a) CZ cis 0 a -, C 0 a) 0 O N O 0 I- c� C o CD O H Z Z .J O O -) CO Q Q 00 -� H C� a. m U CD Q Sr.:..V i; - i' A 0 in cr t1 w En u) o O U) r U U) E o El O ; L_ O > O U ' U U O 6 al. O U C) O > O U C L) ca U U) p� i o �? 0 L 6 > U) o c)E:03),, a� c op' -o 45 E . o E y o, — U 5 � o E "---vol0 U U a) o c ii `- L ` E' N C a) Q) . L ii G ` N Q) is- co o a) C ttJ c� E ' 1 44-a) 0>-1 (nc CO a) • CO 0O E- E� o �' a�� aa)) a) c .- TO O W >x , Z Y� O O .C Z H 2 2 �. E u ti t ts o L. O 0 v C Z 0 O (C ZS z ,O o •0 • ..,„„ O 4=0N 0.4 (t3 C 0 Cl) o- E� _ - , L C a) CL o >c C 0 a) O CO ti Q a) O • s _ ..Y- > U) U) C C > ( ) N a) U^))` ` C (o 0 = C c � • • Q v W /l D a) r o D a : Cl) � Z I = co2) c o 0) rco U 0 a) o 0) O O w a_ D D O D •- v ` a) U sa a_ o o CO o m CO o "o a) w m •ao tram C C a� O o m o s- m F--- E c H E o m ID O O 3t 3 ._ o� t 0 O O o o O cII ca t � LL. o o c� o CO I — Q Z H H. U 5 cn O E.1._ O - O O U H O J a. O - U a 13 a) aa) - O a. 4Lill S. E Q E _ _ - O 0 U L 0 0 O L N N c c a)- . C C) -a N ca a) a)C s- ` a) o a� >CC5 a) O o E Q J `_ Q) C - 0) Q) Z U) O al i 0 0 •E E0 h L E .Y - x C _ N O) C CZ C C >O O -C 0 L C N I- Z Z > - Z - ) Y O -) 0 -) Z F- cn --) O Y O r- __ • n4 Liu QD a. J C7 6 E UL O U F , w c c O O cm E . U C O E � o ca vi U t O U) 0 'U C NI � ,. cn 40 -C' .Q,I O C o Er_L (� a Q) i � I ii >` Q •U -0; CZ0 C. 0 O i.12 ' @ @i 1 O' L U OC O U _ LL! 3 Z F- E M 2 to to , I 5 • t3 IC 0 I i 0 0 U L •15 43 c C x a) 0) O O CCit) 1_ �.+ O 0) h CO c C ., • .... V U c C C I 0 L1.1 3 N (/) L1 I— H H , _ _ FL: _ _ _ _ _ - 3. C1 LL 0) C o >` _ W i t V _ ti 10 4_4 CD 5 r 0 O C O cia F N co o Z o L L a ` 84-4 14- O C 0 O - C O to O zz C O C -D O C f Ci �' a Q F-- O H J J F- LL b o) . L U 4- Z v) h o E E _ - z 0 U c v) o> N o N E c > D N a Q � a) 4- C 4 • •• O C w a� LL Tv-- Li m x - > r U > CU P U �O U .Y 0 0 O 3 H z - -_) Z 1- it 0 2 2 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 15, 2005 Page 2 of 11 • Would provide lanes as needed and phased to meet future demand . • What does the VHT tell us? • Why pick PM Southbound? It was the one that shows the most differentiation. 5. Transit • The transit and evaluation results based on highway improvement. • A shared guideway and managed lanes seem to be different type of facilities. Managed lanes acting as a managed lane. • The word Guideway is probably misleading. • Either Commuter Bus and BRT bus both could use managed lanes. • Guideway seems to suggest rail. • The commuter bus riedership is not limited by the number of buss running . A generous service was assumed . • The information provided on ridership is the demand , more the sufficient capacity is provided to meet this demand . • How are the travel times within a few minutes of each other? The scale or the chart does not depict the difference adequately. • Another reason Commuter Bus stations were fewer because of the difficulty of getting on • and off the facility. • Is the station spacing optimum? The transit working groups will help to defin this . Peer data was used to deleim77777 Station areas for the analysis. • The average distance people will drive to a commuter rail station is 4 miles, walking 72 mile. The 85°' percentile finding is 9 miles. • The 1-25 alignment would likely be to far away for Greeley people to use it. • The commuter bus is more express but BRT one more high capacity/high speed/quick load type of service . • The Western Alignment would seem to attract more special use trips. The model does not account for these. Special use trips are being estimated from the HH survey. • The Western Alignment has greater noise, social, circulation and vibration impacts. This is one big difference between the two. • The Central Alignment will attract new land and impact those; however on impact to existing use is perceived different then a possible future impact to land . • Berthoud has supported rail and will continue. • New development currently being built in the corridor and will beimpacted . • The Commuter Bus system combined with a BRT system. • Commuter Bus can grow into a BRT system. • The Central Alignment has more length than Western Alignment. • Suggested to look at cost per trip length rather than cost per user. • The least damaging environmentally alternative in terms of aquatic resources is required to be identified , this is Package 1 . From a process requirement will need to carry forward something similar to Package 1 . This applies to DEIS and FEIS. • The Corps look at the least environmentally damaging that is the most practable and best • meets purpose and need . Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation L103225\05. 14O2004 thru 200612005 TAC11215051TAC-121505.doc NORTH 125 (: J EIS r� . - .. • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 15, 2005 Page 4 of 11 o Use "road only" instead of shared guideway. o BRT has higher demand then CB when it runs on same route? o Travel time — how are they all within a minute or two of each other? — you get a "smoother" ride the further you go on BRT. o How sensitive is model in predicting demand in terms and station location and spacing? Is this spacing optimum? o Some station location info came from peer system comparisons. o Is there a distance that impacts if people will come? o Given zone of influence - would have little benefit to us 15 miles away o BRT is meant for high capacity — shod term — high speed on/off. CB is more express — less stops, longer trips, more flexible . ■ Commuter Rail o When you say 50% higher — are you meaning non-work users? o 50% higher — is that capital costs o you are assuming FasTracks picks up southern connections o Looking at transit stations , you will have development where transit is — need testing to support transit. 11 o Aren't there 2 impacts — immediate vs. secondary development that is not there yet? o To station locations factor in land use plans? o is strong proponent of CR — we support it through/around our town — Berthoud . o Existing 1-25 communities very close to highway — people don't seem to mind noise. o Did we consider fly-overs and those impacts? o Have we looked at BRT/CB as one program? BRT at peak hours, CB at off peak?** o Would lost between central vs. west alignment corridor cost per mile vs . user — cost per user length of trip. ( o Transit commuter bus) location — west, central , east o Can we combine transit with parallel arterials to solve issue? ■ One, Two, or Three lines s Alternatives for Further Consideration o Have parallel arterials been considered for complimentary alternatives? o Arterials create bigger impacts o Trips in Northern 1 /3 are short trips -- could be considered an off-system roads — can you look at that? o BRT characteristics — could it be worked into the solution for those short trips? o BRT — 2 columns — infrastructure vs . operating characteristic. o If you build 8 lanes — LOS C — there are smaller things you can do than traditional BRT. o Can we show footprint for CR on 287 vs. 1-25? • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAC11215051TAC-121505.doc EE ? 1- [ r . 0N '� i.2.4 4.1 u) o D U 0 a) co >O E U` r n j-jai Ul O .«-% >1IU) ' + . DU O >1 Ut -o O O O D O 2 �� v. $ U , 0 • , Q C I �_ �, �; o E CO OU 6• vE O O 03 > O N N i U .�• C In O ' i E U? '' C O (n .- > � C Dr O O o Uf �C N =O -. O C) O .a] �1 > � 6 �• ? -a U ^r �C a) O ' g • V U 0 n, C o • o (� U. U �, (t5 U U - g Q N C t a) c a) ED (4 a) so �. C O E Q) O N a a S 2 c� a) P s ° E U E E ti �- N O O cz 0 o 114 co I•-- C/) -0 -a O O .Y __ 0 I cn U C L tl 2, O u L 6 C o co o S C E C c o W 0 4 O 0 .o LIJ CO c� co L. x ,+., 2 t t • (4 .c..1 CL t3 Q c 0 c s� at w a Z 0 Z ~ H H CL R o L 0) Z _ o a) 0 ti v- i• U .-. O C o6 aS a) E v o > c ° -0 0 = E U Q' U — C O L .C C O 0) Q) oO �_ > N 2 i- O C W C > > O L om O U a)zit- E m �-• w O : O a) to .� i0 4-o H o 0 o o 0 o o � O E ii id 4-14-- L O is Q O O u O a Om u_ H LL O H 0 u_ CL O O O o c,. It wa a S a) aa)i W N cu Q) 4) cn- y.Wa ^ ^ C e N 4.+ 4 L. a 0. Q. �i k Q k E C o C U ('3 c ,- to U) E 0 w E . • o N Q) ` CO 0 0 � C >d N C -t� COc m a E o c • Q C R CD co U r C a3 CO 0 U -C O O LT E - Q ) m m m a) Ca ,, m` m O U O U t a� E CO.E EL L N O O N aN ea 0 _ 0 O .C c a) o Z N 5 0 � I O O C� Y - , O Y I J C0 Cn U _ _ • ir ___________, 0 e"\1 "' ' 44 Llsi CI F-L4 O O -C c Q, 74 E P� C = r > L O 1 Da p O p O c U p c E O? oc O U 6 O Tu -o t OU ui O � I 512 E 'cr.) y ` '1 E' -55 Q) C CO = I —U�) ' �i .� 0 r- o -p O ; m as E > O0 c _� �. a To o O C ' �� 6 C O co p @ ii -d � ; � I gi O0 'LH — > Tu o ct U C -O ; C 4--1, g V b O Oco CL 4J c o co cs W L � I u o E E _1 Y ❑ E E E y n a. O b ci O ti O U C O •o CO Zs' • art3 'V C CD 40 I -D C E c p O .O co o a a) t L .rte O C ° cn cc U C - a C -n . -6 o ff' � � U) c ° a� a� CO c - c lo) C - .- co �' a) o O ti -- ° o 0 4- co IL c " U O o z co v �bo o Q U Om O H D ❑ O m Q H 0 U IZ 1- O O O --, c N 6.0 SA U ki v/L. W N L.U) Q) "' Q. Q a E.,, 0 O O 0 n c co T. 4. • � o -6 a� c c c c E o c o p o N co a) _ co Q c co a. a� o c y 0 o C of Q ❑ o o T3 432 Z = = o •a� o o CD Y Y E -2 2 2 L Co > ..C rri Z e. c O >, co c c o o L v �' > o = c > Cl) K cam,) U Ri Ic . c = •-c Qc3 co co - co n C U 2 co C O o u.. •-)Z a_ H Y ) CD Z 2 CD —► CD CO L. E 1-- O C5 tt 11 . 1 F -1 D H '07; E O C = of U 0 • 1 > i EI �CO� ♦ OI �{ •UI �O ' � ' O T 0I R , W U �I co � � O ; OI U C 01 CD O ' g ' O O : > 1 p D LU.. i � i +-, . CD oI Di 0 : _CI UI c O C1 CD : U ; O' O OI N . (0 : �i V ' � I a) u)• U E o oi 0 0 -a -O E cz p w cn y- y 1 — a 5 ; •U ' `� cs ' c c o 4- 1 co. 0 ! D -° ' ! C U C sp . O I `C3 ca ` O ; Ol U U . — I c • o • 1 moo' o , �i ca ; �� 3i E � oy ; � n C ` • I U , O O -= • O , O col O ` • co , • , o a c� of = U I � I • U • • , a D I L U • I Lt) ' • I c tl cn I N U • cry c : c i - ; U v • j 2 , c"l E _ I H chi Nj c� �I o c as O c6 ca r .., O ��'� I ((� > I a) , , ' I, W ' `v L 2 0 .01 (UI <C : .2 0) 6 ; l� • . L . -) CI C ■ ■ tl ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ q 0 0 U C 0 .Ny V t•-• • r 't. [, IvwJ VN V L LL, cp E •0 0 ^^`` L E W ,.eL O cn C U c t 0 p 2 cn R +J a �, c > U C ' C _ O s U U o U U • W o < t u O D 4-- -� 4:4..e3/44 H Cl] LL- it a� o • o Le— t 0 c to c to 4 - Oct '� o D -o o CO E o c E c c cc -O C c E > G o :~ O C U I:° 0 1- H 1- H- 0 Li-. F 44) o Q a m m U U !Y Q CZ N u U a o a. a. 4 G a) a.t t o E 0 O U N c 43 43 i O o ..c O O E C Co C O • o • top Cas C cU D >, N 0 — > c C L D • O C V i E (f' D Cn C ca c6 c 431 O E O N O 2r L O p ca cn g 0 _oaj �- c� U u) a) p cn u) c H H c .E -a -c a) c en cro c L (n c ^C c o �\ I1�\\_c cu /� l.. mm (� �M� N W •�� M H p C7 Q In (Y O NORTH 1-25 shoillig Meeting Minutes EIS • Technical Advisory Committee January 12, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 8 Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE : January 12 , 2006 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions Tom introduced Steve Silkworth and Dan Ledy of Maintenance Design Group; they are consultants in transit maintenance facilities design . • 2. Follow up from December Meeting 8 lanes vs. 6 lanes • Would including more local roadway improvements reduce the demand on I-25? • A sensitivity run of the model reduced 1-25 volumes by 10-12 percent and improved operation by one LOS grade in most locations. • Vicki M . asked why local improvements would or would not be included in the DEIS. • Dave M. replied that they are local recommendations that are under consideration. Transit Ridership Results • Chris Primus suggested that a workshop on the results be conducted during the normal date for the TAC • Special event trips would increase ridership by 200-400 trips on a weekday, 500-1 ,000 on a weekend • Transit forecasters learned in the 1970's not to predict higher future fuel prices when prices have recently jumped , because that leads to false high projections. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J103225105. TAC12004 dint 200612006 TAC10112061TAC-011206MM.doc . 7 Tri NORTH 1-25 , Meeting Minutes W EIS = Technical Advisory Committee �`� "� "-° January 12, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. Page 3 of 8 • John F. (Johnston) explained why he believes that, at this time going into the Town Hall meetings, an Alternative C with central Commuter Rail should be presented . • Dave K said that Alternative B, with BRT, makes more sense to him . He wonders about converting BRT into rail in the distant future. • Jim Brighton suggested we need to present both west and central rail lines. • Jim S suggested that the Town Hall meeting presentations include more slides to cover questions as to why some alternatives have been eliminated . • Kathleen B. (Ft Collins) likes the approach for different modes being recommended for three different corridors, but also sees merit presenting in an Alternative C. • • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAC12004 drnt 200612006 TAC10112061TAC-011206MM.doc • 4. .:.•a 1 is N list W c4 I (h 0 o O E n E p? o ppr Oo > 8 A' U O O o Q U C O cOp cn Q' •O O U O c 8 j j ( R O O Q 0 c , N C O E 8 0 a o a g o+ o c ro S o a o O E c _to > o o a) 0 a) ._ 0 @a 8 si4 ° Q E G `� ° O ' ' ` ` `- N C a @ ` O h .C' C a) O c 6' m OI a> E Ea) a P C U - a) C O N a) > o c U .0 (D N t o E E E a QI W > Z U O ,° Z I— O 3 E d I E Q. 0 b o L. ei c .q So o 1 .� .� coc i o W m :is 1:19 — CO ci). Q 1 t t• k. t: Z i ool 43 I> (. b tti w c L 'O a) 5 Q .fi . ea (3 Q Q) O .1 o _ o ≥ cn Y cn C C . . 41 cn "E a C N U C) a) > j CI)a) — O D U C tv z I = (II pc O En • U O a) O Q) >. • . O cn GL m o U (n m o -O .c a m - o as a- 0 O ` U w cn C E— E E� H a) o .- -� 2 c c C) -t, -0 a) o c o 0 cc 3 3 t 5 r D , O E 3 O •c ° t d u- o O ca a) o cv I '" a) o o O O 0 m m g o Q Z I-- F- U Ca O U_ CU -, U U U }- U _i d O oN ct 6 b �0 0 Z , \ _ to t CS E Q v E o �7 O kg N U o N Ft co N o �, a) ct E c o oc I ._ii 00 a) ' a� - c .a E o C 0 5 Ni C3 a) a) a) C N O a) a) O o U) ` L- Jo N Q N m °� �' o z Z O Ei o° z a) 2 .- E1 O� a 0- Y d° a m . it, U o V• o O c- D " c6 O +) �j - I •-. o • _ 0 H en 0 • :kW? y t. y 2' ' , "'r' J rNi-+ l_u . H 0 n U i ur -c U,Z o C.) 3 o o E VS O c o o @ 2 q (l) o o c a i -t N • c co aa) Q 21 a E� E E aa) V o t `o Q a (° a i0 va-• yoo e, J q, s— c U a U U -b. 3 a C1 Ii1 Z F- v E - c q y b CI O O L . O O U I if.) c c m Q Th .o c d o a Coc co t...� r r ` I 0 it C c N h -- - r — — , _ .— ___ — 3 R . ol d O7 . i ; tu Y JJ r b 44 . g C E N 1J 0 _06 0 O Z co O7 ,__ i_ N O a `- c: :E43 m c _ •II "6" --J 46- 3 "6 Ex ~3 7-.. C O C t?, c y C O i'1t CU ~ _' ti U �. ` C3 h . b b s. (l 3 c bo r. m ) s. '�~ 4 t1 h - q I - '� ry E ° `+ ,...; U re-FL Q o Q N C ' 1/443 C'1 -cvr - oo c t -r 3 0 ca .c a� 2 `U a C z a " O � � w a� m _ C - s 0c (C E o p 03 co ic 3 Fes- �° Z ` Z F- Q Q. a F. r • h N N 0 Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 1-25 March 9, 2006 Page 1 of 6 EIS -ii. • information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE : March 9 , 2006 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER : Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 1010101h. . II SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION j 111111111111„, 1 . Introductions1111111% ij 4 IIIIIIII 2. Public Meeting Input Summary 11111 ll ■ Kim provided a verbal summary about` 12 pub(i petings held IiIIIIM study area , the number of participants that att a . e of the primary comments and questions heard from attendees. �I 111 P 3 . DEIS Package Discussion Wo fi Iii ■ Participants were asked to ide .f the k t.III • nsiderations that should be addresses during the DEIS? e res ` 1. • sum :ha rized below. Irthlity A. How are we o Votes 9 J a) Bus — feed funding b) Do toll land ual non-c pete agr ent? No other improvements . c) Local off-rou 1 po is o roved 1-25 and interchange traffic mans ent. lithi • j nd d n frontage reds. Funding replacements and property access. pr d) �, d . g 9 P P p Y e ' ' will fu ;i per Uransit alternatives? t) i � ill people wh • th uld ride rail actually use it? Fiscal�� p nstraints. Mil a) See er revenu rou rces . b) Don't - if iiiways lose money. B. Anticipate () Ij, e Growth. Votes 9 a) Is the rail in the best future location considering population centers & access? b) Anticipate growth of small communities east of 1-25. c) Local/regional land use plans & developments d ) What is rails ` positions impact' to future land uses and development in the corridor? e) Key considerations to be addressed : Do the traffic projections truly reflect all of the known/planned development? • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05. TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\030906\TAC 030906.MM.doc Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 1-25 March 9, 2006 Page3of6 J EIS �� ..- • information. cooperation. transportation. E. Well Designed Feeder Bus Service. Votes _ 6 a ) Feeder service to be compatible with existing users. b) Bus service between Platteville and Longmont on SH 66? (Package A: Serve commuter rail and commuter bus) c) Feeder bus service connection in downtown of smaller to ns. Loops within town . d ) Feeder services important to total system function . diI' e) Bus service along SH 52 between 1-25 and Niwot? 7 p packages) I� � f) Package B : Seems like you will now favor bus thr 1 „ 7 from Loveland to Longmon g ) Package B : Feeder bus service on 287, Ft. Colli • L ont. JO; F. CR West is Best. illItilMotes 5 a ) CR western alignment on BNSF best f It of Ft. Collins lank & transportation plans. adopted p III liiiii b) Corridors: Are the rail corridors being ,. fully? 111111: c) Corridors: Is 1 -25 being pushed too much 1 rridor? Commuter Rail and Transit ; 'dor. a ) Commuter Rail instead of or . ;' t!. �-S tran 10111111146:14 1 0 G. Will EIS fill Arter s? Votes 5 ` .al a . a) Will EIS fill in p �� . - � g p b) How does E . ' dress c unity',, ns for parallel arterial network along 1-25 corridor? R( the gaps? 1 4 g p c) Package A: ckiirral pill 1f es fit • 1�and use & transportation adopted plans. NOh ork. IIILI� t,o � a) age s �?i�� ify he additional lanes on 1-25 don't extend north to Hwy 14. t ey do on B . It � a � 1 b arallel arteria �,e a e Dement of making 6 lanes north of Crossroads work tt:11 should now clearly be identified on "Package A". ckage A, he g H. Static �tnctior9Imacts. Votes 4 a) Comm' i � l ti ve 1st & Terry, Sugarmill , or both? .�0 opportunities b) Multi-mode s , pp c) Park & Ride I ations near smaller towns . d ) Encourage Todd's along future BRT, commuter rail routes. e) Provide infrastructure upgrades to station locations f) Stations impacts to local land use patterns. g) What are BRT stations like? Time needed to get on & off the highway. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05. TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\030906\TAC 030906.MM.doc Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 1-25 March 9, 2006 EIS Page 5 of 6 El • information. cooperation. transportation. N. Are auxiliary lanes the best approach for the segments Votes 1 proposed? What are other alternatives for those segments? a) With Package A, could auxiliary lane segment be a managed lane? b) Are auxiliary lanes the best way to handle short trips on NI25 @ Loveland? c) How safe are auxiliary lanes? II'S O. Look at Other Operational Issues . j Votes 1 h) Package A: What distance is considered for thes l e stations spacing for commuter rail? ? Loveland & 402 . 41 i) Package A: What's the distance between t Pngmont s q and the next south of i Is that an appropriate distance for station ' if. Ting for a com rail? Package A: Add commuter rail station .. 0 & 1-25. J ) 9 j llitilk lanes as on map f e -470 soSt o US 36 . k) Package A. Add 8 .. Co-ord . CR all alignment with develo men tIFInnin ari entities . II I) g develop men Co-ord . ROW acquisition with developmen g along 1 -25 for CR. n) Extension of FasTracks line th of Hwy 7 5 is important.III II it P. Commuter Rail Route Justifi 4tio 111i1 Votes _ 1 a) Go with vision and keep commu ail Wit • dire oute not through Boulder. north to ' uW it . ; if CR in center of 1-25? • b) How would comm , � o � c) As US 85 develr�o ases a .�.a, d for co • uter rail is justified (beyond the 2( year limit of I 1` S ), so `3 ommun.1 . s on 25 realize need to plan for this , and mentil this in EIS . . .. • on 85 lim' by sign 1 nd travel time increases over time. hhL ' Q. How A ill freig , • i •, * modated & manag_ Votes 0 a) ' fIjUE 4 ( ' y tot ease resear iiational experience. ,b) , . c to In 1 o ac Ass freight truck traffic using HOT/managed lanes. R'. 4that is the app ''�l3Y iate r'tzlb. for feeder bus? Votes 0 a) S Ciltilfeeder bus t j exists '(Loveland for one). b) Will . - er bus rou `�`')function primarily as intra-regional bus transit? What isI sibilit s j askin feeder bus to ride from Greeley to US 287 CR? c) � Yg "Feeder b ' ' omer. More of a regional bus service. L S. Drainage & F rod Plain Issues. Votes o a) More completely address local drainage master planning and flood plain needs/constraints as relate to transportation infrastructure. b) Interchange upgrades — i .e. , aware of Boxelder flood plain? • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05. TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\030906\TAC 030906.MM.doc NORTH 1-25 T Meeting Minutes �' �� ;.. Technical Advisory Committee EIS � u ' y. y� • April 13, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. • Page 1 of 5 MEETING DATE - April 13, 2006 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES : See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Gayl Harrison SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1 . Follow up from TAC/RCC Workshops • The TAC/RCC Workshop Input went very well . The focus question was 'What are the key considerations that should be addressed during the DEIS? The information compiled from this meeting was very informative. We combined all of the RCC/TAC responses . There were six categories for the breakout sessions: Package Elements, Cost & Financing , Land Use & Growth, Process & Evaluation , Regional Improvements and Expandability. A great deal of concern was expressed relating to cost, financing and future growth . • What's going on with the RCC? There has been no input on this issue. Ifs based on • involvement of each individual member. The TAC meetings have been very well attended , much more so than the RCC meetings . • Tom Anzia - In the Planning meetings TAC gets more into the details of the issues . In the past we felt the context of the packages needed to be more detailed. What other products can we bring to this process? • Dave Martinez - Does that represent all at the meeting? Should we send this document to all the members? It was agreed that we should . • Debra Baskett - In the column for votes, does the zero indicate that no votes were in on some of the issues , or was it even considered an issue? By being identified , it is considered an issue to at least one person . Kim Podobnik explained that once all the comments were compiled and moved into the different categories , some of the topics did not get any votes . A suggestion was made that we send out a Vote document to all members to see where the votes come in . • Tom A. - In future committee meetings we would like to structure public input into our meetings. We will be careful to get comments before and after from the public attendees. Kim Podobnik said there are many conduits for public input. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05. TAC\Minutes TAC\TAC 041306\TAC 04130MM.doc NORTH 125 •g f� - L. Y ': Meeting Minutes ,r � Technical Advisory Committee EIS : i. April '13, 2006 • Page 3 of 5 information. cooperation. transportation. • Real-Time Traffic — CDOT's ITS Department has developed design for fiber optic along 1-25 . However, no funding is available to implement. Several municipalities have fiber optic almost all the way out to 1-25 . Connections with these facilities will be considered . Coordinate with Rich Follmer of FHU on ITS and status of local connections . 3. TRANSIT ▪ Last meetings for the transit planning were held on March 20 , 2006 and March 23 , 2006 . Several station locations are still being evaluated . • Jennifer Merer/CB - The Transit Station evaluation process should wrap up in May. • Kathleen B. was considering adding a station near the proposed maintenance facility. The Ft. Collins Downtown Transit Center was already in the plan . • Interchange Design Development & Station Site Alternatives — From this perspective , we are planning to bring these two together for the May & June Highway Small Group meetings . • Debra B . would like to know if in the BRT Station for Package B , is it feasible for a • station south of SH 7? Steve Olson explained that BRT may not be feasible between SH 7 and 160th due to physical constraints and operations . We need to clearly show if BRT is or is not feasible at this location . The meeting scheduled for next week may need to be moved to a later date in order to have time to work through these issues . • Station Design Development - Is there a need to advise individuals that we will include Station Planning with the Interchange Planning? Yes , they will be notified . Currently, each group received schedules for both the Station Planning and Highway Small Group meetings. 4. Interchange Access Tom Anzia - There are steps to identify how to carry forward into DEIS . That is covered in Michelle Steven's DEIS Interchange Planning meeting strategy memo. A list of people and businesses we have involved in this effort has been developed and updated to inform them of opportunities to interact with CDOT and FHWA. We have met with the seven Highway Small Groups asking for input and to identify interchange alternatives . ■ Meetings will continue up through June to identify consensus for these locations. Updates on Highway Small Group meeting schedules will be highlighted weekly. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05. TAC\Minutes TAC\TAC 041306\TAC 04130MM.doc yy ll sk Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 Technical Advisory Committee EISAjatzt • April 13, 2006 Page 5 of 5 information. cooperation. transportation. • Steve Olson - To All TAC representatives - Steve heard that there are developers out there who have not heard of the NI25 and Interchange Planning process. He suggested that the TAC members provide some outreach to these developers as well . ■ Kathleen B. needs electronic information on the Prospect Interchange . Kim Podobnik will download the meeting schedule to a password protected area on the website for Kathleen to access . Kathleen also inquired if there will there be individualized meetings continuing? Yes, when necessary. • Debra B . is nervous about the different groups meeting with developers. ■ Tom A. reassured Debra B . that the developers meetings are more informational than anything else , and local community representatives are informed and invited to attend the upcoming Highway Small Group meetings . • Tom A. distributed a set of plans showing the interchange alternatives currently being considered . These interchanges were previously presented in the Interchange Planning group meetings. The minutes from these meetings are also included in the packet. We are evaluating roundabouts at the different interchanges for the ramp I intersections as an option to consider for the FEIS . We want to assess the potential impact of signalized (diamond ) interchanges in the DEIS . • There are a couple of unique interchanges for the FEIS that have traffic issues, so we are looking at another evaluation step to reduce the number of interchanges developed during DEIS . • Agencies will have follow-up from workshops. • We will also have follow-up on design processes . Public Comments Period • Dave White , Landowner, fascinated and very appreciative of the wonderful job that we are all doing in the development and design of this project. Next TAC Meeting : Thursday, May 11 , 2006 1 :30 PM - 3 :00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration - Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225\05. TAC\Minutes TAC\TAC 041306\TAC 04130MM.doc •TygnS .;+• ) i ji C a_ � i i egi � � � .k • if tai(s 0 � j ri;traup 4 N r 1 p N f l i • p cr h-�-4 �L i 00 v) U) O (a a E E aD j H ( L E o o 7 n O U . Q) OU U cr, Oai Q `70 v � � ta co E c , V Q in CO ; in = E o o E -p a6 .1 U •c > s-J O O O U O O � + E Z Eo E c� 11 ' Uo g o s II r E c a t` oI E (n O� to p c s Ltd- O O a) at p O W o �'. 8 ° o o U a @i aii E J (� ° @ 3 c �" ° 'O �� c� p cn � � � o u .� -_} a o @ ct c6 _ E .-• p @ E U n c p O p p -r. ti p o c ; o ro -t © �, c c o .� I O o g c - c c , a) © Cl) co • — 4- a) -E al r- p a) Ct o o; to o - an -0 c 2 -0 C -0 •� CD p .Q -p •p �, C p p C p Q G) O L _...I E v l w up p m 1:.3, m E E H it [m U 1 es 0 I L 0 Z' a TU. L • C •� (n Cr 0 C) Oa a) o c c ct. as (a .� • o cp . C C -� 0 K D C CL in H R . . _ I L • p c ,z.o c p O o o 4.' -c O N o A cn in O 4 it, E C p E. ,C2. t p co - U) -� (a - Q 0 cps o 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 ❑ c o Q -a 0 O c c c c c O -..t43H o a p p •-� 0 0 I o 0 0 Z ❑ ❑ -..t43H U W S 0 a H I- u_ H H H a. 00 U a 04 t zi _t_ II W Ck,<, .3 �3t re____- o k� r t 4v v o \ g. L v . o a. C N > coc a) c CD € 45 `.i so_ co C c `� _1 N O (v o C o7 c cn D O x p . H .E 5 -p p O^ " — n a. c w CO r C G U M Z p c O in to E 0 co a C @ p in 2 N ti - '7• a.W pp�� M p (B (t) O a) — C co o Cl) O •— O p I- (o c f-- Q re. a, J 0 0 11_ CL U) Q Q 0 CO a -7 H m 0 ci r.. ,, a ` t co co _ . • t 1• •„� i Co o jrave- . { sft:.•r �: i In v) rNi wca 1 --a y y o a. o wo ; c U U n ,O Q o o E U) o E o 0 a) , , .t c o to o o ° ° cl o a) i 09 co c -O o 'L o a) m > O m ©i E a �. c aci o E 8 O C , -a C U "'Y O D p E ' • 144 - a) L a) O E cn '> @ o o •C c ' c cll IDi U v o a) o of , ca c t o •° ' • ,C L _ cc 0 R. p co a) . O U.. Oln CT a) U U �. E , c @, o G @, q L E C • -cro EC @ L a; a� a� o E N c O a) c a6 c� a) c E L L . d O Ei N •v) : N a CO N c r � I `� E3 O� E g cc-ti E z �, E U —C) (D .C Z H cfy 3 tl . 1 q 0 I 0 w U • _ 0 L L ' c it CO O ?. f-1 co R. .4_a V W _ R 1d is I C L Q O .0„ea w ° > w >. cn c �' CD ? a, V a) .>' Q) o CO C U t 2) C Co ED 9 O) O a) t o D O V) Cl- c C U : L c U E •� Q Z QO L 03 L m m O O U 8 L v- C a) w d ° f-- a) E c ca.)a) 't3 a) D t4-.? cB ]cl) F- E c (10 U 0 0 -J H H 0 0(] 0 Li_ U ) O O U U I— }� L m a b a lil Z4 t-. 0' Q J ‘.... _Z n - O O .14 6. O 0.. O 0 a , N > O O 4) — N a) L a) C C L .2 O M E co E CD C L L CO N >w co - C _ a) a Q N U L Q N >,, c 'c Q) Z n O (4• = N O c c� cc - ..L_ a) a c o Tc > co cem F- Q Lu CI. r as It O U) [2 z -) Y U -) CD —) Z MI (13 H v) —) J Pr .1 '"3 Y' c CL CO 'V�•4�'1'5i; t L.l (•') 54' ;. fir! O • i„,„e:it ..:•::4:9i.:;x , c Zr- ad 1-4a 0 r" a> W t • . D t y D o j H E' o U) `a o � oE Ci a) eaJ Q U U O R3 .c ! Q) O D O U c c j w � O E _B I U O N +.a) U U o _c C o N E • i 0 U _ '� cU — w- O CO '1")C U U ED(3 O d c - - E~ C c U Y c o to -0 . Z -0 , .�.�1 obi E tl q r r q J 0 0 V C C ` Cl)CO U 0) c N D :i ., H I. t E--4 o 1 iii 1.0) • tC I SP E a) 4 c 0 U L. 10 0 O U c�C c' ) O O c c e •w °� c '_ N u) Cl) O O � Q) 4-• O CD V U D E Y ` •� O •— > = C C t a7 = Ea ,, t u) O o c m O .2 C C q `' a O O n- NO U O O O J O >, .n 0 c c -O -O c Q c c O c -8 -Ua N0 in' O O O O = O O 0 1 °° U_ H I- I- Z 0 > F- U_ I- H O H J 1-�'' \5,31. t a JtJ ^` b'ILIv S U W cid W b :: :4- U ;K1: C} '? 5 co 0 • a) cp a3 t O M E _� c c L N -O 0) U C U ai CV O O O j, E. >@ C L-- J Q M F- > c0 w L 00 r -c 0 z _1n. �, 3 o w M ca ° — a o N CD C o E 0 .Y 0 c'� _ — FORTH 125 "�"` "`• ��'�' Meeting Minutes a?ttl`.•. s Technical Advisory Committee EIS • May• 11 , 2006 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 2 MEETING DATE - May 11 , 2006 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign in Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. Introductions ■ Introductions to new people: 1 . Efren Rodriguez, Town of Platteville Platteville 2. Nicole Winterton — CDOT fill-in for Sharleen Bakeman 3. Chris Shiel , NFRMPO intern B. No Public Comment C. Design Development ■ Interchange/highway meetings cancelled in May. ■ Addressing a variety of environmental issues. S . June meetings will integrate highway/transit components. D. Land Use (Ben Herman & Darcie White) ■ See presentation for detailed information . Questions/Answers: 1 . Bob Garcia — Do you account for growth in SW Weld? a. Yes, it is happening sooner rather than later. 2. Is it compatible with other studies in the area? a. Yes, for the most part, some of the studies are 5+ years old. This study is using an updated data set. 3. Debra Baskett — What should a community do if they feel the model is not reflective of the land use? a. Contact the team and we will set-up additional coordination. b. Continue to coordinate with MPO's so that updates reflect community information. c. Not that unheard of to have errors in MPO data. Talk with DRCOG . d . If necessary, we could conduct a sensitivity test for Broomfield or a particular area of concern. 4. Vickie M. — Can we say that the SW County is now at what was projected in 2020? a. Chris P. reiterated that control totals still appear correct. 5 . Bob G. — If you change land use to support transit, does it help? a. Yes it helps. Evaluation will consider this. 6. Gene P. - How sensitive is the model to gas price? a. Chris P. — The model is not really designed to, but we conducted a sensitivity test to gas prices. Doubling the cost of auto ownership increased ridership by 90%. b. Gene P. - This should be well documented. People are already making these • changes and shifts in travel patterns. Federal Highway Administration a Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225\05. TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\051106\TAC 051106 MM.doc 7l 7 s t. spy J4 }�'l ♦�t i CO} • I�Jyll• 7 �7 , t VCu ,t`M• • V _vecr,,,; _� ` t Cl) • N C Z s 0 O 0 > o RI 0 Hcm-Li , a 0. y cn p. o UI O t 13 46CS • t R o ° �c4 °> o E a o 0 E aa)) n ea' o 0 > a o , a O c E E o uI! rn1 E •5 o u) ,ai c Ci vi a) o o. E U , © 4; °o p -0 OC a) O .o co.c i •U o0 aJ o 3JU) a: C13 .12 y U` U g` g • U o O N a @, a) c Q) U +4 `p '' C N Q) .. co Y _a Q) as o �C CS _� E (D _� Cn O -O U - E U '' > N N p • _ O . ._ coQ L Ct i O _O R5 O o O L N L O L L tg vs odoi si c L. cI r vJ ay CL CD W V^ y� c c • L O o ci) a; d. C 0 0 t Q a ,:1 . Q r w C 0 1 12 iy. w CB (T3 Ca z a H H A . •.. d _> . , a) a) U t: QC C Q) O Q) C O U a) t� L 0 2 ry p L •C) iE E.. aL `_ O I-1-1 C s= > 0 Q) W b C0q O rn = J U 2 446 m U 9 U L.. o .0 17.--..% o M E o a o 5 0 E c d F z, cn >„ o Q U 2, , Q ` U c L .--7.7 CD _ U U LL O U U M I.L. H a. U U 11. U U U p-- . _ - tl to 11 13 w Z r LLI ID N k J N N r x t - -5 _______ � Q a U 5 1 O Eo ti o n. U p 5 0 0 L cn c• • o a)) a) t 0 a) Q L cn 0 O L `� -C ..L� 0 U C6 C J O �O Q R'f CU RUC Cg CO CC3 U x a) CO 0 O a cv �, Y '`" N c m U E E E O E i_. U 0 z ` a a •J c 0 o m a) s CO z� o U 0 o t, L .0 Q (� CU Teo () U Cn o o >" O a' i.. .- E CII Cu - > ?' a _>, >1 co j cn C N as co p N o IP a) C C H r O) N , H O) I 0 • 0 U Y --) Y 2 O U) U 0 o ci cm t ' ck K c Co a. .;fit• Ll E � T 4 O F� W t v) U • 0 0 H14 -� a� ,,..,,// ` .a C O up i 6 a 0 FO/ Y \ a O C) > D _• .. [ = >o O C �' OC 0 o w C C O o O' c cti g p • -D U t O O N o • U C 4v- C p O0 O O c 4 ID• [V L 5 L- L a) •5 03 c -a c o3 U `` ', _ OQ. N Cll ` (� _E 0 — O O ' '- @ O E v' ' E o O . .. O 2 h O C C cu L CO N CO crzji • as (L c Y� .@ ti_ .o E ` J Y . 0 NZ m i flil 0 O 1 Tu 0 ,`w a (3 O 0 Q) `- • * IS > CU o V -0 0 0 C c Q1 p ±_J of L. Q 2 a c 5 • CO Tu > O > ca F• QC H _ R L � 5 C to EL > O N • co 4- CD 0 t C C O7 -1 O 0 c O Y c .g 0 c c �+ o NZ .Li CO c3 (' _c C Z7 0 •CO C _CD �''rn LCt C O C O Y c� •� a C O O F > O c N _C U C H cnI -' U > > a 11- o Cr !O J -0 U O 4-- 4-- CB LL C J U 0 v Z ..C o EE f-- D O o .o o ° ° o �S OU a o O A' OL Q 0 0 o a0'i .4 .-' .n p s' o o bo z Gam 0 0 5 H F- � n U m E- 0000 a H O h. W N izt2 a. _ b O 2 .0 Cl) p 4 p a N O tom. U w G ca J O0 ii.; N D S c (6 C L 0 M 0 N 0 N = O O N O N (13 . J O 0 Q "i 0 C CO E D -� O C U 0 � a' 4) V. U N J C� C 3 t_ Z as 0 U7 O > O _c N p Q7 —) -J 03 N 0 Z a `� L = cn = _ _ > -ct 0 Y Y • ( c >-, -4-. o C� v >, o -D — c E c 0 _C C " �" > t P co C If w a 0 Q a_ H co --i U- H -, (9 2 CD J 0 m J Q_ !-" izi o !- • rU•'li��. s Lo iuwa t Q) J t 0) oci • `.. : . s• a{1:! t , ;Nc, a i ti-_,:.t!, C 0 O • E . H t L. C ' u) OO U a/ E t O v) vi O L N Q U) QU ; �j U F 2 D D D t✓ VI 00 o E o o , 0f 6 0 N8 c o u) L > , co N 0 O ' N ` C N O U 6 c ca : E U 5 E o P � j P Pi.., E ui EI W .r: •c cod I o ' - 3 O U c� C? C O c oo co • � 0 t Oi co :L t>Q O_ 0 © 0I co C ! �_ 0 ' U d -QI �' ` O 4- � ci b L C y .� E +_; ' O • Uj U O o al Ow C I U • C ' • J -° L U . C • ' Ci c a '- a • OJ O cn 6 N Ei L t 5_ N -O ) C T3 � .0 Ui I � . > + i (U fr Q CQ Q c 3 .C N . , CD -17. ' — -� C6' ct� CO ..- .0E U) O U, E � i U W . ! 3 mu) 2 2 ' ci .O .� v • < .nl IA a. Q U_ N 0 s_ u)H U C M C d.) "O C .� O .0 C) C •o 4= C CO a) cz CO L. • _Cizt C 3 C ', ra n N D O .., a t-- Cl- I— a __. l t N L. ^ vJ W > �. ` ) N p O o /� •0 Y 1- .0 2" V) o O O • L Z' U t Co .�_' S •CZ D a) 0 t c D H O 03 U • CC E O o7 r u m U O o U � = Q w' E Cr H O a� L.- OCID H 4- O P D 0 CO > E `O o E 0 co i al 4- 0 0 0 The 0 — ' a o -o 4" 0 0 °° U J a O U 1— 1— co to U 00 ( LL. Q U H U . n to w Z \ \ fi J r404 5 o a. --- U p .o vs o a U C Cl) - 5 a C Y C 0 - cn (ll E QoOMU c q�j o -� N 0 al t O O tC S� II w .C L O .,_, N F- D Z t_ +r C c 0 u) 'V 0 U e- W co a d O a a. CC N CC CC — (n ! a) (1) Cn (n r; _ } p O a .L c cu > c c c c) w Q c� 5 c3 c13 E s a) o ca c a CO va c3 0 a) E C t_ o I- r CO O 2 2 U C� H 5. Q Cn 2 0 -, -3 Q co •t��wZr�. : ': I ti kt ,.,•, c4q�.� t cm O • g- L,!: 41%.:?-.;ra4t t c co /1 c �-i N H i t4 © o `— s O 4, a) p- 3_hi I .6- .,-: t ___‘) 1/41., -r,ct Sli, IC ? W _ t C ► a (0 e 3 0 § C Er ca v z L ti . v q I , Lre ) 4. (9 . •� c-,_ .A . - IT '75 0 a) fi e, • Co & -141 el_ C Cb C 2 4 J t( t . C 'J O r d cg a-' . %.. li i fist t st, t i ro E.1.. V L1 a b W I \ J 5 Q Ja. v 0P e xli. .-.-ip ,. IP Ei > o c/) h; 6 r- t c Q o o V 3 a al cpQ N O Q 0 9.. v...,- a Lij -.? — - • QM7 \e - � � M , • � � Package Elements Interchanges Interchange/Infrastructure Upgrades Votes 8 a) Replacing aging & infrastructure - interchanges b) Interchanges at Vine Drive, LCR 36, WCR 38? (Existing overpasses) c) Highway 7/North 1-25 interchange — growth will demand more than diamond reconstruction . Consider cloverleaf. d) The DEIS should include an interchange at N . 1-25 & Sheridan . This is included in the DRCOG regional plan. e) What is the difference in geom. . deficiencies (black box) vs. "interchange upgrades"? f) Minimize ROW impacts along 1-25 widening and at interchanges. Use alternative interchange designs, not just diamonds. Improve Function of Interchanges Votes 0 a) Make the interchange at 254 (Johnson's Corner) a full interchange b) Interchange access must be better than today and not complicate system (cost & construction ) c) Need a "fly-over" interchange at 1-25 & Hwy 34 . Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments ■ Request more participation in the interchange working group meetings ■ Provide information on various configurations being considered Make sure of BRT/Rail Interface Votes 6 a) Package A: Add commuter bus service from E-470 at US 85, west to the Colorado Blvd interchange and connect to rail station at SH 7 . b) How does the BRT interface with RTD system? c) Will BRT transfer at RTD line? d) What operating plans for transit are you using? Same for Bus & Rail? e) How many people really go to Denver from up here? Mostly local & intra- regional . f) Have dedicated lanes on 1-25 for BRT that can be converted to rail in the future. (addressed last month) g) BRT or commuter bus should be included along N125 to connect to existing HOV lane. h) Greeley BRT stations need parking demand in Greeley. (Bill Andrews 350-9793). i) Could BRT be used on the BNSF corridor? Instead of CR? j) Will BRT complete with commuter rail if packaged together? k) Thanks for including a BRT station at Hwy 1-25 & Hwy 7 on Package B. Hope to see it on Package A too. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments • Provide illustrations of BRT median stations ■ Provide more detailed explanation of BRT service • Provide white papers on BRT to CR conversion and BRT on BNSF • evaluation • ■ Provide information on No Action Alternative, No Action Network and Additional No Action Improvements Stations 8. Station Functions & Impacts Votes 4 d ) Commuter rail to serve 1st & Terry, Sugar Mill , or both? e) Multi-modal station opportunities f) Park & Ride locations near smaller towns . g) Encourage TOD along future BRT , commuter rail routes. h ) Provide infrastructure upgrades to station locations i) Stations impacts to local land use patterns. j) What are BRT stations like? Time needed to get on & off the highway. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments 9. Toll lane Access Control Votes 2 a) How is access control provided in toll lanes? (Package B ) b) How do you enforce buffer separated toll lanes? c) How will incident management be handled with one buffer separated, managed lane? d ) Consider with Package B (or A) - instead of two barrier separated managed lanes, do one managed lane and one general purpose lane. • 4. Look at Other Operational Issues. Votes 1 a) Package A: What distance is considered for these average stations spacing for commuter rail? ? Loveland & 402 b) Package A: What's the distance between the Longmont station and the next south of it? Is that an appropriate distance for station spacing for a commuter rail? c) Package A: Add commuter rail station at 119 & I-25 d ) Package A: Add 8 lanes as ? ??? from E-470 south to US 36. e) Co-ord . CR alignment with development planning in various entities . f) Co-ord . ROW acquisition with development planning along 1-25 for CR. g ) Extension of FasTracks line north of Hwy 7 @ 1-25 is important. 18. Study Connections to DIA Votes 1 a ) DIA without going to Denver . DIA as priority. b) Rail service 1-25 to DIA? (Package A) c) Package A: Connections to DIA - Rail or BRT G. Evaluate Travel Time Votes 1 I ) Minimize time to DUS . m) Minimize travel time to main transit. n ) Minimize portal to portal transit time. o) HOT lanes for commuter buses, need maximum priority. p) For 2030 , plan for a service level B or C? • , �r ? Z �M1i f , •.. :r1.S!l • t .: . < 'mod, t • L� t •M O i { O N t Vl (..r) to N ' ' = 3; re w c CO6 3 , o y > o o a Hco o CO 3I 60 �� O { c/) O O U i o t Q O p, c O E pa) U vi _, al a)?+ U6 it @' ai ° E ° + U a) Q) L E is W a) ( 3P C )i1 o ( a� O - U) U) 8 L E o a °; (/) © co P A .9 .r.,.. E •..-) U _c, �� Y OU a a) • G 1.. 9: czi e f_12 g_ c) c U U -a U vz>L c o p C O L a) m O G O C N O p , cl 14 CO N ti.- a Y Cs • L N U) aD t U E E • • E - E U O - ti E c3 w ca > O m , ca o f — _� o ca o a) o -c (a -c N -O 15 '- 2 , o U 0 O U O 0 O o :EH Win -a ❑ C ) .� :'Q d I oi Cl) O D __i E k r. u• e ink ca O wl d U Ill •� O O Cl) a. b L. Z d o .as C = t o (Oc53" °L C o , Q c v) cn U E ac c /cam a W (a \v ft Z EC_ H F- CL EL; CO tl c3) 0 a) C) • D o a)„ o •> 0 O L. _ to O CE U co ca c _ O O W > = O U W b Q C7 2 _1 U O 4— •E CO W EP U t_ 4-- 0 4-• p 2 F- "O C E O O v- 4— 45 O E 0 c o o - o U E c ❑ c U LL. O U am u.. I- ir. CU U w CU ❑ U I— D H 1 1 - _ _ L. 73 b CD LZ: O w13 � r t .. \45 7~ o o 0 o 5 U co `> o coajcip u) 9 . . o x a) t O _o c �L p M VE U (a U .� c co -O O U OU) .1 0 0 0 C C CO m m U a) m E E . E O E O L c • V N W < m COO c O °3 4) 2 e rCO Q O O m m CO m m U U U(J) �' N W D M >' al O -c a) 0 (a (a (a p o o N -c O 0 Co F- ) c-• In CL S. I -- U) I ❑ ❑ O Y --) Y I CD U) U ❑ J ❑ I - - c- :tJzi.a'r•N� t N • ;-41Nii ; LF:t 0 SS0 Lb_L �--a o -0 N L O �+ U (!1 Co a• tts Q) OU C O j H L L �.Es p c= U 17) oa F� f O OU ` a) _O J 7 O V W > In' 1 p (o W � E 0 a 0) C O 75 + ; • V O OI i O .114 g - O V a) (T3 x C E x O 42 a) O O , _ U U ..C C O g Ur E > 0 CD C UUl (if C 4-4--, O O co Cv Q �I C ��U)I (CS S a) Ul CO ca c� __' O C O g ` c E 0 = 0co PI = I01 -O C ..C a a: up 06 N E ? U U Y O NFr coal `o EO U C CO t_ff U > C CO L i (Cf C i 0 v) Q) (a -din o 1 1 : : tt Q O I- ,,I b i U a) N • Qs > C) .4C-6C o C E • $ C a) 0 1 .:.aL Etc- t — , 1 Icii C 1. 0) > o y C CU w a) C }, O O L p N -. E o w a 14-6 (i3 >` C = a) C N CD D •�' C O O -Y (i3 .� -p C3) II) O C E a) f— 0 FE -ai> C 'a t c O q -2 Z4= 0O O t 4- Cif LL Ca J O O 4-. Z `C o cla C O Cod O C C .0 •` O j C O a'S E 0 c O o a Z' o o aa)i o : ' o cc o 2 p o U U CO U U !- F- FY 0 U ca H () Gm CL F- C O u, cu L'4 w 1-.3 x t \ . 2 w o U 0 U o E > ch ``� n., a) a z 0 0 co aa)) O °' m c _J 0oE Q N F- o Z C) 0 > U C 0 0 L co -�1 L f el vZ 703 0 0 a cii �7 C� al o c O C a) Y a) Y C 4-0 '° III = (. . ? t3 .� 0 al E C L C) (a (II > U N > F— -, r CO 0.. Cl- H Y --) It H --0) (� 2 C7 J 0 m _1 if F— 0 r s f a. C ti •? t v t' r F( chhl 0 • .,v • :: • N vcilAiiiii f o ---1 Li) h i 4.10 Z 0 El I RI o. •r 0 E D O a E D vJ O c U• (nom Uoci ( Z3 c u) 0 D, u) U' 0 O U ; O Q o D n 0'c C n c r\cti O it O oor L O > '4= CI OI up O UO i� L ; Q) >` L c)" O E O —O _ri f 6 U V U J O � � `�—, Q) � a Ef -c t Ol - U t O U I .0 ' O > •U co __Q 6 U` U N U s_ O N /\}^VUyJI a) v -0 'a Ez 0 ate) § � I �O t cOn N C j •a N 0 ' 0 O •L C C N 0 U 2 N E N .C a v CD cr) II f_ CO 00 -C w 9O U o M. O .-, 0 Cu E CI CI U o 1 CU '` • . L u) c:, o z F- L D RSC a1 D C a o Cl) c o C V .- :J c co w,as as(� ca W C O EE 0 n C cu -cr C • -tit D O Cl.. H a. F- E F- E 4. CI) CD 0) 7 'j EZ a) a) O C C O co a o ' c Des y r � O L C C a) C 02 a c :� esei o T. m o t D - o H O c D ct U t Cl) 0 0 = o J Q) _ C r t-l-- CO U O o U al U .4_; W Q v ,Q m E- I CO -CI ��- a� Lt. 4 - L 4 0) p tCI . _ 0 0 a) Cl) 4- C Q r v) 4-- O Q) O 0 ?. �, 3 -5 -5 0 03�, , C O u) co E 0 -coca Cl. O 0 F- H CD Di bp 0 CL' L.L. Q a F- O H Li cv 6t3 -ts W �� L x�C t g Lit Q o O o cL o CD -c U) 0 E C co 42 co ci O c II c 0 n > o a Cu a) _loot) ca .n r E -n cv 0 D c 2 s � o 0 2 W -0 . E CO tX o _ _C c� cLn C E o 0• a� z oo CL `c o CL CL C� a) E CL ca a) U) a) a) p c!) u) c — U 2 OVD CO >' _� p C C C C ' c cp 0 F- -1 r f) Q 2 U 0 FO- cC U) cK O -5 -5 Q co co o H 1-25 Meeting Minutes NORTH ,z--'114b;?.5A, vticivTechnical advisory Committee EIS Sc. _,,� July 13, 2006 z��. • 1 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE: July 13, 2006 LOCATION : : Southwest Weld County ATTENDEES : See Sign-In Sheet PREPARERS: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck/ Gayl Harrison PRACO/Kim Podobnik MEETING PURPOSE: SH 119 / North Metro Connection SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION ■ Tom Anzia — Quick background on what the project is now, and where we have been. If you have additional questions, we will follow-up after the meeting . • Paul Brown — Reviewed goals and objectives for connection. N Paul B. - Reviewed alternatives that were considered: A — V, SH 119, CR 7 , 1-25, Dent Line , GWRR, Boulder Industrial lead . • Identified V as the draft preferred alignment, but this is open for discussion. • • Cheryl Auger noted that the preferred alternative ignores the Town of Erie. • US 36 Rail is now called the NW Quadrant instead of US 36 . ■ Look at CR 16 as an east-west alignment alternative. • On east side of 1-25, Frederick is willing to work with study and rail. • Gene Putman - Station at SH 52 with feeder bus • Jennifer Merer provided a station review. • The team was asked to check employment projections at I-25/SH 52, Dacono and Erie. From the preliminary estimates, the initial estimates indicated that there would be more ridership from the tri-town area than Erie. • Review land use in Erie vs Frederick, Dacono, Firestone. • One participant stated that the railroad has money set aside for rebuilding bridge across 1-25. This would only be done if railroad used the line for freight rail again , and the amount is relatively small. • Travel time for those already on the train more important than serving Erie or the tri-town area, according to the Purpose and Need for the project. • 1-25 alignment for commuter rail previously screened out s Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAC12004 thru 2 00 612 00 6 TAC10713061TAC 071306 MM.doc Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 i Technical advisory Committee EIS July 13, 2006 ... ._ • 3 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. o Average is 8 miles o Range is 4 — 15 miles • F/F/D not part of RTD , but Erie and Longmont are. They can get Park-N-Ride, etc. They are in discussion now. • Is the plan to turn this over to RTD? o That has not been decided. o Document may suggest how to handle. • North area could have transit district that has an operating agreement with RTD — funding is the question. • Did you look at time? This alternative looks out of direction . o Not yet looked at route miles. This is a little longer. (S is1 . 7 miles longer than V) • Makes sense to come down CR 7 with a station at SH 52 then southeast with bus service along SH 52. o What is ridership S vs N? o More ridership at tri-towns than Erie — will double check • Did we preclude going to Greeley? Using Dent line has possible future connection to Greeley. • o Don't have to decide that now — won't preclude but won't be compelling • Area along 52 west of 1-25 will be huge population centers. Transit to serve residential o That area will be lower density. Looking at tri-town centers which is where density will be. • Crossing Boulder line and 1-25 — is there money there? o Yes UP has CDOT money to put bridge back o Would this project have access to that money? • Pop. Density issue — no matter how dense it is — not all that dense considering pop. to north • lengthening trip to pick up 200 -300 people • Date for breaking ground — how many trains a day? o Don't have a date now o Looking at 30 min . park, hourly, mid-day, Into evening but not overnight • MIS had interest in rail along 1-25 for marketing — what constraints are there in putting this on 1-25? o Increase cost and right-of-way impacts to commercial properties along 1-25 already affected by current 1-25 projects. o Could preclude other transportation options • Remind us of next steps. • • How will we make connection in Longmont? Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105. TAC12004 thru 200612006 TAC10713061TAC 071306 MM.doc NORTH 1-25 Meeting Minutes EIS • Technical Advisory Committee Page 2 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. • Heather Copp presented information regarding CDOT's revenue estimates. o State gas tax — 2nd year in a row that it declined . That is the first time in history. o Using oil reserves and therefore, not collecting tax that was state side . o Federal gas tax has previously increased approximately 3% annually. However, the federal government is spending more than it is taking in . They have been spending down the trust fund . o SB1 transfer assumed for projections . ■ Carla P . described the difference between what CDOT' s revenue forecasts estimate for the area and the estimated cost to build Package A or Package B. The difference is referred to as the Gap. Carla also described case studies of other projects that required funding and what methods they used to obtain it. ■ Julie Morrison described the DEIS process and the associated funding milestones that will need to occur in conjunction with the DEIS process . Preferred Alternative would be identified in the FEIS ; perhaps in 2008 . • ■ Steve Rudy, DRCOG, discussed the ad hoc committee on transportation funding. They are to identify a number of reasonable funding options . Much focus will be on sources that increase with inflation . o Bob G . - Asked Steve O. when will we see a list of concepts? Steve R. doesn't know. It is likely to be the early part of next year. • Cliff Davidson , North Front Range MPO , reported on the recent transportation summit held by the MPO. Participants were asked to spend 1 . 3 billion dollars on transportation improvements . The 1 .3 billion dollars was a result of approximately what an RTA in the area might be able to generate with a 1 -cent sales tax. NFR MPO is handing the RTA effort off to a coalition of citizens to move forward . o Bob Garcia asked Cliff what 6 tables at the summit spent money on , if not 1-25. • Debra B . asked if there was anything new on the legislative front. o Carla P. said she has heard about discussion about new mechanisms. Heather C. said there has been some discussion about forming a task force. • Gene P . stated that the citizens have failed by not upping gas taxes or maintaining our infrastructure. We need to start talking about it more. This is a state-wide issue. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 091406 MM.doc r 4r,.... 9 l 1� liy \N ir•:.1la t N • n i s Ill O i ib: yd O• O rINI f� W t ' ' ?Si i 0) 6 2 Cl) O > 6 H Io a C C 4 •.� E �' . a c) Cu -J t o, E . ° o o• . E 8 -. a) • , aid E ; I o ' E O, o . oDI E I E a > ; C. Ei D � . E •- , o .� : > L =' i D' o1 a 03 c 0 "- ; �- ; xi o : • oI of • �i • o _ I 3 MI C -01 U0 VI 46 03 7 I UI ..YI UI 4 �� Q) C . • ! S ! O tl CU I • v • • t -x v) L- o U . if C EI C • ! a) c it) o• a): • , o• U: 4?-4 T3 E,%:4-, MM • I �; � ; � ; Q) Vii ; W a) Y1 s] W� .� ! a) ' • 1 o ' ca ' �' of v.,, QS' t ` U E E1 _ E _i s_ , E CU, c�; Ch ' I > 1 CD CO 0' — o 01 -O C, (B fli -`p1 co . _ ' COI O U ' O o 15 H 0 Cl) _of D . 0 . O: -Y :n : L 2 . vii c tg t o m 4 0 L . C co 114 c Ili 'V v O o Zap o v ., Z C coQ co Z 03 03 Oa • t a) v e;a) U) a) o o 06 C a) U w+ 4' "c, _ = C a)cn Q) d •CZ U o ° > C a) N • " E g � a) O •C_ -C C D o E .� Q cv 0 • it 2 U a. o c 00 W 06 ! 0 0 E ° o ~O o 0 0 0 4 4— � a o — cn a) _ 0 �, Q 3 O 0 0 -c U 0 O - o two 0 U LL U 0 U U• m ai H u O U 0 tI_ O 0 ate) a) — Ct` W Lu CD a W Q o a U O tttt ocv O 0 a o C N O to • • v) c� a) �t E a) .X Q HMV E 2 0 * 0 a) o o o c - m 0 ca E C v 9 a) Q co m C E E 0 E 0 0 E a (]. W �- U C O >_ m Q) N C O o O a) o = is a as Q Q m o L TD m mmmmUUw w �`? S R E E C Ca c� Co a) C = D — > t- v) CO CL H S H o n I 0 0 CO O Y 0 Y CT, 0 O M • tyh . S r - E• • I. ci- ter =`:" ` O ��✓; cp rye i N co tdIcp N Lf cr) 1 E CO rN1 r- i O rn F-1 4 1 -r 1 ` • , cn Z►•-�•-+ a) �-+ to D •- -a H •� 0 o a) icz C �E a) : > C Y 0 t ` as p' Oc o Z7 ! O W E UO n O _ L V O C •U N O U -p 0 N 7; f� U O C t47- p a) ) (� Sc Jal 14 U" a. Q) E O �r O a) O • C O � . O E� 4�- ca O cn .� o -a N c v0 C L . I c O O C ..a3 a)C _ _ a TO N .2- L Q) c�S •- O O }' co C C rs o Ncu ± a) a) o C RS L a al -O S Y@ a_ ci.c oi 1 E he a � I a) 0 o • "+I N P U _j a) t..1 a) o -f" -- Q) -D -_ 'El (1) cOn c • r Ill -(15 44 � � a a3 o EZ 4 ". `- c c) •o C N a) C . , O U 0 o 0 '0 to O ' c0 N p O +�-' co a C C L L-- C .r cri N O a O f L E O - ' c O O .. . m 0 o o C t C O D D C E a) F U Et D ca O To o O O ' o z 1— a) q m O v) ti Z -D U o ,,.- w.. co lL c 4- o •� �.-. w. C 0 C O o c -.a _ O O el 0) o .� o o ca O 0 0 o c c .o •° O vy C U U U z U U Dm U U U 1-- F-- QC 0 U m I . . _, y L. ti -cs t3 w C Q o a O c we, o0 d V O co 0 N O L �"' M O O N "D .S C B c a) co O) E O � c D c c E -J W 0 0 CO Y C o E E Q) I o o a3 v Z (�'a ' n co � c N L- a3 c E Oa -D > -6 c 0 2 w a w CI U U a� 2 _ _ �- o a� o a� • _ o — a) U ca (0 co x I _ Y w w c:? ca T. �'co a -� s� cl t E c c U c c 4 E-- to ve. to Q.. 0 C`) Q 0 Cl. H Y -3 m F C�) 0 .J -' Fq I b 5:. a_ s.: C �i •R+ c o 4. y c+ 0 ` Ac li c,, C; Cl, in v.) ct ` c 65 �, ! . , p 1-4 i U) D ' t- O �� G Z0 (/) O c Q. H t sic L. It cn n p p i O (I) co 0 t Z% O N U - L O p w ` /� ` Q � ' @ i U O �O O �a O O L > CO > V) O • ai cci �: p O Lai O RI o c a - . E ' o Lo' n E c� v E 0 P a) -a J O 5 W o 0 •� o 2 E @ o t o .n CU O a • C 13 Y O. O c CU N _O O a)' j s U 0 c_O O U co.0 O I 'U .0 ' • • O p l • • , L OC Y A U Uti � ' co i a) c a)I • c� ►._ _55 cna n_ �� O Z7 n a)! O • c.0 O p O �p U �' c O 'C a) o c C ,oO •U I ca c) i O� N tII U cu O .c 5 o Z H 2 , .°; U E , E x U 0 " tt. (o c ) 0to A O c Co N }L u) U C c a) -a o ,� p O Q) C •w VC (o n a) CocO J COa) W C CU Q c C - i 0_ c c El � � � � R ta ta it Z 45 � p O u, c O 0 ,>-` •> a ;� "� c Cl) c c O a) �_ O D B o _ aa)i o o E -n •c O c U E •� U c = O U a m .N p `p L O L Q Cn C a] H E I Q E O O O O -o p O O❑ I c`o M 03 0 0 0 0 0 �°° • U C� U 0 f-- O LL d O O F— H cc m H a 1.3 ( :) L 'Ti , a) w a) r t ,, ir \ \ 2 a o 2 U o 00a. o > NOU) C C U . . - r" i'? @ O Cr) O Y c c -II(...)• Q m O C] Z Z R3 O ID 0 0 to 1a. O E 5 i' a) _0 p it Zv.. W a ?W C) 0' 0 a a_ (o CO a_ O Q.. 0- cY E C (0 X . , CD O O .3 FW fn r Ln 0.. m 4-4Z H C/) U5 Y O (9 !— Q 0 W c 1 „G a Q e c J C N c.i • ' '�1„ a . { C0 O cp c kl c: / I,"3 in (!) 0 W p` o U - a. I Q) O U O a V g-- c H ` U CI QC) U a 46, 4 S n 0 i Z"1 C x ; O S Qcn p CoC6 _ o E E cn V Cu o c d o ) et i 0 Tr- Q. Z 16 o CZI — 001c �� ts � a S t 0 y a) E 2 7 t �J } (� .Q D C3 N S 0_ a 0 3 O V •,,-._ '� 7 • t-.2 .. �_ Q) O c t. o \ o tm o ••• •z oI C `s jT i) L tl N Q I l'z i O O . V it' +.4 . . .� In (� •O v 6. Q)O n. (Z J u) c r • 0 a� Q v1----- ti t• S -g Q c W • .� zI Y _ L. 2 I � CO c c cCI e. ._ O 0 2. ,l t Y N Q o o c = it c.) c% ft �- A d © Al-- et .. -:?.43... Fo- U F� U U V 0Q ts W � \ > W r x t a 0 5I\ \ 4 a U 0 3 fn :::%1 Z C -It- E i ir) Ss.- - 4, ., r. cri O �� ...... 3 U E 2 .... a) Um }- ° Z a) 4- °o - - �� / v � �` Z W �"22 W ~ s 5 N N 0 �� G ' ' _ F- a d — • U C. M �c L O C "'• W w . . et E 2 v - C� 2 e la ,_t ` , • I-- ® r- [2. :5 o 2 -• t1 i-:7::,,''{{((,�a. 7;Frte. FORTH I 25 �� Meeting Minutes - .,. Technical Advisory Committee EIS October 12, 2006• 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 1 MEETING DATE - October 12, 2006 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig -- Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. General Discussion ■ Gene Putman with Thornton suggested that we provide access to the managed lanes to and from the south near 112th Avenue. • Gene also suggested that we provide a median bus station at 106th Avenue. If not at 106th, 120th would be good too. • Dave D . and Holly suggested looking at a center median at 88th Avenue where the existing station is located and the slip ramps are difficult to replace. • Gene encouraged us to provide pedestrian underpasses instead of overpasses wherever possible. • Debra Grey and other representatives from Northglenn told us that they have a lot of water quality data for Big Dry Creek if we need it. • • Dave Kiockeman reviewed the Crossroads station and agreed that the access road under I-25 would not parallel the railroad but instead cross perpendicular to 1-25. • Holly reviewed the preliminary 2030 projections at Crossroads with Dave K. He agreed that it seemed reasonable that they could reach the 30K range by 2030. • The team agreed to try to post the displays to the project web site. ■ Holly promised to send a packet of information to Dick Leffler with Frederick. ■ Kathleen Bracke expressed concerns about the proposed expansion site for the Harmony Transfer Center at Harmony Rd / 1-25. Paul Brown responded that many of the adjacent areas have been identified as 4(f). Kathleen replied that there was a transportation set-aside negotiated with CDOT within the open space for the expansion. Dave Martinez agreed to research the set-aside. • Bill Andrews with Greeley asked for a copy of the Parallel Arterial Exhibits. (I sent electronic copies to him on 10/13/2006). • Kathleen Bracke (Fort Collins) and Dave White (developer) were happy with the modification in 1-25 horizontal alignment at Prospect, which allows the frontage road in the SE quadrant to remain adjacent to 1-25. Next TAC Meeting : Thursday, November 9, 2006 • 1 :30 PM — 3: 00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225105. TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC1101206\TAC 101206 MM.doc -: . .* 4• ��yy'� �Sr /r;: .r LC) Cn 4 c if); r:ja) DI •t "4 1(1) 0 6o Q, E �-+ ` v v O O O vMO i acta a) a) t O U oJt O- cncn U, CoN U �� C O v +� pO 00 tp,lQ) N,to O U U ''' CE E Qti Id -D C v) .E� � O E , > �E a, p s, a 4i 6 cz N ° 8 o Cl) o LA ° o E E °' v, o a +` r -a� o 0 'V ° •2 7:3 c 03 G O 5 N a) gi C ` U U o Cn L.O a 5 c c a) E U cn •a @a a) @ _ei 3,C o @ o a) a) NO O C E (0 > t u c C Q E � E o 0 72 - c 6 a) a) a) ) a)›. c3 d CO 0 "0 J o, t- ID W J j cn a) co -o m i E E �►�-Le z it r tt a. a C 1 ♦ . Ci O U `' •c • •� U) v) J .o Zs 0) O O .� > 0 • - S . . _ .; U U z R3 .Sa .D a7 U Q_ Q. W J h a - - i i v L a t_ 5 c • • v _ c a E >, c a) `o o o e �s .0 E CU N o `' v.. C cn E C +' O c '� E a) •c a) v) c o cts •co O U W 0 N Ca -J >j z Co '� b Q U O a) 1 d 4 - j U Q 0 ,•••- O 14•• ?. O O 0° E a o ° Q a O o 3 3 ) O . cr o o }-- u- o — Q— 0 CU o U H x OHZH v w U U H H otooLL U H H° - . + 1 t Fri 11 Z3 W 0 U 4.' ) ..%set‘ trin o a + ►—� I U O cc 2e 4 cno v 9 o c► > • M o (y o (l)o a•) co o o Q !]G 0' rt3 E O E O ,_ v) ' 3 o-) cm .C 0 N = t O Y n cs wiii o U cv c o W °n E x �v LL S Z a t2. cV U U U v) al co O 0 •C W W U u_ >, R3 LL x p a) a) N v) •E 0 0 0 "O a) z c0 a) L.L. a.) I co .g. W U M Rif 0 N •C C a) C > _o c w C C n U D7 _c a L .+.., .l . Q) m (0 c0 0 a) ..-• — m O Q) g k— Or- co Q. O CO 00 J 0 0 O it [L (n < < 0 to firt-- - t ;ice✓r' t r.• & .:::5:t:$ i In ( J 1 ri F..-{ l a) E i Cl) CO > cn -13`2: o p E Eco di o o ° Sj �-� o E o 0 0 o C -a U sci w O = a) 2 N E E COO Q) 0 '> Q) > Q) C L E 4- a) L O 3 O g O -F E a� o — E O o O +-' F1/4, U '9E) CD C +' ` s_ ` a � E cp ro t- E a) ;� a-) L E J L Y 0 0 L > E --7 z Si? Y .i3. 4 b i Q 0 OZi C� v �r • '..1 4 ow h • cam) c cn c +• -' C cn c o o 13 a J a U) ti . r ci L. ii O y Co a • t .. n. C 4_ O O c c CD C p .0 U) � .O_ •j co o ro c o :- ca . t N c o o 1.- (.) - N c o Q) O �. CD u a z ooa) : U 0 M u) a e U 4- m s_ a. O 4-- 4- m o Q U 4— 00 4+ v— o t_ a 0 O O L O d o -' O>-, �, C O o O > O cv E i a) z3 .�o O -- = O e O 0 cD cU Li-- O O c� oC a a— m H U OOWH U a J z H {- U CD r1:17 ►il c DJ C.) U5 O >- V c Oon„ >OQ C _ 9 ..; • , 9 ? gy (a (!) � = co N N C L a M t� = Q O Q) a Cco o _I rQ O rts Q) C o c o N Q co a) ► . cll Q) • .� Z > 6 - 3 o CD 3 c 3 Q o --- as a) 2 >, gst tl or �.. O O) YL. .C 4) cts -a >„ a) - .s HOrton. a) c� co c>u cn c co co �' �? oo — as O 0 J 1 C En (L a cx 5 z --) Y .71 a w•v ttL�µ:`` I r • .�' f • f k ::•-c.t:i a - 1 i 1 a v" f) l 1 ( r lrNI 1-4 i T 1 U O i Ic ( [r,/' o u) n ci! E U Li i ct p D : o of RI a). �I �' .• n a 17 S. id): 4130 •1—j = -O o, • D 7 [E , E ' o , Ci,., w U ' E -D O 'j ' z U '16 6 — • ' N CI c as (/' • O o O `-- • t - CO O C - E Y O U c61 O U • .$ U • i O .�, ti C U +-) Vi a � � C • V • t3 nj g a) cni —� � , O. h L. O - ' ° 13 2; U' r I �! j c' N ' a3 4-4 �f s h C. C ' .L O > ' Up U (ai N >•C CU C - +1 U o a q CC O t E CO o ii c 2 • • C 2 O • c Q4} CL • CO la C C C W C O C C O CL. 12 1— U- H C H a r~ a tu w • z • a> o LO c 5 ii O N c c $ :.= C +.• C �, ++' �" o ro, !U\ o U U U) = O J• LL3 Q = H 4--- U U 4_ (9 CO f . v i Q LL Q O i rzt o c 'O D c O O O 0 c 2 -a E c 0 c .O X CD N U H CD CO F- C U 000 z cr u Q O H F— Li_ a st3 "Z (1) `b W W CD t q -. ct n. 0 0 r U e o „ a. 0 r O O > L -t N o oNO � 0 N -6 -;_ ≥ a a QcVM o E c c u) a) D L O O ≥ > g r O U O •i c N _ L L O h co U W H 0 Z C O ) Cr V a) cn N E Up N S 2 m >>w O d- (Y a X W X ( 0 Cl) U} C C V U) O s O 7 Q? -O co a) c C L al U (�� M C V '�' O C) a) C L(tj .c > N co E0 a) c ca U E— 0 r (n C- 0 f- < V) W CI) Cr Y 2 00 -) --) < U) - - - :r • • . . . ! '+'t' • *artat .11 ..1...•: _ ..” 1.1 LA r.-7.111: ` • r . aw\ t CO::/ 1 i' 'at. ry1, ^ �„_ < L.. C ... ff. 1 Nom. 7, fr. N o C Bas i. a) ti o c ti I 1 V • , C • : O Zs S3 • • i r.A _ ____.... O v° CO • _ 1l‘.../1 1 - Ezz �--=if � .. _� r ES e pot) 41:rig; .Z �.. a, s, rn ry.7.7.2 •_ •� .Al;;i::i a) 4� ,..,...,....4...7,-, Q s :;N" a '�.�, rJr i}_s- •ry. -� 1` f�±Y Co wi=,� CS =ate' d W � a) .3'd$ . yi,.r+ ..es- i�_.a- ;i;)T=-A� r?-a. e•-.47?-4e----..4::i„f s = c1!o C1 0 ca sy-- ems r'e+ Cl 9 Q 4- M o J c" `-' O - CD• 1 = 00.o c, .s tll U M f� r.;' U (p (— U t-- fnLL ^ CC U i Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 kLTechnical Advisory Committee EIS • November 9, 2006 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 2 C. EVALUATION OF DEIS PACKAGES ■ H . Buck provided a brief explanation of evaluation measures used to compared packages and identify package impacts. We welcome ideas on how you would like to see the results summarized. There is a lot of data and if you have something you would specifically like to see please let us know. Otherwise, measures will be similar to those used in previous rounds of screening . • It was suggested that when comparing travel time we have a similar origin and destination (say Harmony Road) even when two different modes are and alignments are being compared . ■ Larimer County requested that we provide travel times segment by segment. • During our Level 3 evaluation, some committee members suggested that a portion of the managed lane highway cost should be associated with the BRT. When we discussed this with FTA to determine if there was a standard, they said that there is not but suggested using a breakdown of vehicle miles of travel. Vicky M. suggested possibly using the axeis or pavement impacts associated with a larger vehicle for the cost breakdown . D. Operating and Maintenance Facility Sites • Steve Silkworth gave a presentation on the rail and bus operating and maintenance facility • sites being considered in the DEIS. • K. Bracke expressed concerned about showing maintenance and operations facility site maps at public meetings, unless property owners have been contacted . The team will look into who has been contacted and remove this information from public materials until we are sure property owners have been properly notified. E. LONGMONT TO NORTH METRO CONNECTION UPDATE • Paul Brown provided the group an update on the evaluation and selection of alignment V to connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro line. Since our last meeting with the TAC we have met with the tri-towns and Erie two times, we have collected additional data as requested by those communities and have identified alignment V as providing the best travel time and having the least impact to the human and natural environment. This is the alignment that will be carried forward for further evaluation in the DEIS. F. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE ■ Jessica Wooiery provided an update of upcoming public outreach activities including highway small groups, south area public meetings and environmental justice meetings. NEXT TAC MEETING: THURSDAY, JANUARY 11 , 2006 1 :30 PM - 3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation ato-FiVezct .; 0 • I 1 `-+ J i N ( D r---t i o O D U) D U ca, U E U O si g O { b ` otn E O %-: C O U U �� (13 (f).t Uci) cn > U1 = . E O. a) .2 O I.% 0 2 ,,, 2 0 -- 0 ° ID' 8 8 8 as T15, N. -(7) E E d + O E O d > a) w• D .C E o a 3 a� c. o O 4- O Ili 8 L E U E ^ a� a N o o -a o 4- cL N O c O �' c13 § ) 1 8 O N (ll Cn O t.._ Cd! �� . C C y E o E U 3 �z a) Y N a� cv o x n> O o •m (a co o o U = = O cri , .C.5, O •--• -O LE CU .._ gli ow D czi 4 0 w gi . ___1/4-.2, .6-- o U 0 U a) t -o a •o .�, O a? o a) o Q CO v p _I U E 'CO W i a, cn 0 c� v CO E E t 4- a •��' E a .� Es 4 ,C) Cl) co :23 a .- a> L t- 3 o O > c • 0 U U (� ,_ "' C — $C (� JO fl O O_ d W �J I pa - t ti R. I a e) 5 L U o O _ a o ate`) CO 0 ai o o 0 a w co c ca E U CO E >„ c is -o a) c h , E .� . . �, p to c O a. s :` O V W O o C CV CO = O . 0O 0 E C p c O ¢ -a O C c E O c 0 CI - N CC o 0 F-- � o *_ a a) C t 0 3 0 U C] U F— D Z f-- Ul W 0 U H 0 li O H }p- 3 ret: b w 13 w , ,,%7.1 . U p O O Q 0 o (n O > o (NJoa QOM C '- t C C C i 0 .`'_' '_ N e e. _f a p g a) _Y 0 0 O 0 C co c O N H Q we- o E 0 E o ` �' rn t `n n 0 0c c • u m w a) 0 U N •5 E 0 W �_ or — N cn W (� = w a U 0 N U v W W C) C) co uP. w 70 M > ca � a>) Cl) a o _ c > .0 L c W C C .0 _0 .C C > O CO Ca 0 Cv a C CD p U I E- ZrU3O. 0 0 0 0 J U ❑ ❑ 1Y a U) <C < ❑ Cf �O • tt� fir` 0 tS:4Y / \S 7•C.'C 1/ ; In Up 1 }si{ irk c 0 f D 0co E Q' < CZ n > ; {n o E lb p C ' O O O O �• O •�- O p U N d U @ U c Q° U co Q' -O U > -Y ' C to U N N d 0 U 17-3 W O = a (U N •4• i O 6 E 4 Cll > a� N o f AI 06 to O� ^ Cl) C a) g C 3 a O C U �4-, E• '2 @ O a O 4-'r @ .. E U cw C "� L L C C ° 2 •-a C to E a� - °' iii• ari E� CO .5c o �� _� �� o, ..c Y 5; ❑ L >` E -9 Z �� Y • :-..-- i-3 1 c-" tj ' • Q I Ili W . 1Q co • C/) U C tri C CD C p y O d (N k. C O Cr. CI O 0 C x a o U sea O c o -. -o to .- >ea (Ks E-- 0 i > Z7 m 21 O y - c6 En C z` .,_: ci O p pTC) LL C 0 O = u) L C N 4 LL C O Z J (� 4= o CO L. p_ O 4+- 4-- CO O Cr C U .- 0 4- ,- 0 U 0 0 L U O . O C O O �XS C O O 13 C C N -p m �' _ c 3 >\ >• > O 3 -t •L t: 3 3 t -:.- a' � , U m !� U a U I- Fes- O co Cl). Z � }-� � (�j b in W 0i c 4\‘4, a §. Li c 0an. r ° o _ N o > .c C w {J CJ � • • V h Q O O V = O O (C3 O -- C O co c _ saj L c Q w F' o �I C) x c ° •C U -C N t 0 @ m U V m Z > U -C , , N O ED) -p: C� Q U U Q°', • O • z wa' S o Y . Y Y o -0 2 a) amLa a� co -o 2 w- F"" Z . U� CL U3 co co l N C6 ,p U co C n .2 U • c U 0 J Z ❑ ca tr 0 U It > 'Si Z --, Y frssl'AP.c'•T,, x- r 4 er .: .1 • (.2,..„23 . . . . • N w ( to� E C D O o / i O 6E OU ,O r c ti o Co o� o E ° rri c' - w 0 cam.)• > oo oo > wfi) c oDta 12 Rf o N �i o C o C 0 a j ov . 6 E — E W O O > > b v Qj N c c cn U O a) O 'c3 CO p c c U _o C7 _O G 13 Vi C . ) 1.) o c .a OO L c yq O lY N .. Q) c S c cn CV > "UE ® Q) tr C — _o 2 a U ..c N c 0 NE', w O ,L i 2 () - a, � C .-, (Ef) co C ) cB CO a) cn 2i .. t 2 (n 0 .o .N U < CD � 1: Y Q U - t 53 (T " O IT as O H V C Q) f .(ti o a) E 0 0 c 0o_ • . Cl- 0 0 h a) w o • N � E a D.. C 3 c ., � Q — i— a 1 IL b •j te a) 0 • . 4- U) o co D D .o Q (? >,, j c >, c p b C ;� p CO O o c0 U O On J > o " _c `i-- U U a. o , • U p T = o W Q Q F- t.... L 15 O co tL -o U Li_ Li- v- a: o c -a -O c O O o c� > -0 E o c c .n 3 o 0 0 0 aci 1-- cu 0 3 �°° U }- CO m F- O U U U O Z CZ ti < U H F- L.L. H a w C 2 w c s O. O a o p O O a+ o Q c/? d0 > P. . 5 - a cn • . N CD 0 c C QoM o E c c n 0 P �, to > E > o si re p U ca E v vs •c >, CO c a) CO 2 n -- a) w d a- fY (Y Lc �� cn co c c '— N c cv v > o o `a c a) c c c� 0 o L W p M c -a O a) > c t •c > c N -c0 a H }-... Z r cn a. co H < CO in Cl) crY O 0 - ) --) —) < co 2 NORTH 125 Meeting Minutes M � . r: . Technical Advisory Committee EIS ` . ` January 11 , 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 : 30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 1 of 4 MEETING DATE - January 11 , 2007 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO — Jessica Woolery SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1 . OVERVIEW OF PACKAGES A. Tom Anzia provided a brief summary of the two packages and the No Action alternative that we are currently evaluating in the DOS . i. Request to have Alignment V from Longmont to FasTrack North Metro Line distinguished on the Package A map with a separate color and state it is a $.5 billion option that was added later. ii. Possibly add a foot note about the FasTrack line from Longmont to Boulder since many northern Coloradans may not be aware of FasTracks. 2. OVERVIEW OF EIS ANALYSIS TASKS (NOW TO JULY 2007) A. Gina McAfee and Wendy Wallach with Carter-Burgess explained the 20-22 factors that will be analyzed in the DEIS. Handout material included information on each factor, what is analyzed under the factor, and which entities the project team will work with to mitigate impacts when it can't be avoided . Request for committee members to identify which factors they would like to be briefed on following the analysis. Factors that are likely to be of most concern to TAC members are: 1 . Land Use - Analysis will be on how the different packages fit with existing land use and future plans . • Q : When the project team will work with local entities to discuss the factors? We could have a meeting and the planning departments would be encouraged to come. 2. Air Quality — We will be using a new model FHWA has developed to measure ozone impacts and other pollutants on an area wide basis. Will measure the vehicle miles of travel and speed, which can change emissions . Carbon Monoxide and PMio are hot spot issues. Will be looking at signalized interchanges to measure and it is likely to be a concern with the cities and counties . We can show what air quality will be like in your area. • Q: Will PM2.5 also be measured? It will be included in the FHWA model and we will include in text. 3. Noise and Vibration • Bob Garcia stated that from CDOT's perspective noise is an issue that is dealt with regularly and he feels the educational elements of noise are a • huge issue. Federal Highway Administration - Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 Technical Advisory Committee EIS PEI" January 11 , 2007 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 3 of 4 6 . Wetlands — Quantified by acreage. ■ Q: Do wetlands trump other factors in regards to magnitude? Anything with a federal law trumps other factors . This includes historic properties, wetlands and air quality. 7. Floodplains 8. Vegetation/Noxious Weeds 9. Wildlife 10. Historic and Archaeological Properties • 0: How are properties identified as archaeological? We work with an Archaeologist and they walk around to look at the property. 11 . Hazardous Materials - After identifying where there are hazardous material we look at a way to contain it during construction. 12. Parks and Recreation Sites . 13. Farmland - impacts are classified by acreage. 14. Energy 15. Public Safety and Security ■ C: Denver is one of 53 areas required to have an evacuation plan by Homeland Security. The Denver Regional Mass Evacuation plan is through the North Central Regional Emergency Management. 16. Construction 3. DOCUMENT PREPARATION A. Stan Elmquist provided a brief explanation of the basic chapter outline of the EIS and the final document review process. The final EIS will identify a preferred alternative and more impacts and we anticipate it will identify phasing as well as impacts of phasing . B. Q: Is one of the reviewing agencies CDOT Region 6? Region 6 will review at the same time as CDOT Headquarters. . That will be added to documentation of the review process. C. C: Would advise that the MPOs be the last line of the review process before going to public. We will schedule a future meeting with the NFRMP and DRCOG to discuss the impacts, so they are briefed before the document goes to the public. D . What is the timeline for the review? We will have an updated review timeline at the March meeting. i Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation FIZS9 t . / • i jP. .r_'• c • 1 � . c C in cf) Ai N )--' D o • iti > 0� i n c" E N g c it,C 0 0 c • n o -o N p i +� _ •_ E O o v Q as E U QE O Crl � U Q) H I � ? E O C Z U 6 g 5 c a) E �J O O : EO c O 0' B: c Q) � O 0 co > 0 Q) � N I U � 6 � a) lb E - o E -i o cn •L . > r c 6I 0 E .3 © tF 4 _ Y o n O= E O• O .tai > J o O 0. ( @ •v v .fix __C . .C N '-0 �' O4. oo ai c E , . a) U c io cv o 1 ° 112 p {(S . ) a) L Y m ' a) ; -a I c°. n P a3 U) _c 0 E; E _ �,, U -o as E co cap v) c13 > 0, ) Es o o O . ) -C t0 • ..o a3 t. '. n n O O ~ a-, II h O Cn .o -C 0 Jo CD' .x -- � fl = 1 2, c:'' a 6 C 0 N (B p D Cii CS v • w -0 e c v c •1 C O O o L. l (0 .tinCL) i3 W , C C n- c oa t a. g . C C C Q C C C R3 CO W CO W COa3 CO Q O Z [Z Z h h F-- c." 0 •• > > le a) a) • . , o -- C -0 5 0 w D . D O 0 0 iol CU 0 a) o t„ c a7 a) c to o • a CL •C p O a) it.../ C5 D O a W W U) co m Z - izt N m C0 07 lL = .J O I Y- c m W E O O O >, O Q O U >, >., O o m a o H O O +; »... as a) U H U Li. ( O U U o0 u.. U H L U U U u_ ti ti t a) LB z &-) `4) 4t. ti U O o h, Q„ o C > 00N o 0 E Q N M O 0 N c O Q) = DE E U N cis -x 0 O O co c as o V -a ci E m u ' -c a) m E E c -Z Q Q. d Q C a) m co ® a' m m m O CO L < t E ¢ m a) _c co a� m _ '� a) CO L +� �- a) C �, - >, W Q �'? c� EO O E O .c a) a) co � m as p Q) a3 O F-- ~, N- U) a H C > H 0 co I O O (10 CD Y --) Y a. 1 •f•%1;,r t • .,. ....ti5 c 'tJ •• f • I1 t N �� o P1 i in R O U 6 ch O' I r� N (n n c .16. O C O; O O f E U ni, O � , V O a U CD E E O a) cE r ct7 C O c I L r • _ (13 Q) N O L 0� O U) a • Ili W a • z' -o N o 0 �I • E �� U I o @, o �' .0 @, E -o co E c o 01 a ° co c .. 5 C t1 �" O C A C7 p rn o o E N O 166 .� a) 715- o a D -a o 6 r- •°o E ', L @ Ca m E E >. 0 EL- a3 a o � ' o E q) m o c o E I— O! U . .'� C0a Ycli CO W, q Q 0 0 P ' > -c ai " o v p A 0 L o0 ea o > ._. ,a) c o o =C o ccu c'c.c > c- a) o - Ca C c . 3 M _ � � v a O •— O, > LZ > c -- 0) o c a) 0 4 v ?S W o o •-' sr CU o o ° Ct L. L ii a 0 0 0 o � cv C130715 o 0 01/4-d ---(1) o D t— cn ,� o L co D D N L Z J -O Cr': U o 4- 0 L 4- 4-- N v- �,- C U c O O ?, E .c 0 o m E -0 c a e O5 0 cu c'"o O o .�' O Q _ N c0 0 03 ~oo H L.L. O O O O _, O z a Ciao 0 C� U �-- �- F a CI w Z w A--- r o n. U 0 0 4- U Q O C] CV M O CD N a C C C O — Oa Cl 7 ., O cu C Q >_ ° 9 z a :n .� v) '5 0 -° 0 m a -o co E E ea E n D E < n' >. d L - ti" i ns O O o c cu ` CO = to = o = _1:3U z o 0 a) g' C�) c L O >, CO o - I 'ti 1— M V? O.. -- O 000 0 O U c 0 :c C 03 E L_ a 0 lt Yn�J.,:#, .:� ',:..N • 4 ' -., ? :t t i /� v J/� v 1 F-4 f f . • r�-a �. y co (i) o �-+ E D U 4 U) n ; > E JI ° -�j p ' 'b o • • > I O o, °I . • O U'. U. i� �% _ 4) O O . • .� ' • N' WI �� •• CRS 0 A OI C O' O c0' > 4-1 it DR �•` p{ U -o' _C U ci c �,; of E; ti cz: �; a)i o- 2 73 o a — .4= , o ; o p , -o tai E: 6 ti .— s °L ti ti E o C p CI • ' • C •� U �_ I I • et L• ti_ : a ' E •• N ' c Doi i' O. N t__ • O' C a iic N; �. > . C U C C U) C 5 .CI z . cl �-- 2 .O �: U E . El x S C O O . U -� C� . cn ' a G O O b L O • • a .� t p o 475 e y C) c CO to U) L- p • C m U N C C M 4 ZS a • > - p H - p o O >, G V N C CD O O O = U G .y • U U C' a� ° E. o U L c O _CC � -0 03 •.Q c O o �- as > c Q Q a) o O 3 -c 9 - p o cc cB :� 0 0 w 0 E o 0 I c13 L m U f UH O -, O 0 C O O F-- U CL , C) bil W fi r a. a W Q) ilittbrah a.O '� U 0 o t.... 0_ 0 > a o0 4) c o a) co c L ai ... c x J rr- V t� '` U) C >LI N• 0 C ID C > (�Y C ID U >- t- E--1 Z IX uj ino cn �- n Z Z n o O g (� d °) o • - i z o 3 °- a o cm x • _ a) • C a) c o Y wQ �' ca a (� = E al o o o E 1— - ) r co a. Y O - U CO -D Z J H CO -, O 2 Jill :,, • - i_r f ;� :c r t :�.�.�t t • a� tn O0 Nt ( �—el tEp"- ~"K (/j O 0 E 0 Dt O r U C o O U O O 0 U U, C 7 re-..... cts coo °) : }-(-H c O O is J O" C Z ' `� L a -o. L_ U O O ll.i o -� us/ o .° o oY o c) �. C oG' a) o C (n � ' 4`-- O �_ q tn C[S i Cll N c (a• O Z c V-) _ • at is a) 03 o` C , 0 -3 f k _C Cf) la Uf J v) CT -0E -) C .� Z CI y y Q QO o O ti • • O V O .. n Cif Cn I :i -O C L. a L Q3 CD -6 DO U p .o o O co cn O O C C o C �.. O U) U5 O O in = O `� o c m , 4_ O 4- 4_ a O Q 4-. 4- 4- _J 4-. O 00 a o 00 4- o C �. O co o c 3 O C 5 on .� o0 1- fy F- 0 o o I— o O O O cC LL rY i— F-- 1-- 1-- (Y Z o 5 F- U 1-- 1— U 1-- U ti 13 0 tt w C J czt O a o 0 otia0 a N M Q Co) N _0 (� CU rij Q > ≥ C -O E D 0 7 .. ,r.. a ._.. C C L., N -O Cr) Q) C t- .a Q r O o tB C U) O -I 0 O C c () w O C Ua Q M U C 0 = C O E•— N O a C ID E c U co L_ c� _ = _ f-- -) r U) a. E I W di o . c0 O 0 -, CC -� Z 2 0 NORTH 125 EIS ER • information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING MINUTES p p Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: March 8, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Complex ATTENDEES: � �K - . ��.: �....,tar1.�•.. la,Oe.. l.ria PREPARER: CarternBurgesspendy Wallach COPIES: wAsamramanwatram MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Tom began with introductions and covered key points on the agenda. A brief overview of the schedule, description of NEPA process through DEIS, including upcoming TAC and RCC meetings, agency review and role of local governments. • 2. Public meetings tentatively scheduled for June this year. These will present summary of environmental analysis to date. 3. Region 4/Region 6 meeting held last Tuesday to discuss how North 1-25 purpose and need will be for North 1-25 project and may not address all north metro problems. Our document will provide suggestions on how to address some of these problems in the future. 4. Our DEIS will go to Region 4 for review — June to July of 2007. 5. The presentation today will discuss impacts by component. Analysis will be done by component in order to find solution that best meets purpose and need . 6. Holly began by covering tolling results for Package B. ■ WSA looked at tolling in the years 2015 and 2030 varying toll rates in order to keep toll lanes operating at LOS C. • Access and egress will be located between interchanges 2 miles apart to avoid creating weaving sections in general purpose lanes. • Sometimes demand exceeded capacity in the TEL lanes so in 2030 the cost needs to go up to maintain LOS; other access and management concepts will be explored. • WSA suggested that we may be able to handle demand between SH 60 and Harmony . Road with single lane. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation !. NORTH 1-25 !:i - •T SY EIS • transportation information. cooperation. trans . MEETING MINUTES p p Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 8, 2007 3of6 Based on evaluation of projections to No-Action, interchanges are deficient. Package improvements include newer wider interchanges to meet needs. 7 r' i^.+-•^{'f ilk -v .t.. a) P..'-f c X43 s• .-ta •• . :n• x c— �'�'��+yI� .�♦�.r:• M.•r. tt- rS- [y.�`�^ f� j� L.. ' �.. Y+' y�+ �" (','} a 1 CIS `.t = Lj. - � ` .�- A ti •�•� �I,`o � a � 'f►J•.J+! � '`f 4r H� •,•� � '� . � ) '' `' 1E� �� f- ' ., �. °ix- •i `', R 'apt , f t X,c� +y)4lr�41�Y, {' T:.- }' ;4r'�a ': `• # �l'� 'e, ` r itt1�1. .4 �`Ret ti Itlt �•I► AJ i .. J :— wVr, b .. te , . a. . 11 •.Ylfn )^•rrr ♦ ♦iu 9 rAat w `'�� '• `�n ySd` .it r.f l� . J .R' ` '��'��:• ��;..f�fs:+r 77�rltL�„- � s :� �q� C t tot/if .1 * ;, � (a b•„t r � •. -t 4 14.1t+1/4 r A�..3 '' e- 1 : 't � n '�J_ ll + ^, w}. I p ,4<� t ♦ �•� ! r _ 1�, s/_ iii r. !.h .w i._X•fa . )ns. . ,da L � ��.ri I t i ; 1•� A ,:1 •T w Z w a1 �r v j re � .' j '.s c T +ter ,• .'.i e�...- _.7��t ..' 1 � i ; s..JJit ,rRg a � aC . • 1"� 3iit - �L.a y.}y7! tt ` (�'1jj,;7!! �k�Is] /• r,o- , • •`��. ` � 3L _ ,[ _"77 �- �i � l" 'L . . cam• e : c 4v. a ,.ti4a' , ] L�. l'+tr r • 6 �0; - +' ' r �3j 1 �f�� „ . i ir" ' ti t ��+t :h �� '� +.l s y t � i ' r r7. .e.' c� . nyv r ' : 1 ' =�` . fx ,y . 0� � r a s y� • .,r a . 'F ' '�`'��.� • + o w �} -t:f Q Ij l�" t"t- 7 !0 ' -a4 },� `t 1�(1^t.�. + I + .s ..S.- r. f ,A.:.:161 1 it +{ r♦ ��w 17 r fis •.� ti �+ .` •a Y •C' '�yQ �1��Y" :�! ' ♦f"'[,-1r+Yf © �+r•�� r . . c-•-,,� ..- ,� _r r��;tr_./�i '�T��+`�_- !jti(� s l 1 c � '�' r ,t i:'aTar� _a7•F.n � .1P � 5- ' .�i n` _ d •, .• 1r� .�,p�(� � i {(y ¢}, Fi� y{i.�tr'.c.,. -jr��iL '.tom .-v 4 . �. 111v"�.-r' � e 74 s t17 `.I� t _ +. fE p 3 ,y�r`*R r3 ` a , . e f�E ,y _t i ''q'.-.ti p. -)•" i�:t'•ky }7Llt '>f , ^.vYi o" .i t,.. Vt -mil-�� e. 1-. i_T : +Ket -.ra-" r_' -a. `�.�• i. . :', -� -'L:. J 1 1 w� fA �lr.")1: .ti<a .r�n..-•... !-f !�.'.�t,.I .s"� ,..:_�`.' .T �rt'' i' 4 .,,�• i.Cr4._* . -( 2^ y« _ • rq 9 0 Fib a • -`• ~•',� i' ,.iw . an...h .daft+. 3 .'a I1 e4oa ' . ate .:a. -�src • . n-s Gene asked if we are taking people off of road — why is there and increase near stations? Holly said because of activity at park-n-Ride. Gene would like to show traffic is reduced at mainline because of stations . Tom said we can show reduction in VMT because of transit users . 18. Looked at station intersections evaluated along 85 for commuter bus service — 3 intersections operate at LOS E/F. Tony Ogboli from City and County of Denver, asked about impacts of the buses downtown. Holly can show increase in volume, she will look at it and include discussion in the DEIS. 19. Paul covered rail grade crossing . There are 2 components of the system: existing BNSF alignment and the new Longmont — North Metro Connection . There are twenty-one new crossings, 16 would be at grade, 5 grade separated. Two types of analysis occurred. Using FRA program to predict accident information, exposure factors were calculated per FRA procedures . We will grade separate where we can, on major roadways, difficult in downtown urban setting , where structures are close together. • Where no grade separation, we will make improvements to reduce exposure at crossings. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25• h EIS n. r , _ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation, Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 8, 2007 5of6 Deb asked how assumptions are made about how to access BRT vs. commuter rail. She has seen qualitative studies indicate people may walk or bike to commuter rail more. Chris said model does show a preference for commuter rail then BRT. Debra would like to be reminded of assumptions. 21 . Chris covered travel times, looking at both highway and transit at once. He summarized end to end travel times. SH 1 to E470 in 2030: ■ No Action 64 minutes ■ Package A — 54 minutes ■ Package B GP — 61 minutes • ■ HOV/Toll — 43 minutes Tolled times have the best transit time. Action: Chris to add auto travel time along US 85 for comparison to Commuter Bus. Tony Ogboli asked from Fort Collins at Harmony to DUS, it is really 130 minutes for No- Action 93 for commuter rail and 72 for BRT. Chris said BRT can travel in exclusive lanes and stops for a very short time at median stations . Gene said that is assuming the DRCOG improvements from fiscally constrained plan is adopted, so busses do better than rail. Holly noted that this assumption is used all along corridor that north area will adopt improvements too (both NFR and DRCOG). Gene is concerned these may not happen. Tom said we face this uncertainty in total metro area. Gina said in NEPA we would look at what improvements are needed . By the time we get to ROD , the improvements must be fiscally constrained , on RTD and it be fundable. This is an AO requirement. Gene suggested there should be a model run if the projects don't become adopted. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • 0 sa!' •••., 1:1!. • rNi --.-4 \\ • • w Z Q) fn U O Q) H ' D o a U .C3 C p 0 ; : OI O Q) f O p >s' U OU O 0' D p Dk Uf N 2 , -t Q)co' c c E ; @ o: o o C o o , E LU N E 2 p N E ai U ° vi _6 o E a E •CD � L cn1 •c > -c c a P O. co cII T C c0 O U C > ca .o v N � -c ' U� 'i— _oli � C .0 ' O a� 'N c @` 2 U C co U o U a cn -12 C a) � 1 Q) m O Q) Q) C 2 -O co E � Q) CO E 0 5 C R. .R) n H U) _a, - ' r0 ID C) x a x 4 I c� o 1 ti t C cai Q O Q L C • • IA co a D n_ L U.1 • E W •CSC) N '_ O O •o 217, 0) C C C O _ a o_, c • . I c L1¢ E a c c �' n3 (laW W `s (11) Z t1 d. Z CL Z H H F- O R 1 O) it- O a) t (-) • -o D `*- a) .o O c U - O >, °6 C QCj �S t, E co m a) I 0 gU ID W W v) •o) > Zni m I E Q 4) O CD L 2__J i Li-12 I 1+— c m w off U E c o ..0 F- o W E H O o `O `�- 15 o a E u) Q . ,>, O Q 3c U s, . , t in O o o a) c. f-- Ca O +-s (D a do U F— U L.L. O U U m lL 0 F-- ti_ U U 0 I.L. U a A .,, u 0 W r x ----A) ---$ o a o o o cc a 0 c os� oto o E v) x c� O co 4) o E oco Q O . cn a) ro C C Q co c� C cu m mczi m 8 E ID c - E O .C • Z = W �" U Q Q C a) 1-- Ca Q) N a) 0 CoN O p N Z U Q -t E Q a) r co m m GO a) m m m CO U - w Q ce 0 5 as E E m ca _n` > trt a' f �, a� F—• r. to CL 1 O O O -C Q) Q) CD �_ RS O a) ( o H cC > F— U) i O 0 m CD Y Y Cl I CD 2 ;•••.r-•e.r� • ' :V'' T �.I:.3:. 'ctil3:7i E } !1 F-�-i 0 n c.) r`'t = v U U'3 C nH/ tssa L, D + 0 c• -i ` O C O U O ''-' O t a a w 0 0) ' U i O ) qj E a) co C C ' X Rs o o ° a c o o co c• 0 �, 6 L O — -o w -a - r .C c ! U O0 c ' O d 5 -O U t tit D Y 0 .n U °II O c " 4- -00 U o a) o co .-c @ c� c 1 a a.) L E 3 cn o c� �� C@ E r' @ o a - o ° -D M L - L '6 ' C! t 1-6 �.{ L Q o Of N p� C C C --0 a u) ) /� tr o O t- E w cn a -L co � E E .c V -C ti F- Cx U -) .2 T -a CL -= Y .� -a 1._, o ro O c a Q L 0 0 t. O O a ip Z c O ii. ,ro o — o v o .L U n • 0in • c N t- c a_ }--ca J CC C O i 1 b O L L •0) a. 2 c a - a)a) c ,. O O o a O c c c ,_ r c cesO O ' com O o 2 n o o o cn o c 2' E c .` = L 0 00 O c 'C c -OC D Ct M U .in 0 O O UO O F-- Q Er) In O O L . •U) L Z J -0 LL:-D- v U o u. e t� N O p N `.- 4- C U C O O �. E c .c o o cc I c.5 O o c c t. "c O 0 O U ..jO z 0 C Um O U O O H- I— iii C , .-e J Q U2 O it aU ova a- U o > Q M O E — c 0 c6 a 25 a) T. c a� — o C L Q C -1 CV lo c13 _Y C E co O >r E N 1 a) a) v CO ~ ro > 0 .n 0 ct a (1t as (D E a t' • z O a. Iii CO C� w = _ _ _ = m = o z ce o S' a) -0 C7 a, O c a) m co ca m Y = _ w r_,< t:? > c� o o .L ca o -C 'a .C C o E 5 Co c o H r (/) a. H 00 U — 0 < O Cl_ I— Y -) 0 ll a) H ;. :•- - - 0 .i'!(Si Cl ,r 4 ` 1-4� 'S . w e-� E w O Ol: • E; o . D ° 61I > di ai 45 at o � � � : L ci vy v .� c Q) �; CO ILI �jII � ' L � V-4= 1 � . Q) O E °U 0 O " xi , OU U , ° D.• Oj LJ •N C' QI •UJ •U � . €. E1 ♦ V •E ' DI @ >? .0 pf @ E1 E (B o c; L (1st-: O; E a N C 0' O' • � 0 N (t) .� h '+ Q) G; E •1 C ' O • 031 c m (n ; ! cts a� �, o E o c� v (.- 2..) ; i > 2 Or c co .° c- L c � ! E U: - L) Cfli ,E Z 2I f�. .0 0 E E o G CQi Q O C L , . O O I `.•0 v ° y • c Oc L (/) Q) Co CO O h - _ C C b • -t • U Q) r . ° 4-- O O 6- o O "` t co c 0 045 c z c - a . to � a) p .2 L o U 15 nU = N U a) szT m U i co n) 0 m U) C w >, ° -p -n Cu L c ° L- (v > E— E c H. E- QCS c c O E 0 0 t n) o t a o L O 4.) 0 0 0 0 0 m 0i0 U m 0 a.. 01-- 0 -) 000 0 0 1— 0 0 it Ul 1 a til C4 I a g U p cc 2 O U Q- rcn O > p No (/) 4:1) N cCU C L C CD Q N ° ° C3 a) 43 0 m c > Q) O c E 0 c.) c° a lir ta-) is o C4 0 512 2in a)Q M , C Y 0 +_ CU E C a C > 71 O5 CO C C ui 1.- f13 a. Y �•� U co -D - ) 0 — Z J F- CJ) --) 5 0 '..", 'Y. .. '. .i. A". f X11:• f .7.:...; 0 n , .r .i:' :r q: r In E 0 o w us > 0E C 0 o0 ; 01 x �� Q Q c> E 1 E VI • Q m C H , ≥�I VO N 'AI O Lta 6 i _ �F N • } �k o p E a H `'-N n.' = C Il.co °s •I -a p U''r X E _( CD, E O ' .' 0 o @ { • O U O E- ti O N 'O U :E > N c - u v__ a c 0 ` .Q .• Q)• - N Q O • C -§ -a > O E o C c/3 //'� I VI V� 1/l O Y r C ": �C /}�! O 1 Lti JEEO Q) C I H N ro 03 C 3 :E U o 'ri Q .a .c. WI Ii5 i O :J h -p -) c .� Z L 0 ock 0 b FS . , o C O >> o�, cn o Y n ( a °� c C .,co c ,,L.. c >1 ._ O U co 03 70 1-* 111 a o C A 41 !-:3" R. eb O) > E a) E n) • 1 0 co C O O 0� c ti (� O + p Q>} U 0 V -II - C ,h > _ a) I c c c a) coi itw- p ,� a. O p L,._, 4- ,h J U O O .0 0 O Q O C -p CJ CO 1,---, C OC CO O I— al 1— O L. O o F-- at ..) p 0 O O ` ., a H x a. CC !- I- H H CC Z 0 5' F-• C) H F- U b L. a) a C w - J Q �\ o a U O 0 a vet Q O O O N N a}W op 1-5 N co o 0 (e) 03 2 nj. w Q ei ca c E _o c co _ c .c N m cc c -II I- 2 r- toCL c a> r — O O .N a) 00 E U 3 Q I CO m a --) (n O 0 •--) cc :-_� 2 Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 Technical Advisory Committee EIS May 10, 2007 • 1 : 30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 5 MEETING DATE - May 10, 2007 LOCATION : Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO/FHU — Tom Anzia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. OVERVIEW 1 . Gina McAfee started the meeting with introductions. Gina M. briefly reviewed purpose and need , and briefly described the No Action, Package A, and Package B. She asked if there are any questions, and then handed it over to Brian Werle, who reviewed land use and covered the agenda. 2. Brian W. discussed the outline for the chapter. It will be abbreviated sections . He described the study corridors, and he also talked about impacts being analyzed by component. ► Generalized existing land use was compiled from a number of sources based on the year 2000. ► Future land use was compiled but more difficult because comprehensive plans may • already be out of date. We assembled this in 2003. ► We compared land use (existing and projected to 2030). There is a shift from agricultural to development. There is also a projected increase in open space and parks . ► Someone asked what causes reduction in surface water? Conversion to agricultural and changed designation into open space. 3. Direct impacts have been associated with No Action, Package A, and Package B. ► For No Action : minor improvements compatible with projected land use. ► For corridors, direct conversion of land use along transportation corridors. ► Brian W. also covered new proposed alignment along Longmont North Metro. ► Transit stations are mostly compatible with plans and through meetings with jurisdictions. 4. Some zoning has not been updated to meet station locations. It may not be identified until preferred alternatives are identified . ► Maintenance facilities are congruent with zoning in some areas but not in others. 5. Ben Herman talked about indirect impacts. Ben H . gave definition "impacts caused by the action , but occur. . . .farther out in time". This is a challenge because of the size of • the study area. So there is a lot of interregional dynamic. Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAG 051007 MM Draft.doc Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 Technical Advisory Committee EIS May 10, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 : 30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 3 of 5 ► Kathleen Bracke asked about indirect impacts on Package B . Why would it go to the north of SH 14? Kathleen B . also asked if it should go along Harmony. ► It is due to not just transit, but the influence of highway improvements. ► Full size maps will be sent out with the meeting minutes. ► Suzette Maliette asked if TOD scenarios will be modeled. For the draft EIS, no new models will be performed , but will be for the preferred alternative in the FEIS. ► Dan Carl asked if the analysis of the direct and indirect impacts have been done yet. No quantitative analysis has been prepared yet. The focus has been on the comparison between the packages for general broad patterns. ► Caution was expressed to be not so quick to assess if local planning are compatible. There are many detailed plans that may be in progress . The support of the community is often supportive of transit. Please contact the community before stating an unacceptable condition. ► Dick Leffler noted that in communities developing on both sides of 1-25, there is a • challenge about connectivity. ► A representative of Centerra noted they recently introduced `mixed use' to developments, but it is 1/4 mile off of the interstate. He doesn't think you will get much closer than that. He wants to know what will be selected and if it is unfunded. It was good that Centerra didn't preclude any of the packages. Because both are unfunded , it makes it more of a challenge. Loveland ► There was another comment about the station downtown . Is there anything they can do to accommodate a station that may or may not occur? ► Bill S. noted to avoid the bad things from happening. Preserve opportunity - don't put big box development at a planned station location. Make a policy decision for preservation. ► Mitigation is typically a transportation action, but an agency cannot change jurisdictions and land use impacts . ► Gina McAfee gave an example of convenient private property to a station. This is mitigated by the Uniform Relocation Act. Transportation agencies can encourage people to do things or support local government. CDOT can encourage smart growth. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAG 051007 MM Drafi.doc Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 IR Technical Advisory Committee EIS May 10, 2007 • 1 : 30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page5of5 ► Consider compatibility with existing land use plans in general context. Shouldn't be too quick to say incompatible when plans don't specifically discuss transportation improvements being considered in this EIS process . ► Mitigation suggestions include promoting education of land use issues and post EIS follow up. Include helping communities take advantage of opportunities and steps required (i.e. update comp plans), TOD opportunity enhancements, corridor approaches . Consider some way to "unplug" this component for communities to use beyond the EIS. ► Revise No Action induced growth graphic to include no action improvements farther north of the Denver metro area (expand shaded development focus area for infrastructure and capacity). ► Revise Package B induced growth graphic to remove central 1-25 shaded area north of SH 14 (not much induced growth development north of SH 14). NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday, July 12, 2006 1 : 30 PM - 3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex (Combined Meeting for RCC/TAC) • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 051007 MM Draft.doc p` _✓.y,�4.:-0i.:igr a V ( C / 1 t--t in i v) p lEw U) u) Z H a v o o Uni o� Un c b O O t a`) s E v c ° E. Y Qi u ° o o �I .'� Ut) U ►_ c O O O 0 E L ° o c Un c cn o O c O a) 0 . C p , n •J c O ' � , O p O U w o , CJ O o o L n — a D -0 .n •U �I to -1_2 ' ° . 4- @� �° " o(�ca, .0 a SS = -p = .� @, (lS @ '�Ca) a g. m oc CC c� 4 c 3 :o-0' -4-- C 0 ``' it (v `- tO O U• > C cp . `'• Y x: -0 O a Er.0 C .OU oU U a) -le O '0 = O v_ (6 N 0 O oUn Z7, _J -le E "D cc a) ra -a 00 E; E i— LY_ 0 it. . H 4 4 C) i.4- O C o II O o 0 N O O _4_ 7 C b Q. U 0 O 2 U U 0 D cl• O_ O h 1 ___, i 1 _ , - E3 0) 0) (L U 1 a) c a) • C v N D 'y5 o o U O °) C') ° Rs Co L• 44 E c is -o c b Ca E U ,' a) -c ° -c ° m E E o w p 2 o RI _ ° _ = sits U - 4- S ❑ 4- 4- E) 4- 4- 0 CO Cr ° o o ,� o o o o OU o c O c °, o o n 0 ) O cii -- U 0 U H it z E-o- U U U F-- E-- U F° F° u U U e w w '4943 r x �- Q a O g U p ce O Q_ 0 U > o lj • . 0tiMO 0 L c 0) +� c c ` 1a a o c: a) Y md o o co O - j a m a) - C = v c 3 — •n a) c CB cnn v o w Z 0 o La U a) •> c o - co u. a) (U • Z c- Q. N U U U U) S, a) Q W U u a) A L - LL u- cu 0 2 41 Q) U ❑ ❑ 17 (ll U O I (0 c U ti d en t0 > c C Q) c > Ft LL c c •Q = Dam 1- 1- r U) d O Cl) U 0 J U 0 O U) < Q ❑ ca - . h- CO U I I? r • S ' I „.•:•.i:• 1; + fl ; ni -1 r „�t w i 0 > 1 D X c 0 c I U '� fl N r �., a (fitL U as C O co O O t p O L- '' Oi O U CD C Q U U U L: O O U p O U 111 C ro' a); _ 7 N `n o O o v •- - E E o E -c oo ca a� 3 .o C o a� p cv C c 5 ca CD 1 o g o '5 .O 4- o E - . a e), o i .„ 4 N -p E cu co N -t _a) > o J Y' -TO N CO C E E E E E M di EI E o O To C -Z3', > to E Z, -,f Y -' • k) 0 a 0 0 � � 1 o V ~ti •-- n ii o V ( y 2- CYJ v) ran E 4. *EDI0 3 C O -J (t o 0 h 1 C I. L. 1 v Y JD W Q C 4- U O O i Q ro _ as -tea con c 0 co w h •— — -c m c c) -a/ o D CD >, > � � ► . C o c oil 4-' .4- a� O O o — OCz 0 O CU Q_ a O O v- CO O c o oozS E cU H °' � � a U o L_ U a CO H- O OOca W E— > > O O � Z Z O H v Q a w a la t 2 J Q \f, a ce 2U 0.. U 1 ^ a co C) cu ` N Q) E c 42 o ch o 0E o CEa E .°o _ N O Q O U U G J € Q CZ N L, O N ZO ,�,, Q, LLI d' Y Y c -p U O N c� a a - 0 v >- o n� Y o m Y _a a) �' >, O `E Q M c6 > t sa -C a3 .c c .c W N -= E- .e r fn a C7 J = 0 CO O CC C/) O ( CL' 5 co Z Y Yi2 t Al Cr � ,. t i- t Fitt ! t 1n ( ) i E rt F+� f t . . 0 ?--(t w t V) !icF5I E O U H i L. U) U U �L (LS0 Z U). U+ vj 0 O O p �-- Ft-- R I d p E L 'U c>3� U Cl, O O Z �'Li j N^ -0 T N >> 0 O 4 n U) 6 a y 0 E v o17.: �_? 5 -o a E 6 x H. 0 0 - o' 2 o a) t @ c c c .O O t of a) N :c > © •o c� U c>J 0 E v) t >ci,` 'Jr;' • 4-- m c - E c .c—, 0 a E ( ,' c,' 0+ L o 0_ = O � ' @, et a) U N cn UI Q)° . @ 1 o CD 6 -p 4) 2 O > U C C 90 a) c I > T3 . -' U) f` c .L of > 'U U) (13 V a) > C; N co E cp _L.: a) co I -,_ 2 +-' Cd ,c as a) _C -� U) 00 .� CD Cn l a) . cn L v Y cn 0. 0 .c D < A) ci U_ O 1/4 RS s__ 2 t, O) V E .203, ° c Cu azi- a)) Q. • c O Z y O a> w co 0_ CC a_ v E •� • E3 -c c O a) cl a.I- n H a c y E:-.- ;El' 0 qi a) • Q) C = o N c .o ro c a c = 'a 5 o 0 - c .'� O `' O O c� 5 0 U O c~r, O -� > LL U U o- = o coU -Cr_- O (U W zt L L 4- `• 7 m q l— o c n -a c P o E o 03 > I 2 E o O 0 0 0 0 0 •t 4 ac Cr) F--Cu cu o co U LL' H Cl] co H 0 U J U U 0 Z (]'. lL Q U Fo- t W Lr r X J q o O o a. 6 -- t ° ihO c C :N 1D a > E c as as o C 0 >� L a, a _la 0 o as _E c >„ c >' c c a) _ cv m it: t L L v N w 5 5 c>3 cl) o o cL m v t a) E Cn 0 z o 4 `� a- C� CC fl' i3 �>1 0 CO co a) a) t rn v > o c •L -c c > 2 .N > c c a) 111 6 r c5n Lo Q) L a C OU ass— C O ea va L Co N N E E E C7 U I— Q Cl) W C!) CL 0 Y 2 0 0 --) -) Q r _ II!!' 4 ` ^ - ' 2 Ln 1.7N• q�,��•,,� ` r_ B 9 ° V.) hi 4 4 La )") \.) A t it: i� '" y ,p `S: %rte . _ ,/1 1 Ott' ; o _ . ,- C V-4.) f . 1 44) (J :ill: r ije. ar JVJ _Cv b: ' M�' `x t del UOPI .1 41, vw'» . �•+ o 1 -g n'C a Lii yr ' °".'*E r, Lig '6 ---c./N .0 V 0 1,--) S 0 < z i.. `-" _it- a r ' ,s 1 2 "" ,.. i Mme. I.. r . • ir_• n _ •'�.1. Zi ...... n p_tc i--1 .... t .y. NJ ••vex Z. Q f— — 0 0 $ , ` o 'O "0 t--- o . 3 f‘--) 9 0 a3 all CD . r...�s... C CD .07 Tr �� t�.e��Y!%j -`••Si,',• /CAS IV/Jl �, -k-- • o ° -f 2 �3 el 4:. 0 CL U :.. " ` Li : Y A . r 0. • mu 00- r fn O. - rte-`_i i2 0 � ,.- NORTH i LD -: Tom. ..., Meeting Minutes , F,T . ` Y Technical Advisory Committee EIS to Regional Coordination Committee information. cooperation. transportation. July 12, 2007 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 2 of 4 • Gina M. said we do this in compliance with 1990 CAA. We need to make sure that it won't exceed established NAAQS conformity. Transportation projects need to go through analysis to make sure they are in conformity. We look at mobile sources. Projects must come from a conforming plan and must be in the STIP. The ROD needs to be fundable and come from conforming plan and TIP. If it is in the plan , FHWA may still sign it, as long as it will be included in TIP. • Conformity requires that the project cannot contribute to CO and PM10, no new localized hot spots. ■ Plan and TIP must be consistent with omissions budget in SIP. We do analysis with APCD and EPA. 6. Jill Schlaefer discussed trends more than specific data. Jill pointed out attainment areas, NAAQS, measured by matter in the atmosphere, plus MSATS. EAC for ozone covers most of front range counties. Ozone backs up against the mountains. Ozone is created by a variety of chemicals, and then combined with sun, become ozone. 7. CO has been declining with time. This is due to emission controls . For PM10 we look at emissions by engines. Airborne dust is ten times the emissions • generated by engine PM10 , but engine PM10 is more dangerous. 8. NO), (many oxides), plus VOC's are primary concerns generated by engine exhaust. Powerplants and other industrial things cause it. Major concern is in Larimer and Weld counties, which are in EAC areas. Increased VMT in 2030 is what is evaluated for air quality. • We are also looking at a change in the economy. Agricultural activities generate pollutants, but agricultural land is being developed . Engines will increase pollutants. We are already at the edge of non-attainment for ozone. The ozone threshold may be changed or lowered. With proposed change, it would definitely be in non- attainment. 9. Other problems are nitrogen near Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), which is doing environmental damage. • Six toxins have been analyzed in MSAT's. These MSAT's will go down between now and 2020 due to emission controls. 10. There has been an eighty percent increase (49M) in VMT over 2001 on North 1-25. New proposal could add 40 to 60 buses. Rail makes an incremental difference in system-wide VMT. 11 . Summary of results: • 2001 - 28M VMT daily -- Looked at interim year and 2030. Emissions are affected by not only VMT but speed as well . Increased speed increases emissions. Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Meeting Minutes NORTH FAD '_; .•' Technical Advisory Committee EIS ` _ }° Regional Coordination Committee July 12, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 4 of 4 • What happens when we end up in non-compliance? That is to be determined, but transportation funding may be at risk. • New ozone standard has been proposed , which may be primary for secondary standard. This may be finalized in October, then non-attainment would be official. SIP's would be modified to address this, i.e. more control measures, such as vapor recovery and VOC's from paint. • Do they limit fueling times? Lisa S. does not know. They need to look at new list of control measures. • Bil Haas asked what is short-term implication of non-attainment. Lisa S. not sure what it means for projects like this. Gina M. said Denver was non-attainment for many years. The analysis does not change, but SIP commits the region to control measures. If those do not work, transportation funds could be at risk. This happed in Atlanta , GA. EPA and CDPHE would work together. • Brad Beckham said emissions budget would be tightened and harder to meet conformity. Many projects may not be included in the plan . The budget is related to standard, which becomes a difficult policy type of dilemma.• • Bill Haas had comments about EAC. He said this approach is novel . There are about a half-dozen around the country. If EAC were not in place, we would have had non- attainment a while ago. • Jason Longsdorf (CCD) looked at tables, and Denver, CO exceeds emissions budget for CO. NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday - September 13, 2007 Time: To Be Determined • SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration ■ Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation i . I N i 0 E _ w t n o 0 U N s O + _ O - ( C O 0 ci) Cl) �k ,o z E R{ 6 ( c 61 s C ' D E o� o ° o ©� w c do o U � i -o U w ..d O • C ' .0 a) O .0 L 32 O a t = C a) O c 'U a W E , 0 3 a) u) ccm.. -c' O 8 CY C n U 6 T3 N Z3 10 CZ C d w1 4 o cu cA. rail CI. O E o- @col ci vi a) 2 E 5 -c Y o ' Li (is O 2 ' co �- O To QE) C O U C N a �. `- a` s CO E t6 c `- o O1 CO: 153 a- Y a. >1 CI • _ E tti a Q. c51 n -t O N C a a) i >> N o -0 N C O) . l) cn N C y D Cn W• .' a) Q c E. W c H Z W I CL 5 CU CD � y c, O `Q)- C Li N a) a) C +- O O U -0 0 �'co c .. CZS 4 '4O '' c0 =O C c cri O C cr E >s N Y i � 4E > 'C 5 E U C O o w o c a }- U a) W CU E o o OM E H p 0 }- c0 0 O O "- 0 O a E o O U �_ O c a c c 0 a x co c`a o b -la 0 O :4` cc a) O cu o o o 1-- D o 0 -J O Z 0 U Om 0 0 a 0 C_) H H H Et O co H C3 b w n w J a O a U U w v c O a G W O :.E O N.. M N V S C N c C E M C� _ C CZ o O - 0 » to c L. O. a) c a`) 40 ca Z o O co Q N H aq cn .n O cc, c ca c frh a? E = c3 _ p a) a) cn Cn r 0 1/4..2 a. w M CD C� 0 O C) z m -f- _ _ 0 = o a0 cu s L`!J j M cd Ca N c E 5 c a U _c C C I �' L- C O L O co N co- co N O — (0 rU) 0.. 0 ~U` < 0 0_ H Y 0 L_ > 00 }-- -O H U' 2 U' _, . .. 3 - •.. ..yJ2ti (4 ^ `. i ticb l *Sic: 4 . _l n 0 w 4 (BD Si U V r t Hi_ o O o c41 Or o U EIv; • _ _ SA .` (t3 1 ` 0 •c�� > 0 ' +- O 175 O E E ? :as a U ° ' c E Q _ O O g: .._4 2 O v -.- --- --% E p '� '�: O O ! C o U A 3 io . , Ei ,sit, •� U C v O lCr eg o m c , -a "=„ • u, E a) ci o 6 as Dai m co c6 �c c a a) = o • x au o v .C U_ • O ��, t� vi, > "�ZS- Y C CCI ._ C Z 1V . � o Ei t - ii : q b a 0 c .� co O O N *m_ lisj \ o co oes o Cl) 0! Sa L. Q U Q) Q - b Q. ,- cu O < Cu O Q) (� W D Z it J Z den _ l _ a E, tu t it r c 0) a ° ° ei C U is c t _ c O O O 11 0,6O 4- I J O d }— N- c C -0 C O (U }� c O c �- OO ._ c U 0 2 - ' zl as _ O (II O -~cz. O ao }-- Ste. I--' U U U H U H. U U }— f1_ C.) �-- C� 1 — W x a_ O i ct. O U U W CC o a cc cc o c cn o W � :., � aaM Q C C 0 a, 4 a s CD O U 4-' -� o) a) C E L ° ` ^Q� ID Z f2. ~ ~ > v1 > a) (1) > O° O c� d w. CO > U u -tea C 0.1 -� MI N N C c W N c -0 U N .� . - Zi .c o cu o O CO E _O - - ° aQ 4 -- - i - Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 Technical Advisory Committee • November 8, 2007 EIS 1 :30 PM to 3:00 PM information cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 3 • Q: G. Putman — In regards to the map that shows the impacts in Longmont, isn't that area where there is already the BNSF line? How can Package A impact a community that already has existing conditions? A: G. McAfee — You are correct. There are impacts based on the increased frequency of rail traffic and the addition of a second track. G. Putman — I would like to see detailed info regarding freight versus commuter rail in terms of frequency, noise, exposure time, etc. Mark Jackson — Fort Collins averages eight freight trains a day. • Q: J. Longsdorf — How do the alternatives improve emergency response time? A: S. Sam — The alternatives decrease congestion and improve the Level of Service in turn improving response time. • Q: B. Haas — I notice that Package B has no extra impacts. Will no mitigation be necessary with Package B, but necessary with Package A? A: There will be impacts with Package B, however they are the same as the No Action. Existing conditions will become more severe. • Q: Kathleen Bracke — Will Mountain Range Shadows get no additional mitigation with Package B? A: Tom Anzia — No. If we implement Package B the 1-25 EIS alignment will go around Mountain Range Shadows to avoid any additional impacts by widening the highway. There will be mitigation, but that falls under noise not EJ . • Q: K. Bracke - I don't see any information regarding the benefits that Package A and the commuter rail will present to EJ communities. Doesn't the rail component provide lots of benefits? A: G. McAfee - It does. • Q: J. Longsdorf - We weren't counting No Action in the water resources presentation, but with No Action in EJ will CDOT do mitigation or would CDOT walk away and leave conditions as they are? A: G. McAfee - With No Action, CDOT will maintain operation levels. CDOT will be replacing some bridges and other such structures that need it. Some of this maintenance will also be done by the local entities. • Q: B. Haas — If No Action is used then would we have to do separate Environmental Assessments for spot work? A: T. Anzia - Yes. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation - 1 -- -' • i f N II---4 NIE Z y I 8 Ii = N E a N :: _.13..(1) V • 13 O ORT O o b ° N a o >z; o E o o v `�gco cv C ti § ai -a E $ 8• o 69 0 E wa) °' `° r'n $ ai ° u c OE •i @ Y o o a5 ' o crji U E a� "- 8 CO @ L U raj@ U .-5 2 @ @/ OU 'o oU ` N C O c N o U " U +., a. m0 c E c`a ( m > 0 ca o C ?' Lc� o T E"O L RS n c0 .ca L m t o, a 2 : F- co .n -0 C] rt C� ro _ T I to t a E I1/4 ci I . R. 4 iL c o t .F.. e D a. E -n E C • W •v c c ro o N -6 a V) �4 Cr) rn a o N c .C C Q a D ti F-C , • ` coc c N W co Cl)ac E. z E. z ti L CD CO 'Cl) Las - / T — -6 •-O1 O1 Lt o > V _ -1O 5 p 5 , 0 o .°c o N � ' L. •� V a� o cn c m m s '� a� = E k s 8 m N = a r .to - w W C •i > t- = N E c O O cv E c U p p 2 o J O 3 O < Li V o U Li. nV U _C OU m i- 0 o o • o a) be V F- t.t_ U V V u_ o 05 r ' - T o d IL w X J ta 2 U . % _ 4 0 0 • _ • U ;. o aioait C 5Noal 0 C 0 Co E a? *Wain' o E CD - oV cv N o C5 c m — c ' -v cv '� m ,c a) W F- O C W m cn Y C O E iiummal Z o Q -NC m ca C) U sE E o ot t a� E g r- 0 Q c a) 45 , m m a) a) cRS o o > o v, Q o E ¢ oC r �, m m o ao m m m V v , U V ai L C >• - 2 F- W S F- U) i I 0 a col 0 Y -c Yi. a. 2 0 M C') C 1 ' ( , , , s I f i • .; t E : I , < co . o 4.4 w , o C o ' N A 0 - C co 4 °' pp. • c v ca c ' p c c 0 o o o -v 28 q i 3 UJ •— E C O C •U O O' U C • ) O N r c • • c� U 0 a E -a' a�— o 3 co v .- `° s o i .Y O _ • • 'O O • C • • a) c L 6 ` o _ N E ms's' .t] o i.; • -a a) n a o c e E c * .c ca a) 'u 3 0 N C O U N ca • c c� _ 0v c O lei •• E ca • CoN O ui O E O E • v U i`, to O . _ Tr, O . a) C O 0c (1) U CO CL Y E s L ca o ca: Lo D` ca c L o > c . E ca ei .n o s O � n� > v c c a) ccC I o a C I .c- j o W z .E Q) Q K � • o CD W a aa) o 4 U I_ Z _iLYH Et O m > m - a) C �. 0 Cl °� 8 V to o c c c •1 L c c • to w cO -► o C S E �• RJ O = C c •ow g it "C • C C > t U Y r o c cc E _ z O c 00 O U V o — c a f-- co m c -ti m V o Z J -a = i O I 4- w 4- O C aJ U- �►.. w C E U O U C 0 O O C O i ° E c O O c� o O U V -0 Q ._ c c c O j t i cu ORD O O .� z v v v m` 0 5 a 0 0 t) I— H H cc v CO F- L. ui w a O • O V • (a cn . , N ILIti C ce E 5 CO O O o o n. � cn - No co Cl)w a) u N P C ca O U op tt) O C -O .-- Q it a0 O co 2 ..1 Y co c t Ev 'E cCo ` c°n co° L .. 0 i_ a) m i ari TD- a) cu c . — 0 .c = W c ca Lii el) O (9 m (9 2i co cn = = N a) Z z = >0) - -, CD Y U c t a) a) 7 Y a) = a) ur o t) > c c c c C Y �" F- 2 e►� U} G. m W C N .c '• 1 E E2ca c m = c a) caca '- U C7 Q a. ,yam > m �- —os H C7 2 0 ca I, e - - -4 ( iT 1 — t I c I I • E N h i p,-- ELI t 4� ( I , v> z I � . E Z to O / . O C Ut %O ` 8 8 ° ° " a c Cl o413,) et,.,. c.4 f o L.L. o —O � E ai _� E Z.S Qc E. O o Q) o E a) ca .iv 4 -d 'v. I c : g Li -o O• N c D 2 Ti, v t i E: co o - a g cn 0 $. c CO2 a' c i • c E c� cot 9. aai o C. a- :; • a vEi a) Z o �A CD Egi ; co 3 U, E l E .cL -c C0c �. E Y o C7 C , co Z ■■„ P.I a Co v o c c N c t 'o O N in a .C b C -2 • arala ® w • M ID n o CO O a. k- a — I k. b fD 3 • • 0 6 a) c s c ozi- °a c p 3 c pf .. F. O -.• O c (� C cn c •4 O L p 3 Q? C N tt • U o 0� O L O Fn.= o •c U M� t U 'T 4-. L Li L- O W l L cc 0 O Q � c C7 E r- E c I-Q Q Q E U G) Ise) o v N 40 Q F- U , U U Q 0 1- ' 0 0 , w minc 0- 0 U ft '-• 03 it w W J W 0. J W " U G cnoa w s a > O w N ,� Ir o , 0 6 0 a) c t� E t[1 O r".. N i tfr '- O x c �C c J opt O U c > a) aci -o E aa) -> U) c r co c < wI- o r a>0 C.) m 2 >r o o co -� (-- c J 2 a • ELL LEO_ o E ._. Pc X >>ILI M '. e� :CD E .C c c S 5 .U) c o a 5- - - a_ •c c w 'a a wzntoa sE E g cv • . 'now o w E O co E -o - i*-- -tc C v L p r _ 1 ,.' "7 G L Y U U - 1 I, t f 1 C ni D.. 4 ( N 0 31 ' pp Cl) a) U O 8 o E aS E " 4) �; o (ti O OU E� co O c~i� O v co ' > .0 O 1TS CCE EE l • � @C =• O .D Q' OEp o ` E -00c3E -00Oo@ c @ U __o_ (4 0 ..t,_. O c., n §- ic w .t ct a . ... ti c1 .O 8 O o $' — a) g .n a) a r m o -di 3 a' m .v c 2 0 @ °4 E L3 @ n5 @ 3 c = o ?, v, c c -v c 0 3 3 a) 5 C7 Ni cu - > 3 3 0 aci 3 0 3 ° v .Y vi Q -a ... 3 -, c c; 'E 2 :$ .3 E' r r I Its 1 - 4 , \ , , cik I Y/ O o c., e_. V N � c > .T •_2 /off oto d c bco 715{� { r < >, 2 Q 0 0 dU — b III i -0 a..W O a) C W .j .o Zdcr Z 3 _ E I _ ---�-- - CIS b I LL v) VI • c o C O O C C v 0 U a •C c c C7 En o c cl m d o -� 0 0 U 0 ,;�' m o o Z J o O NK ell C p O~ C ID c o a1 ~O c o c O o c U O H D o O O CO O pLE O D �' o QQ .coo �— et U r F- 00b0 )_- E— U U F- a ti *II la "` w 1 w J . a 2 V C ' w , _ o NCO w N > NOU) c 'a c 4) G � CO � U 0 C (U - rn A t E 2 o Q w O O O T3 fl m (V fU O CU a. •� 'e" C ` ea a 0 co 2 iii• i Li a" m >" ~ ' c 2 m -IcI ,) 0 t -c 0 ?r 3 o c E 1 woe') > o N a C 0 ac) m a o E ° Y � ` HZc+itod I -) cn I , I DC Z 2 'M 54I .. � i_ I _ C w C6-1O ' • t Ii �a'•t ��: cn 4`` 0 i r * State Representative * 18 ,,l 6 �c . Member: JIM WELKER = Transportation & Energy 2641 N. Taft Ave. Committee Loveland, CO 80538 COLORADO Business Affairs & Labor 970-667-5227 Committee Capitol: 200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Denver, CO 80203 303-866-2947 STATE CAPITOL E-mail: jim.welker.house@state.co.us DENVER ab67$,� 80203 , a. 4 t/ ilteittellit Mr. Tom Nortondle itarin 49 Executive Director rc�Colorado Department of Transportation **ran° cc: Colorado Department of Transportation Executive Management Team Dear Mr. Norton, For any Coloradan driving through our state, Johnson's Corner Truck Stop is renowned both as a landmark and a Colorado icon. Johnson's Corner has reliably served as a comfortable and welcoming stop for travelers and truck ipdrivers on the north and south journeys. It has proudly served thousands of Colorado visitors since opening its doors in 1952 and has become an integral part of the economies in the surrounding communities. The 106th Congressional Record of the U.S. House of Representatives states that, "They exemplify the industrious spirit and the can-do attitude that has made America great." Currently, Johnson's Corner generates over $1 Million annually in highway fuel taxes for Colorado. Recent media coverage has brought significant coverage and attention to an EIS study, conducted by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), concerning possible I-25 improvements. This study is considering a recommendation that could result in the closure of exit 254, serving Johnson's Corner and the surrounding business. COOT the possible closure for safety ^congestion s. study discovered a band ..en - „��zer. concerns. However, a res`�Tlt study shortage of commercial truck parking spaces along I-25 in northern Colorado. If a closure of the exit at Johnson's Corner occurred, it would further exacerbate this problem, thus posing greater safety problems for all highway users. The closure of exit 254 would be catastrophic to Johnson's Corner and the fourteen other businesses within the area. We (members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly) do not believe such a closure serves the best interest of the people of the State of Colorado. Congestion and safety concerns are of vital importance, but we don't believe such concerns necessitate the ultimate closure of this exit. Alternative solutions, keeping the exit open, should be considered for the mutual benefit of the state and its impacted communities. When considering these detrimental implications, closure of the exit is not an appropriate or beneficial option. As members of the 65`h Colorado General Assembly, we ask CDOT to strongly recommend keeping exit 254 open. Your time and attention to this matter is greatly appreciated Members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly, RECEIVE ! MAR 3 A 2006 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BALMER GALLEGOS MADDEN SOLANO 12 BENEFIELD A IA MARSHALL SOPER seri6 , . _ _ BERE ARDNER MAS • _•1 �. /� itA7 , r � BORODKIN G A , M (.1-2( 1r rte. B • HAL CLUSKEY • Sf\inCC) ;Yt stn HARVEY - ADY ODD I B r ER HEFL Y McGIHON VIGIL / -) - . !' HODGE Mc EY I L, M �y HOPP M ' ' IEL f 4 KER/07-;ARROLL, T JAHN P E WHITE �r I i • to RBO D PEN Y WITWER ;L P KE PLANT a :LOER KIN O E S:ILLS\FORMS\House05_rnem.wp r —� d LEMAN N It GSDAL NE- C---- LARSON RIE BERG 4L' Y LI STROM RO gdott#7-.-- IEC EP LISTO � RO AS L DBERG SCHULTHEIS cc : ttaw tJ • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Executive Director Tom Norton16�� IF; I O 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Room 262 4' .a, _ _ __ Denver, CO 80222 tnrsmarrat (303) 757-9201 ifit (303) 757-9656 Fax rrf - ' , �f April 12, 2006 ,te 1' ark it., The Honorable Jim Welker Colorado House of Representatives State Capitol Building 200 E. Colfax Avenue Room 271 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Representative Welker: Thank you for your letter signed by members of the 65th Colorado General Assembly regarding Exit 254 and the Johnson' Corner truck stop along 1-25 north of Denver. The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has been on-going since early 2004 and is in the process of progressing into the Draft EIS stage as of March 2006. The study includes a process that will be evaluating various alternatives and will most likely include recommendations for the widening of I-25 in various configurations for transportation improvements. I understand your concerns surrounding the economic and safety impacts to Exit 254 and the possible ramifications to the truck stop and truck parking. These are some of the same concerns we have heard at many of our public meetings that we have hosted along the corridor over the past few months. Our project team will continue to work with stakeholders, local agencies and business owners along the project to ensure that needs are being addressed, especially at each interchange, and that the most reasonable recommendations are made as they relate to mobility, access and safety. We appreciate your interest in this matter and your comments will be incorporated in the official public record for the EIS. Sincerely, <44frk, /),ft Tom Norton Executive Director • Cc: Karla Harding, Region 4 Director You have the right to expect that the EIS will enable you to carry out your jurisdictional responsibilities. Likewise, you have the obligation to tell us if, at any point in the process, your needs are not being met. We • expect that at the end of the process the EIS will satisfy any NEPA requirements including those related to project alternatives, environmental consequences and mitigation. J We look forward to your response to this request and your role as a cooperating agency on this project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies' respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EIS, please contact Jean Wallace (FHWA) at (303) 969-6730 extension 382 or John Dow (FTA) at (303) 8443243. Sincerely yours, 'z-71 i,. C. Jon O. W: I el eton Division A tor G Regional Administrator cc: Mr. Dave Martinez, CDOT Region 4 Mr. Bob Garcia, CDOT Region 4 Mr. Stanley Elmquist, CDOT Region 4 Ms. Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4 Mr. Brad Beckham, CDOT EPB • A 6s FJGr Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street D D Denver, Colorado 80202-1399 General Manager 303/628-9000 February 2, 2004 Mr. William C . Jones Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Division 555 Zang St. , Room 250 Lakewood , CO 80228 Mr. Lee O . Waddleton Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region VIII 216 Sixteenth St. , Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Sirs: Thank you for the invitation to participate as a Cooperating Agency on the North 1-25 Front Range EIS. RTD looks forward to participating in this study. Via this correspondence, I am confirming RTD's willingness to participate fully in each of the six activities that your invitation lists . As you note, of particular importance will be • assuring continued close coordination between this EIS and the various other study efforts currently underway in the region. CDOT, RTD, FTA, and FHWA are closely coordinating study efforts through various venues, including the monthly Corridors Coordination meeting, and RTD is committed to continuing the open approach that the agencies have established through this forum. Please include me and Elizabeth A. Rao, RTD's Assistant General Manager of Planning and Development, as your contacts in the capacity as Cooperating Agency. Again, I appreciate your offer to involve RTD in this capacity and look forward to continued close cooperation between our agencies on all planning and environmental studies in the metro area . Sincerely, Co:_ e_ zn6en,62.0a Clarence W. Marsella General Manager c: Elizabeth A. Rao, Assistant General Manager of Planning and Development John Shonsey, Senior Manager of Engineering Bill Van Meter, Senior Manager of Systems Planning An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES infor mat:op cuopeabon. transportation RTD Coordination Meeting April 20, 2004 2of3 7 . Liz recommends development of a corridor level IGA to address how this corridor would be treated if FasTracks passes (do one EIS). Liz thinks that John Muscatell is intending to fund a highway piece south of SH 7. We need to discuss this with Jennifer Finch and John Muscatell. One option, if FasTracks passes, is that there could be separate RODs for highway and transit or for separate funding packages . For operating, we could investigate a private operator for the design/build/operate option. RTD will be assuming this operating scenario and we could piggy-back on this. 8. For the Diagonal Feasibility Study, RTD will be looking at station locations and TOD potential. This will go all the way to Main Street in Longmont. Stations are being looked at 52, Hover Road and end of line (EOL). There will be park-n-Rides at 52 and EOL. It will be double tracked, 15-minute frequency ultimately. Ridership forecasts and costs will be developed . The study is starting today. Rick Pilgrim and Tim Baldwin will be working on • this. El Gallagher and Mike Paris are the railroad contacts. 9. RTD is working on the Commuter Rail design standards. They will be out in a couple of months. This includes park-n-Ride standards. 10. Maintenance facilities are being looked at adjacent to DUS . It will combine all three corridors. RTD will pick a consistent vehicle for the FasTracks corridors. • 23`d Street yard is one possibility for the maintenance facility (an expansion). This could handle about 100 vehicles. • 38th Street yard is another possibility. It is a huge facility. This would work for DMUs. RTD is looking into cost/benefit of these. 11 . If North Metro comes up with LRT, would we need a transfer facility? Another option is to have different types of service — local and express. Different operating scenarios could be developed for BRT also. 12 . The relocation of the Union Pacific line is a possibility only if FasTracks passes. 13 . With FasTracks, the maintenance facility that RTD develops will have the potential for expansion — it will be designed for 100 vehicles and they will only need half of that. 14 . RTD has some running times on the Burlington Northern line developed for the US 36 EIS . They have detailed cost estimates for the Diagonal and North Metro segments. For North Metro, they are assuming double tracking to 124th and single tracking to 160th. • • • ' a• a-4. .•1'4 d a co C V - 1 •• d (-�] r , J. --• Ai V r `Tk.-2 ♦ , . -;3- ki ° Q• 0 m,g 2 I) 11 o W o co 3 n � ---t i - gst?; Y•.: z H o ca" i u , 7 -4)gy S o E ict 6 x k- ' .4el ® 4-1". — ;3' ...I A\ ;4- 4 4 Z 7 ‘.2 -. .) ,`1.; :fi 3 Z i Lli (1) --‘ NZ --tt ti 11 ' wev Z to r4 173' *0 --KT e-. cl W tY c',) at i' Cii ; 4 4 I 1--- in w w Z I cry 44 ,....>.4. c - t__ N- r 9 0 ( 611: \__. e tb 0 z tii ,8 gt‘) k, ce) ' c -,--0- v k rq L 2 „c v , , , , -z. . , , -‘ I— 2 jel X kb_) • ul 2 ‘s}: --, . < W a� °� W 3 � � .--1 � � J N Dl te. = (2) ...) in (El 4 ..) CI 4 § (1) m Z ii 1 W ;fr, -7- ----i 11 til)S .. o % 4 i 0 ( , Z tea c‘c; --7 D, n _4_ h oCa 1 l co VI- . NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation Briefing on Transit Issues May 4, 2005 2of2 • What opinions do we expect to see expressed at the May 19 meeting? The Tri-towns area (Dacono and Fredock) is pushing for a vote to annex into the RTD District. • There is a commuter rail consortium that is pushing for CR along the BN. • Lee can help us with technologies — he worked on the Eugene BRT. He is the Chairman of TRB for bus technologies. We will coordinate with Lee when we get to that point in the process. • Lee can't be at the May 19 meeting, so we should set up a separate briefing with him after this May 19 meeting. • J:\TransportatUon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\TAFS NEPA Process mtg 05.04.05tdg.doc I NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cuopecation trauspurtatiun RTD Briefing June 6, 2005 2of2 4. Jennifer asked what questions Lee had about FasTracks. • If the Northwest Corridor is not completed , would there be more riders on the Gold Line? Or maybe there would be more riders on the express bus routes. Response: The 2025 FasTracks forecasts assumed no Northwest Corridor. • Do we know of any possible political red flags? Response: The NEPA process will likely generate more issues such as technology or station locations. The challenge is to accommodate new issues and maintain the budget. Councilwoman Montaro's concerns are that Denver receives very few benefits from commuter rail but more noise and air pollution. Another potential issue is that of betterments. Jennifer described the plan of having the cities negotiate the local share. • Lee would like to know about meetings we will be having about FasTracks in his 5 district. • Maybe the North 1-25 EIS should put an item in the briefing newsletters that go out from RTD. Jennifer will get with Scott Reed about this. • One of the issues from other Board Members is a desire for receiving timely information . J;LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtg s\minutes\RTD briering_0606051gj.doc • NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RTD Coordination Meeting March 31, 2006 2of4 The North 1-25 operating plan for commuter rail favors the Fort Collins to North Metro trip. The trip from Fort Collins to Boulder will transfer. The Weld County to Boulder travel was lower than expected. Chris Quinn stated that the Longmont line may be single tracked . This will be known by the end of June. From Dave Shelley: Independent utility for the rail is being finalized. This will proceed as an EA/EIS with the Army Corps of Engineers as the lead agency. Severing highway and transit could occur in the next couple months. b. North Metro EIS from Dave Shelley: Contract negotiations are beginning. This is a rail only project. The EIS may evaluate less frequent service north of 124th Avenue and possibly single tracked. The North Metro Corridor early action ROW preservation will begin soon after Notice to Proceed. $7. 5 million has been set aside for preservation of right-of- • way. All of the agreements with UP are being discussed , including ROW preservation. This money could be used for other project elements if this Union Pacific (UP) agreement is finalized. 3. Use of RTD park-n-Rides a. North 1-25 Project is planning to use the Wagon Road park-n-Ride for 4 buses an hour. This may cause a need for more bus bays and parking . The park-n-Ride is currently at capacity, but may gain some back when North Metro opens. b. Brighton park-n-Ride is similar. c. Commerce City park-n-Ride may be moved as a part of the North Metro project. The existing facility at 74th Avenue and US 85 will likely remain. It is at capacity. It makes more sense for the North 1-25 service to tie into the new facility. NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RTD Coordination Meeting March 31, 2006 4of4 a. Commuter rail vehicle technology analysis is being done by LTK under contact to RTD. By June, they should have Phase I analysis complete. There will be a recommendation later. All the vehicles being analyzed are FRA compliant. North 1-25 design assumes conservative design standard with Locomotive Hauled Coach. 10. Future Coordination a. The next TAC meeting is April 13. Lee Cryer is the RTD representative. b. The group that met for this meeting should meet approximately every other month to continue coordination efforts. c. Vicky McLane has requested to meet with RTD on April 5th. d . Gina will send Dave Shelley the vibration study on DMU . • J:\Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\RTD Coordination frttng 3-31 v2.doc • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation North 1-25 NFRMPO/RTD April 9, 2007 2of3 • The Corps has signed off on the scope of work. • The approval from the Board is planned in early May. • The information from the APE will be available by the time the project starts . • 1st and Terry will be the end of line. • This will include 50% engineering. • Vehicle type will likely be DMU . 7. North Metro update: • DMU or EMU on UP alignment. • Options are also being evaluated to avoid the Sand Creek Junction . S • Another set of public meetings will be in June. • DEIS early 2008. • It will be single tracked north of 104th, with a station north of SH 7 8. The design (bridges) for North Metro would be problematic with Locomotive Hauled Coach , since the bridges for North Metro are all being designed to carry a DMU or EMU vehicle, which is lighter. 9. Where is our maintenance facility? Could be at Berthoud or Ft. Collins. If our commuter rail alternative moves forward, there could be some economies of scale—sharing some equipment with RTD. 10. DUS update: • RTD is working with the master developer • LRT is planned to be at grade, closer to the river. • Bus facility would be underneath 17th • FEIS will be done on the Preferred Alternative (will be done in March 2008). • NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation RTD/NFRMPO Meeting MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 LOCATION: Carter & Burgess RTD: Chris Quinn C&B: Paul Brown, Gina McAfee ATTENDEES: FHU: Tom Anzia CDOT: Dave Martinez, Long Nguyen NFRMPO: Cliff Davidson , Vicki McLane PREPARER: Carter;Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Chris Primus, Holly Buck, Carol Parr, C&B File COPIES: #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Paul Brown walked through the handouts for the update for North 1-25. 2 . Cliff Davidson asked if Ft. Collins is aware of the tolled lane option? The response is yes. 3. Chris Quinn asked if we would manage the TEL with different rates for different segments? 4. Does our background network include parallel roads? Is there a prohibition against building parallel roads adjacent to a TEL? 5. Cliff thinks the tolled lanes will be hard to sell . 6. Cliff asked if the 2030 forecasts will alleviate the traffic demand and reduce it to existing levels? The response is no. 7 . It appears as if we are proposing to spend a billion here with no obvious benefits on a regional basis. Why are we doing this? Should we be testing what the affect will be of a more robust regional network? Response: That really is the responsibility of the Front Range transportation plan or the NFRMPO 2035 plan. There are noticeable benefits in travel times, speeds, and arterial volumes, as discussed with the TAC and RCC in March. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation CarterBurgess • Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 EIS Purpose : Discuss Travel Forecasting Approach Date Held : August 28, 2003 Location : North Front Range MPO Offices, Fort Collins Attendees : NFR MPO: Vicky McLane, Arvilla Kirchhoff, Andy Gomez FHU: Bob Felsburg C&B: Jennifer Heisler, Chris Primus Clarion: Ben Herman, Darcie White Copies : Attendees, Tom Anzia, Gina McAfee, File Summary of Discussion : • 1 . Bob Felsburg indicated the purpose of the meeting was to obtain information on the status of NFR MPO activities (transportation plans, land use, model development), to discuss how to best integrate the NFR forecasting process with the North 1-25 process, and to provide an overview of the modeling approach for North 1-25 EIS. 2. Major challenge for travel forecast model in this project is how to combine both the NFR and DRCOG models to account for transit trips between the NFR area and Denver (Denver Union Station, DIA, etc. ) FTA has indicated that transit forecasts should account for trips into Denver. 3. We presented an overview of a draft modeling approach (hand-out provided to attendees). Fundamental element of travel model development is to work closely with CDOT, the two MPOs and RTD to develop a process that all agencies can buy into and are comfortable with. Proposed formation of a Technical Forecasting Committee to guide model development and sign off on calibration/validation. Also proposed national travel forecasting experts to provide input at key points in model development. 4. NFR provided the following information : • The DRCOG Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI ) had one external station ( I-25/Meade) that inter-regional trip information could be derived . • NFR conducted a household (HH ) survey in 4th Quarter 2001 of 1 ,960 HH representing 13,000 trips. This survey would provide good sources of origin/destination information. The survey data (90%) were geocoded in the modeling area . 0 • Year 2000 model should be calibrated, validated and documented by 9/30/03. The e socio-economic data for the 2000 model included 2000 Census information and the ES202 (State of Colorado) employment data . Peer review conducted of model led to /tEttr'- Anm f NORTH 1-25• EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Agency Coordination Meeting - NFR MPO MEETING DATE: August 4, 2005 LOCATION : City of Fort Collins offices FHU : Tom Anzia CDOT: Steve Olson, David Martinez, Stan Elmquist ATTENDEES: NFRMPO : Arvilla Kirchhoff, Andres Gomez, Suzette Thieman , Cliff Davidson, John Daggett C&B: Gina McAfee , Julie Morrison , Chris Primus PREPARER: Cariertikwgess Gina McAfee and Chris Primus COPIES: Attendees, Jean Wallace, Dave Beckhouse, Craig Gaskill, Bob Garcia, C&B File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Tom Anzia provided a general project overview. Level 2 screening has been compiled. Valve Engineering has been done. We have about 8 packages identified that are combinations of highway, managed lanes, BRT, and CRT. We are planning to begin the impact assessment in mid September. 2. Suzette asked what the feedback was from the public meetings. The primary message was that some sort of transit should definitely be included along with highway improvements. Other input was to look at travel to DIA, a rail spur to Greeley, relationships to Front Range toll road, and others. We will be doing some supplemental analysis of some of these issues. 3. Cliff asked if we are still looking just to 2030. He thinks that because it takes so long to build projects, we should be looking out to 50 years. 4. Is there a limit on the alternatives you study in a DEIS? Response: only a lower limit. 5. At the Fort Collins meeting, the business community was not represented. We have been meeting with them separately, in small group meetings . Are they interested in delivery of goods? Access to their business? (No obvious differences in input have been received yet. ) Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Agency Coordination Meeting - NFR MPO August 4, 2005 3 of 4 Will we be getting to the point where we are looking at diversity of employment, housing density, etc. around stations? Response: Yes, some initial sensitivity tests will be conducted in Level 3, and subsequently in the DEIS and FEIS . The current process always leads to land use patterns that do not change, leading to more congestion and sprawl. The design of the transportation system should not respond to the unrealistic local plans, but guide the local's development plans. The purpose and need does not address the need to lead land use patterns, because for NEPA it must only address transportation needs. If the land use data reflects the designed transportation system, would the federal review process allow this? The MPO doesn't want to take on regional land use planning. But it wants to provide information to the communities that the current plans are unsuitable. The NFR MPO is bringing in a speaker, Robert Grow, from Envision Utah, on how • communities should plan their future. Utah has made great progress in terms of transportation projects and reduced agricultural land conversion. 12. Julie described the screening process concerning the UP line. The commuter rail corridors that are most practical are the central and west corridors. The UP rail line was eliminated due to it serving the least amount of people, and also because of the quantity of freight trains on the line. We are continuing to evaluate bus and rail options in the Level 3 packages. The packages are being defined in terms of a capacity analysis with a range of highway and transit options to address the demand . 13. Chris described the combined travel model that has been developed for this EIS. He then elaborated on some of the rail ridership results of Level 2B: • The alternatives each resulted in about 4,000 rail riders, but the alternatives clearly served different patrons in different travel markets. • The rail share of work trips from the north Front Range area to downtown Denver exceeded 40%. • The feeder bus system had a high ridership. The majority of these riders were intra- or inter-city travelers, not transfers to rail. • The Level 2B alternatives had an station spacing of 9-12 miles, while peer • systems average 4-8 miles. The rail alternatives in Level 3 will add stations. irk vEN L - rA ro NORTH 125 IAA t ►s v • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Briefing with NFRMPO MEETING DATE: November 17, 2005 LOCATION: Fort Collins Library C&B: Gina McAfee, Chris Primus, Julie Morrison NFRMPO: Cliff Davidson , Suzette Thieman , Andy Gomez, John ATTENDEES: Daggett COOT: Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist FHU : Tom Anzia PREPARER: CarterSurgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Bob Felsburg, Dennis Markham , Debra Baskett, Ben Herman, Craig Gaskill • MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Tom indicated that we are screening the Level 3 Alternatives. We are starting now to look at station screening and interchange planning/screening . We will have public meetings on these results in January and February. For the DEIS Alternatives development, further work will be done to identify and define interchanges. 2. There is a NFRMPO Planning Council meeting on January 5, 2006. Cliff would like CDOT to come to this. We are also planning to meet with the Mayor of Berthoud. There is a RTA sub-committee of the NFRMPO. There is a vote planned for November 2007. The NFRMPO is also kicking off a visioning process that will be undertaken by (probably) a non- profit organization . The RTP will be done in 2007. All of these NFRMPO activities need to be coordinated with EIS activities. Perhaps the main focus of the RTA sub-committee (and the vote) could be focused on the EIS recommendations. Should the RTA sub-committee come to the RCC meetings? It would make sense to combine a briefing on the NFRMPO activities with Debra Baskett's presentation on January 12, 2006, to introduce a discussion on implementation . • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 4 S EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Briefing with NFRMPO November 17, 2005 3of3 9. We should graphically show the feeder bus network. Cliff would like this by November 28, 2005, if possible. (Action : Julie Morrison/Chris Primus) 10. The NFRMPO is going to "facilitate" the interchanges, starting at 392 — to look at private/public partnerships to work with CDOT to come up with funding mechanisms. • ]:\Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Briefing with NFRMPO 111705tdg.doc • NORTH 1-25 • EIS information. cooperation. transportation . • MPO: is John Peacock's plan really the way to go? • MPO: it seems like not all the dots are connected . • MPO: how did you go from 8 alternatives in level 3 to 2 in DEIS? This is so different from the open, transparent TAFS process. You need to involve your major partners. Level 3 Quantified Results • MPO: Do you have documentation of how you got from 8 packages to 2 DEIS alternatives? o It is important that the MPO and North 1-25 EIS project visions align. • Level 3 Results: • Packages evaluated on: o Expandability, aging, infrastructure, safety, constructability, practicability. • Operating and maintenance costs (O&M) in relation to ridership and cost effectiveness: o There is a break-even point where O&M costs for BRT/CB and CR are about equal. In this corridor, that occurs at about 7000 riders. • If there are over 7000 transit riders, CR will have a lower O&M cost per user in this corridor • If there are less than 7000 transit riders, BRT / CB will have a lower O&M cost per user in this corridor • Given current ridership levels in this study area, the per-user O&M costs for CR are about three times the per-user O&M costs for BRT / CB. o For buses to provide service for 7,000 riders, 5-minute headways would probably be needed . Current plans call for 30 minute peak headways for CR and BRT / CB. • Numbers projected for riders is all dependent on the corridor • MPO: there are too may stops on the CR line. How exactly did you come to the 8 stops? o We looked at average spacing of stations on peer CR systems o National average is 3-5 miles; ours is 4-5 miles; it garners the highest amount of riders • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is more flexible than CR. • MPO: how far does average person drive to a CR station? • MPO: BNSF really isn't that close to the "heart" of many western cities. Loveland and many other cities are now expanding to the east, more toward 1-25. • CR western vs. central in 2030: a CR on western alignment: ridership, accessibility to employment and residences is much better - even with all of the projected growth on 1-25. o Because the western corridor already has a solid base established , the 1-25 corridor can't catch up to the amount of western alignment development in the 2030 timeframe. • MPO: However, all expansion/growth is happening to east of Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, so why not build CR east? • Many concerns/anomalies exist between the western and central alignments, but it's when you look at those collectively perceptions begin to change. • How do public wants, desires and needs measure up with the facts from modeling and the EIS process? DEIS Alternatives Development • Key Criteria • o Purpose and Need, practicability, environmental impacts, range of alternatives, compatibility, advisory committee, and public input. • Key Findings: o Widening 1-25 in general purpose lanes would be necessary to accommodate 2030 demand, regardless of transit improvements. NORTH 1-25 • EIS inforniat,on. cooperation transpor tation. • Note highway improvements are needed regardless of transit improvements. This conflicts with the project's need of providing multimodal options. There is a public perception that transit relives congestion, but the provision of and option of transit is key. • The 2030 timeframe is the most reasonable period as stated by the FHWA. Note forecasting beyond this period becomes more difficult, but there is a need to be visionary to change the automobile oriented cities. • The promotion of an RTA needs to be stated in terms of the need to raise funds, since the gas tax isn't adequate anymore . • Does a central alignment really compete with US 287? Have some combinations been eliminated? For example, CR from Fort Collins to Boulder or Fort Collins to Greeley? • Why can't there be a CR train on US 85? o UP rail corridor was eliminated in Level 2 because of the amount of freight traffic; there is also noticeably smaller population on that corridor. • How do people get to their destination from CR? • Bus service is assumed but transfers decrease ridership. • Suggest modifying alternative B to add commuter bus on US287 on managed lanes. o Adding lanes have an impact on transit: the US287 corridor would compete with 1-25 transit facilities for some of the travel market. o Commuter bus on US287 competes with 1-25 transit services. • Can you add a recommendation that community-to-community bus services are needed? o This would need to be part of the No Action, or could be included in the EIS congestion management measures. o This would be a responsibility of the MPO. • John Peacock at N 1-25 EIS public hearings is not helpful, because he discusses expanding RTD (besides his rail plans) - this is contrary to the RTA. • Note: Wasatch Front is using the CR system to follow the land use growth near stations here the transportation system follows the land use development • Can BRT on 1-25 eventually become rail? o No. The physical design is different, the ROW requirements and median stations are different, and the construction impacts for the conversion would be large. • Is CDOT acquiring ROW on 1-25 to include rail? o No, the current ROW persuasion is for the median, state use at the rural character. • Passenger rail should stop at south Fort Collins not north Fort Collins; commuters to Denver live in south Fort Collins, not north. • NFR MPO will comment on the proposed modifications to the No Action network. • Why is # 5 included? • What about Southwest Weld area? • Not as necessary because this focuses on the 8 lane . • Van Go projections had been 20% per year. End Notes: • Dave Martinez will contact the NFRMPO prior to the RCC/TAC meeting in March to share with them the planned agenda and format. • The team will follow up with brief answers to may of the questions raised today. • The NFRMPO meeting next week will have an agenda item to discuss the North 1-25 EIS - the 30 minute presentation should be focused on reducing the 8 Level 3 packages to the 2 • DEIS alternatives. Could the presenters be Dave Martinez and Gina McAfee? NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation North Front Range MPO March 3, 2006 2 of 5. Keith (audience): How do we reconcile the growth along 1-25 to your premise that growth is higher along the western side? Is DRCOG driving the numbers on the western side? Answer: There's a difference between the total population and the change in population : the change will certainly be much greater along 1-25, but the Western side of the corridor will still have higher totals, even in 2030. There is also a difference between what is predicted for 2030 and what is predicted for the final build out year, which is not constrained by a time. We've constrained by 2030 year and FHWA feels that 2030 is the best year to use because it can be modeled with some level of confidence. Finally, the DRCOG model is not "driving the growth" on the Western side because the population totals reflect a combined NFRMPO and DRCOG model , which rely on local municipalities to predict their population and employment totals. 6. Kurt Kastein : So the US 34 interchange is not happening as part of the No Action? Answer: Interchange improvements are part of packages but not part of No Action. The interim improvements are in the plan as local funds but not the final build out because it is not in the fiscally contained plan. The final build out will be a part of the DEIS alternatives (and part of the No-Action Alternative). • 7. Karen Wagner: Appreciate how you did the public meeting—got a lot of good comments. What about toll roads and how they relate to environmental justice? I see the analysis for rail, but not for freeway. Answer: Analysis over next phase will be done in depth. In the meantime, a study done in California showed that all income levels used HOT lanes. 8. Karen: What other comments from public besides developing a rail extension from Highway 119 to North Metro got included? Answer Erie station location , Evans and La Salle locations, highway widening south of E-470. 9. Karen: Is it a waste of people's time to be going to station working groups? Interchange groups? Answer: No. The working groups will help us convert what is now a general dot on the map into a specific location. 10. Kay Wood: I sent out an email to all Council and TAG members about the upcoming meetings. 11 . Karen: I thought the transit workshop was extremely valuable, especially the data that compared to other peer systems. I think people need to know how they compare; maybe it's time to bring that information back to public. 12. Tom: I thought the ridership numbers were low based on vanpool numbers . I AG e c (I) - NORTH I-2S NMeM EIS SMEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Commuter Rail Alignments Meeting with NFRMPO and Paul Smith MEETING DATE: May 9, 2006 LOCATION: SW Weld County Services Building North Front Range MPO: Vickie McLane, Chris Shiel ATTENDEES: Smith Railway Consulting: Paul Smith C&B: Craig Gaskill, Paul Brown PREPARER: Carter Burgess Craig Gaskill Attendees, Dave Martinez, Steve Olson, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison , COPIES: Gina McAfee, C&B File #071609 .400 • MEETING SUMMARY The purpose of this meeting was to share information on commuter rail alignments. Paul Brown and Craig Gaskill presented information on the current commuter rail alignments , particularly along SH 119 then south to the Boulder Industrial Lead . Paul Brown and Craig also presented information on commuter rail alternatives development, screening to-date, and the status of one track verses two track analyses. It was also discussed that some additional rail alignment development and screening will be occurring for alignments in the SH 119 and 1-25 area. Paul Smith presented information he has collected for the NFRMPO on rail corridors in the project area, specifically abandoned lines west of 1-25 and south of SH 119 and the Dent Line, north of the Boulder Industrial Lead. Paul Smith also provided some railroad history/ information and general commuter rail information. The following summarizes the specific topics of discussion : Commuter rail alignments west of 1-25: There is an old UPRR line (now abandoned) that used to run north from the Boulder Industrial Lead along CR 7. At SH 52 this line then ran northeast toward 1-25 but ended before reaching l- 25. There is also the old CB&Q (Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy) line (now abandoned) that used • to run from the Sugar Mill in Longmont southeast, then south and southwest to Lafayette, Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS r SMEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Commuter Rail Alignments Meeting with NFRMPO and Paul Smith May 9, 2006 3of3 Both the UPRR and the BNRR are close to moving all through trains off the Front Range Sub (BNRR on western alignment). This would move 4-6 daily trains off this track, but local service would remain Part of this effort is based on improvements in Wyoming and Nebraska, and another factor is the potential Eastern Plains Mobility Study implementation. Paul Smith and Paul Brown described regional operations of both the UPRR and the BNRR as they relate to traffic on both the western alignment (Front Range Sub) and the eastern alignment (Greeley Sub). Other Discussion: The SE Mayors Group meets once a month and may be an appropriate forum for review of N . I- 25 alternatives. The NFRMPO could help coordinate this group. The NFRMPO (Vicky) offered to conduct an electronic user preference survey of their vanpool riders. This could be a user preference survey for commuter rail / transit, or other. The RTA could generate about $40 million a year with a 1 % sales tax. Only a portion of this • would go to transit, yet to be determined . One option for the transit dollars would be to fund operations. Vicky suggested a rail presentation / discussion group (similar to the travel demand model group) to discuss, review, and understand rail issues. This could be made up of TAC/RCC members or other specially invited members and may be limited to one meeting. TAC/RCC names to consider include John Esty (ColoRail), Ron Welsh (UPRR Greeley Sub Manager), and an operator from the GWRR. 3:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Paul Smith and NFRMPO mins_050906.doc • NORTH I-25 EIS s F MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. NFRMPO Briefing March 15, 2006 2of2 8. Gina described how we are planning to address land use. It will be tied to what will be the different land use scenarios with the different transportation alternatives. 9. Cliff believes that the EIS will set expectations for future land use. Cliff would like us to provide information about land consumption, VMT, cost of providing services, and emissions—to quantify everything we can. We could pose these questions to our land use expert panel. We need to make sure we contact the advanced planners (in Fort Collins and Greeley). Action : Vicky will provide us with these names. 10. We need to not only provide information about how land use will affect ridership but also how land use will affect quality of life and environmental factors. 11 . Craig described the meeting with Paul Smith and Paul Brown. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy (CB&Q) abandoned railroad line is mostly still in place. The rails to trails corridor is mostly north of Frederick. We are currently looking at some options to use the CB&Q line to connect to the old Valmont line. Or use the CB&Q then go east to a portion of the Dent line, south of the rails to trails conversion, and across 1-25 north of SH 52. • The gravel pits along the CB&Q right-of-way have intruded on long sections of the right-of- way. There is a Section 4(f) property along this right-of-way also. There are also Section 4(f) impacts along Highway 119. 12. We could make contact with Tim Baldwin and Ron Rapinski about a connection from the Sugar Mill south. Action: Craig Gaskill. 13. Why are cities growing more east/west? Why isn't more growth occurring to the east? Why is Greeley growing west? There are constraints to the east—feed lots, the railroad, the river. There are also more attractions to the west. The US 85 access management plan is still valid. CDOT is using this for the things we have control over. The locals will need to take action to consolidate access. 14. We will send Vicky an initial agenda for the July TAC/RCC meetings. This should include institutional arrangements . Maybe it should be called an institutional/funding workshop. Action: Julie Morrison. 15. On June 13 the NFRMPO is having a Transportation Summit. The RTA will be discussed. An RTA (or some similar institution) will need to be put into place to fund right-of-way preservation, arterial improvements, etc. 16. The July workshop should include information about how the Colorado Springs RTA worked. 17. The BRT demo will be July 19. J:\Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Agency\N FRM PObriefing_0515061gj.doc • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation NFRMPO Planning Council March 1, 2007 2of2 • Can you provide information to us about components? • Will tolling be in the first phase since it can be funded? • We are frustrated by how long this is taking. • What is the cost for this EIS? • J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\NFRMPo Planning Coundl_030107yn.doc • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation 1-25 North Meeting Minutes DRCOG Modeling Coordination September 3, 2003 • page 2 5. One suggestion that the group liked was to focus a major effort on developing future year trips tables for inter-regional trips. DRCOG suggested that separate inter-regional trip purposes should be considered — work commuter trips, work-related trips and other. 6. To avoid problems encountered in other studies, DRCOG staff suggested we look at other efforts, and develop a "lessons learned" summary. 7. Land Use — To develop the 2030 land use forecasts, a committee of demographers and economists came up with a population estimate for the Economic Area (which is larger than the DRCOG modeling are). The estimate for the DRCOG boundary is 3.9M people in the year 2030. DRCOG has taken a first cut at producing a year 2000 Land Use Map for the Denver area and is meeting with communities to get feedback and to incorporate the comprehensive plans. Similar to NFR MPO, DRCOG will run a land use allocation model for 2030. In developing the land use allocations, DRCOG will also consider the urban growth boundaries (750 square miles). 8. DRCOG anticipates it will have a 2030 model by the end of the year, and a 2030 RTP adopted by fall 2004. • J:\_Transportation\071453.093\manage\mtgs\minutes\DRCOGmtg0902_03.doc 0 • NORTH 1-25 EIS Iiici haul!!{ ; it)�)ts7�ili ii' ii3(1Sp(tr{iaitop Distribution list for Travel Forcasting Work Group letters sent on December, 3 2003 Jeffrey May, Director Bob Garcia, Program Manager Denver Regional Council of Colorado Department of Transportation Governments Region 4 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 800 1420 Second Street Denver, CO 80246- 1531 Greeley, CO 80631 Tim Baker, Mobility Analyst Tom Anzio], Project Manager Colorado Department of Transportation Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig 1325 South Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO 80222 6300 S . Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 801 1 1 Policy & Programs Manager Vicky McLane Gina McAfee, Deputy Project Manager North Front Range MPO Carter Burgess 235 Matthews Street 707 17th Street , Suite 2300 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Denver, CO 80202 • William Van Meter, Sr. Manager Chris Primus Regional Transportation District Carter Burgess 1600 Blake Street 707 17th Street , Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Denver, CO 80202 Jennifer Heister Stan Elmquist, RPEM Carter Burgess Broomfield Historic Landmark Board 707 17th Street , Suite 2300 1 Descombes Drive Denver, CO 80202 Broomfield, CO 80521 Carol Parr, Environmental Unit Manager Colorado Department of T ransportation CDOT Region 4 1420 Second Street Greeley, CO 80631 • Page 1 of 1 NORTH 1-25 1. • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation DRCOG TAC Meeting : Presentation of Purpose and Need MEETING DATE: May 17, 2004 LOCATION : DRCOG ATTENDEES : TAC members; Stan Elmquist; Dave Martinez; Tom Anzia; Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter:Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Stan Elmquist; Tom Anzia; Carol Parr; Dave Martinez; Bob Garcia; Gina McAfee; Becky Noe; Kim Podobnik; C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1 . George Scheuernstuhl: The issue COG has is growth in this area and how it will affect the Denver Metro area . How are land use forecasts being prepared? 2 . Will we be looking at tolling facilities? 3 . Is RTD being active in this study? 4. Are jurisdictions starting to do appropriate land use planning for future TODs? 5. TDM needs to be included; as does analysis of how this fits with Metro Vision. • 3:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\DRCOG TACmtg_051704mef.doc Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Meeting Minutes—North I-25 EIS_name of meeting Ill date page 2 • Why is Wellington not included? Also why not include the truck bypass north of Fort Collins? There is growth around Wellington. This could be adjusted during the scoping process. • Who is on the RCC from Fort Collins? • Should the US 287 bypass be shown on the study area map? • What is the relationship of this to future federal funding? There is no commitment yet. • Will there be a financial component to this? • Who is PRACO? • Does TAFS have some official standing? Will its recommendations just be accepted? • What about FRA and FAA? Are they involved? • What is the shelf life? Will this have to be redone in about three to five years? • What is the composition, role and authority of the TAC and RCC? Will legislators be included? • • What are the typical obstacles? • How is land use considered? Will impacts of the different alternatives on land use be evaluated? • How would this group continue to be involved? We could meet with you quarterly. • How will 1-25 corridor plan be included? • Will we be looking at improvements needed to the local street network? 3:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Northem Colorado_011604f.doc • • V1 1I • ( i V I ♦'r 1; y --o' --1 v `i x c_ i ,4,' J 1 •:J �...nZ lw ,i} 1A 7 r. i ea... t w r II — L ? - �� Q a 3 . — 7on 1. ^ SS r lZ V �r 3 . ." b� 4 f 1 ! Yil O ch 1 ti 114 V f S — a ,� yJ� yM, J .— • Y g 5 't �,�`i 0i. 4 V: 1 I ( Sr . `11 1 tr -\] ° i \a M� O Mf „! �_ .. .N �� r; . ' --- P1 ~ b :� lJ �r7 O `Q N• ••./.. i \i,\.. O .C1 SC �, r r- to 8 L`. 'i �+T� c8 " i `, �, v w I .J , 1�,, ae �� '- O1 s ` • 1 a s 2 s1 644 r-: 'Ie . .4- ::: 1 p i LI.' c: ccl .,. . W f -+ ---t (---.) v• - ' X tj % ... her ..., d 1'. '—' c., cAD cl-. 4k 0 o & F- 44t ••.,11- 74. -•:•1 1/4••• '‘..) t -2, 2 __41 1 ., A ,,I o , .2i n , _., _ vl. 1 t-,- --. ,-. ,-;. i -41 , ...4 1.... : , . .... i tar - 1 -2 ‘ . . .i I n l' I' kAC) cfsc I S Z L• • z S I Cw f "P. C)Ii: -4 i 'l w • "t.. r 1.~ Lill . I --'fi ..... L : —, 1 Y ' v Q 4! - . I I ? . —t. 1 «Prefix» «Fname» «Lname» September 23, 2004 • Agency» Page 2 Please RSVP to Lorena Jones at (303) 820-4894 or jonesLG@c-b.com no later than October 10, 2004. Sincerely, MY/` ' Vl David M. Martinez Project Manager DMM/lgj cc: Gina McAfee Brian Werle Deb Lebow Ben Herman Carol Parr Stan Elmquist Jean Wallace Mike Vanderhoof File #071609.401 I ):\ Transportation\071609.400\manage\Corr\Invite_smart growth mtg.doc • i.544 4s ); • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Planning Jurisdiction Contacts Distribution list for invitation letters to November 10, 2004, Smart Growth Meeting, sent on September 23, 2004 (E-mail version of the invitation also sent to contacts with E-mail addresses). Planning Director Debra Pearson Commerce City Town of Erie Community Development and Planning Community Development Department Services 645 Holbrook, 5291 East 60th Avenue PO Box 750 Commerce City, CO 80022 Erie, CO 80516B Marvin Falconburg Brian Grubb City of Brighton City of Fort Lupton Community Development Planning Department 22 South 4th Avenue 130 South McKinley Avenue Brighton, CO 80601 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Devin Granbery Planning Director Town of Superior City of Firestone Economic Development Planning Department • 124 E. Coal Creek Drive 151 Grant Ave. Superior, CO 80027 P.O. Box 100 Firestone, CO 80520 Planning Director City of Louisville Ken Dell Department of Planning City of Dacono 749 Main Street Planning Department Louisville, CO 80027 512 Cherry Avenue Dacono, CO 80514 Planning Director City of Thornton Planning Director City Development Department Town of Frederick 9500 Civic Center Drive Planning Department Thornton, CO 80229-4326 401 Locust Street P.O. Box 435 Bonnie Star Frederick, CO 80530 City of Lafayette Planning and Building Department Planning Director 1290 South Public Road City of Longmont Lafayette, Colorado 80026 Planning and Development Services 350 Kimbark Street Planning Director Longmont, CO 80501 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 • Page 2 of 3 NORTH 1-25 s EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation. Region 4 - Park and Ride Scoping Meeting MEETING DATE: March 27, 2006 LOCATION : Loveland Residency NFRMPO CDOT: Dave Martinez, (various departments: traffic, maintenance, ATTENDEES : ROW, planning, utilities, materials, etc. ) Larimer County Sheriff Weld County Sheriff PREPARER: Carter Burgess Julie Morrison COPIES: Attendees, C&B File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY Introduction 400K in budget for entrancing pnr's (design and construction) • Resurfacing • Striping • Add lighting to SH 60 • Expand 402 (highest occupancy) All projects within CDOT PNR. Question/Answers : Q: Dave Martinez: What's the primary purpose? A: Resurfacing with expansion only at 402. Q: Well purpose is in question. We have house bill (HB 1310) money that could be applied to pnr's — but we haven't defined exactly what improvements should be — we need to figure out what best use of money is. • Q: Is there any money coming from STP metro? Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation Region 4 - Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 3of7 Q: Purpose of security is to catch people, not to deter them? A: Right, for the short term , but as we catch people there will be a deterrent. Q: How does it work functionally? A: With microwaves to different network hubs — the Ranch (Bud Center) and/or Larimer Co. Center. Q: What Does It Cost? A: $180K for 3 locations (camera, software, training hookups) But also with DDR — that cost will change as we implement a different network using an antenna. • Q: So cameras will cost over $200k since the network sewing the site is a wild card? A: Not necessarily because there were line items for light standards and other environmental protection — we wouldn't. Q: So the NFRMPO will pay what? A: 80% of costs at two sites. Q: What about wireless network? Would it handle the cameras? A: No — it can handle signs and ramp metering but can't handle video streaming — cameras would need separate system — fiber may be able to handle it all later. Q: So we'll do SH 119, 34 and 402? A: yes a Is crime happening at night? Is lighting an issue for effectiveness? A: It should be able to record at night. but most crime is happening during the day. Q: Lights Costs? • A: $ 13K per standard. 0: So we should have extra lighting to enhance surveillance? NORTH I-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation Region 4 - Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 5of7 Q: Looks like first priority should be security and not expansion. A: Well, NFRMPO's original proposal was to put in $340K to complement your efforts and we just lack information on where the money will go. Q: Do you have cots for each location? It might really help to know what an extra $250K could buy us . Q: There are 6 locations 1 ) 1 Upper front range (with cameras ) 2) 5 NFRMPO (2 have cameras) We need these itemized to see needs and costs . . . . . • Q: So if you had $250K extra, what would you do with it? A: 1 ) Resurfacing 2) Restriping 3) Expansion 4) Lighting Where this evolved from is that we were going to sweep and restripe but the pavement was so bad that we saw we needed to resurface . . . .Then we thought if we're going to do this we should look at security and make the improvements that really nee to be made . . . . Q: What's the recommendation for 56? A: % inch overlay 2 inch overlay Curb repair (help with drainage and access control) Striping Look lighting, but probably no additional needed , Johnstown patrols it Crime is opportunity driven — if not high utilization, then not much crime. NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation Region 4 - Park and Ride Scoping Meeting March 27, 2006 7of7 A: resurface Striping Q: Isn't Region 4 making improvements to what intersection? A: Yes, we're looking at it — have to use the dollars for safety because part of "hazard elimination program" Q: can we get an incident history of pnr's? A: Yes, can get that but not all of these get reported — and case numbers get duplicated when multiple break-ins happen on same car. Design will be to van vehicle standard and lighter — will no design to bus or -axle vehicles . Along interstate utilities only allowed between frontage road and fence line — only thing might • run into is connecting lines — If you're adding lights, might need an extra or expanded service center. Might be a good time to add conduit locations — fiber and utilities can't be in same conduit. Every light has a photo cell with 240 electrical services — may need additional service depending on camera and microwave network type. J:\_Transportation1071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Region 4 parknride scoping meeting 32706.doc I NORTH 1-25 EIS • Meeting Minutes information. cooperation. transportation . D. Alignments Overview — No new issues have been identified and the Commuter Rail would go over 1-25. i. Alignment S — along two subdivisions, Dacono Trail, alignment along WCR11 also identified. ii. Alignment V — along one subdivision, abandoned rail corridor, affect water pumping station. E . Base Analysis - Alignment S reaches more of the estimated 2030 population and employment. i. Environmental elements are balanced between S & V. ii. Alignment V has the shorter distance and travel time. iii. S was selected to move forward . III . Information from Small Group meeting A. Base analysis plus station area population within a 4 mile radius and employment radius within half a mile radius . i. With a full radius, Alignment V reaches more of the population and employment. ii. Within the North half-radius, Alignment S reaches more of the population and Alignment V reaches more of the employment. B. No final conclusion was reached. IV. Information after further review A. Alignment review of S, Smod (S along WCR 11 ) and V. Numbers are • rounded and not exact. i . Alignment V is in more of the transportation corridor with 95%. — S (55% ), Smod (70% ) ii. Smod and V are preferable because they do not run along the Dacono Trail as Alignment S would . iii. Smod has four at-grade crossings. — S (3), V (5/3 reused). The actual grade of the crossings have not been done yet, but will be completed and documented in the DEIS . iv. Alignment V is preferable with affects to only one major utility station, the water pump station . - S (3), Smod (3). These utilities are would be major to relocate. They are not just lines that go across connecting to someone's house. B . Community Reviews of S, Smod & V. i . There is more interest from Municipal input for V. ii . Alignment V will affect only one existing subdivision vs . S & Smod affecting 2 existing subdivisions. iii . V will affect no permitted subdivisions and three pending . — S (6/10), Smod (4/6). • Q: When do CDOT policies consider land a subdivision? What if it is still Ag . Land, but person is planning to sell in the near future? o A: Land is not considered until it is plotted and in a certain part in the building permitting process. • Q: Are the number of dwellings in the subdivision evaluated? I 4OJptY Op H, wu4Y VRW P c �o CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD One DesCombes Drive • Broomfield, CO 80020 • Phone: (303) 469-3301 v ' 6 artiROSP. March 30, 2006 Mr. Steve Olson CDOT Region 4 - Loveland Residency 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 RE: Access plans for State Highway 7 in Broomfield Dear Steve: Per you request, I'm sending some information that I hope will assist in your understanding of Broomfield's local assess planning along Highway 7. Some of it you may have seen before, but the three attachments relate to each other in level of detail. 1 . 2030 Recommended Roadway Plan — this is a part of Broomfield's Comprehensive Plan, updated at the end of 2005. FHU was the contractor for this project. 2. SH7/I-25 Interchange Design Concept - I have provided this previously, and it provides a clear articulation of Broomfield's view of the ultimate reconstruction of the interchange. 3. Exhibit M: Roadway Master Plan from the I-25 Sub-Area Plan. It is my understanding that a roadway connecting "S" and "PP" is not included in this plan, but planned by Broomfield as a road that would go under I-25. Please let me know if I can provide any clarification or further information. Sincerely, Debra A. Baskett Transportation Manager Enc. (3) S NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Discuss Stations MEETING DATE: October 28, 2005 LOCATION: City of Fort Collins ATTENDEES: Fort Collins: Mark Jackson , Kathleen Bracke C&B: Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, Jennifer Merer PREPARER: Carter48urgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Craig Gaskill, Chris Primus, Don Leidy, Tom Anzia, COPIES: Bob Felsburg Holly Buck, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist, Dave Martinez, Becky Noe, C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1 . Julie Morrison went over the station area selectionprocess and criteria (attached). ( ) 2. Mark Jackson pointed out that BRT will allow more stations in the more urbanized areas. 3. Kathleen suggested that for the Station Area Selection Process memo, the section regarding "Activity Centers" 3)b, should show CSU and Downtown Fort Collins combined as one line item . The Fort Collins South Transit Center should have been modeled with parking—the Harmony and Timberline station should also have included parking . We should have looked at Fort Collins' transit plans—the site that Fort Collins is looking at is as close as Fort Collins could come to being at Harmony and College. We need to work with Chris to determine what type of ridership impact this lack of parking might have. 4. What about BRT along 287? The BRT should be in a dedicated guideway along Mason/BN—from Prospect to Harmony. The Mason Transportation Corridor (MTC) project is in an approved plan for Fort Collins. It was adopted by the City Council in October 2000. Funding for the MTC project has been received via the NFR MPO from FHWA/CDOT, as well as local funding. Fort Collins has spent a lot of money showing the bus service along 287 does not work. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration / Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. BNRR Screening for BRT MEETING DATE: December 15, 2005 LOCATION : SW Weld County Services Building Fort Collins: Kathleen Bracke and Mark Jackson ATTENDEES : FHU: Tom Anzia C&B: Craig Gaskill and Paul Brown PREPARER: Carter•:Burgess Craig Gaskill COPIES: Attendees, Gina McAfee, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist, Dave Martinez, Carol Pam Becky Noe, C&B File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Background: • The North 1-25 project team had previously screened out BRT on the BNRR freight rail corridor. This was conducted during development of alternatives leading into Level 2 evaluation . The primary reason for the screening was comparative safety concerns in mixing freight rail traffic with an adjacent bus system. • Fort Collins is proposing a BRT system on the existing Mason Transportation Corridor. The Mason Transportation Corridor includes the BNRR freight rail tracks. Fort Collins has reached an agreement with the BNRR that safety is adequate with the adjacent BRT. • The North 1-25 project team includes the same firms that worked for Fort Collins in developing the Mason Transportation Corridor. The North 1-25 project team felt that the slower speed and urban rail in Fort Collins was sufficiently different that the higher speed , more rural BNRR corridor south of Fort Collins to justify a different conclusion on safety. This is consistent with other freight rail corridors, including the Union Pacific rail line between Denver and DIA currently being studied as part of the East Corridor EIS. S Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation ` � TOWN4 CF FREDERICK (-� „,„ ( %-- - ; 401 LOCUST STREET • P.O. BOX 435 • FREDERICK, CO 80530-0435 � ,` . `s. ,,, � PHONE: (303) 833-2388 • FAX: (303) 833-3817• II44,1.. 4 .. : ii.‘,9 August 10, 2006 Mr. David M. Martinez, P.E. CDOT Engineering Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 fDear Mr. Martinez `JV( .LCd v I1(°G The Town of Frederick has been involved in the North 1-25 EIS from the beginning and appreciates the opportunity to participate in this project that is vital to the Town and Northern Colorado in shaping the future of transportation for the region. The Town continues to be supportive of the transit options being considered in the EIS and has included provisions for transit oriented design opportunities in recent discussions with developers of property located near the intersection of State Highway 52 and CR 13 (Colorado Blvd extended north from the Denver metro area). Options for shared parking with commercial centers and regional trail connections are examples of these discussions. The developers of these properties have been cooperative and receptive to these concepts. The Town is very excited about the options for commuter rail that are proposed to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This letter is being provided to voice the Town of Frederick's strong support for the recommended Alignment S for the connection between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. Town staff has discussed this • issue with the Board and provided information related to the recent meetings that have been held. It is the Town's opinion that this Alignment S is the best option for the region considering existing development, current development proposals, and future land uses as depicted in adopted comprehensive land use plans. We understand that concerns about potential impacts to future trails and subdivisions have been expressed and note that these were already identified in the study that led to the recommended alternative. The reality is that any of the alignments studied will pass through areas that are planned for subdivisions. It is our opinion that the impacts to adjacent development will be relatively similar in type and magnitude, whether it is 2 or 3 large developments or 7 or 8 smaller ones. Like any option for a major transportation improvement, there are going to be conflicts associated with the best of alignments. Actually one of the environmental impacts noted for Alignment S was a Census Identified Minority Population in Section 35, T2N, R68W, for property that is owned by the Kent Nelson family, a well respected local family. This entire section is owned by the Nelsons, is annexed and zoned, and includes one uninhabited house on the property. It is the Town Board's position that the selection of Alignment S as the recommend connection was made using appropriate criteria and a process that was developed after months of involvement by all interested parties, and that this remains the best option. We would be available and certainly want to be included in any further discussions regarding this issue. While refinements to the EIS can and should be made where clearly warranted, it is not appropriate to redo the study because it yields an answer that is not what some parties may prefer for their individual purposes. The Town of Frederick strongly recommends that Alignment S move forward as the recommended alignment for further consideration in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. r 4 � Er E. Doering, ayor 0 NORTH 1-25 EIS Meeting Minutes information. cooperation. transportation. To: North 1-25 EIS Project Team From : Lindsey Larson Date: March 13 , 2006 Subject: Draft Meeting Minutes: US 34 Interchange Planning with the City of Loveland February 22, 2006 at CDOT R4, Loveland Introductions and Discussion Project Team: City of Loveland: Tom Anzia, FHU Dave Klockeman , Loveland City Engineer Jeanne Sharps, FHU Keith Reester, Loveland Public Works Todd Frisbie, FHU Phil Weisbaud, Loveland Program Manager Bob Garcia, CDOT Steve Olson, CDOT Others: Lindsey Larson, PRACO Steve Pouliat, Wilson and Company Scott Waterman , Wilson and Company US 34 and 1-25 Interchange and North 1-25 EIS Concerns SKeith Reester, Loveland Public Works: • In context of EIS, US 34 is a critical interchange. o Loveland is in the 1601 process for Interim upgrades. o Fully directional interchange seen at US 34 and 1-25 is documented in plans. o Loveland has annexed three-quarters of interchange corners. • The US 34 and 1-25 interchange must be supported by business community. o Fully directional makes no provision for businesses abutting US 34 and 1-25. • By the time money is approved , this interchange will be an urban interchange like 120th Ave. • If ROD or DEIS indicates business closings, Loveland will not give support. • • Many regional studies are ongoing. o What can we do to get buy in from communities on your project? • Loveland has more extensive parallel and arterial road networks in its plan — driven by developers. • Community very concerned about impacts on homes and businesses. o Mitigation taken very seriously. • When will we leave the Interim state and have CDOT "come to the table"? o After the Interim ends, there will be pressure to mainline I-25 and fix SH 392 and other interchanges; US 34 won't be fixed for a long time. • All major Loveland arterials are state and federally owned . o Biggest issue is fixing US 34 between US 287 and 1-25. • Loveland and CDOT should find long term solution at interchange. o Perhaps a partial clover would be functional in 2030. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. o US 34 and 1-25 will probably be fixed sooner than later. • CDOT wants a travel demand sensitive interchange. • Can't see widening 1-25 to 6 lanes without full interchange improvements. o We would like the interchange to be at LOS C or D, but under the NEPA process the environmental impacts would be too great. • A compromise/happy medium is needed between No Action alternative and fully directional. o People will become "polarized ." • Alternatives need to remain realistic in terms of needs as seen through traffic modeling. • To make the long term plan work, what can be salvaged in the Interim? o Nothing, if Interim involves substandard loops. • A planning consensus and realistic alternatives are essential. Bob Garcia , CDOT: • What can be salvaged from the Interim improvements? If the Interim involves loops, nothing can be salvaged: loops are sub-standard designs. • We recommend Loveland cancel the Interim and wait until the EIS ends, then go to the MPO for support. • In the Interim, CDOT does not plan on partnering or participating in funding . • Urban vs. Rural: o CDOT wants to retain a rural feel along north 1-25, but certain areas are exceptions, such as US 34 and 1-25. • Tom Anzia, FHU: • Focus needs to shift to access issues. o Multiple interchange meetings will try to address these issues. • Necessity for a reasonable range of interchange alternatives, not just ones that rely solely on local roads and access. • Are we going to coordinate or isolate? • Interim improvements have a purpose and a life. o Despite the fact that it is separate from EIS purpose and need is important. o Meeting before March 15 to sit and look at movement numbers and issues of access is critical . Todd Frisbie, FHU traffic engineer: • Parallel road network can reduce traffic on 1-25 by 15-20 percent. • Traffic numbers: o Model run with parallel arterials and six lanes on 1-25. o Doubling of traffic over next 25 years. • Partial clover doesn't work; ramps fail. • Would be well over 1 ,000 vehicles per hour. • LOS E but if we take it to a higher-level design criteria, LOS could increase. • Additional lanes on US 34 would make Interim partial clover work better and longer. • Six lanes, with aux lanes, on 1-25: o Loveland asked what the LOS would be at the US 34 interchange, as well as with • six lanes on US 34 . • Six lanes on US 34: o Interim becomes part of our No Action in the EIS and ROD. NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. I-25/US 34 Interchange Meeting May 31 , 2006 Page 2 of 2 3. DEIS I-25/US 34 Proposed Interchange System Concept - Separate 1-25 to/from US 34 traffic movements between "business access" and "bypass" . - US 34 traffic between RMA and LCR 5 will be separated into business (inside) and bypass (outside) lanes. - US 34 bypass lanes will not be continuous between 1-25 off/on ramps; this will eliminate the need for a 5th level at 1-25 and US 34. - US 34 through traffic will go on the business lanes (through signals). - 1-25 to/from US 34 business lanes will be via ramps with signalized ramp terminal intersections at US 34. - 1-25 to/from US 34 bypass lanes will be via directional ramps . - US 34 & RMA and US 34 & LCR 5 will be grade separated using SPUI interchanges (US 34 over RMA and LCR 5). - US 34 and LCR 3 will be grade separated with a modified off-set diamond interchange (off set ramps required because of UPRR crossing of LCR 3). • - US 34 will be grade separated at the UPRR west of LCR 3. • �e ---- �-_-- Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation � NORTH 1-25 FRONT RANGE EIS • - C / _ tt As fist _MAL. Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 Front Range E IS Purpose: Meeting with Northglenn to Discuss G rant Park Date Held: March 30, 2007 Location: City of Northglenn Attendees: see attached Copies: Attendees, Carol Parr, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Thor Gjelsteen, Gina M cAfee, Jim Clarke, Jeff Kloska (Region 6), Justin Werdel , File 071609.400 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION : • 1 . Introductions were made. Wendy gave an overview of the project incl uding project limits and improvements proposed under the No-Action Alternative, Package A and Package B . The Preferred Alternative m ay be a combination of certain components of each of the packages. Nothing has been decided at this tim e. 2 . The City asked when the document would be available for public review. This is anticipated to be June or July of 2008. The City asked if we had any idea about cost. Long Nguyen answered that it could be greater than $1 bill ion but it is difficult to tell since a preferred alternative will not be selected as a part of DEIS . 3. Wendy briefly covered NEPA requirements and Section 4(f) requirements . 4. Wendy explained that Grant Park was I isted as a park which could be potentially affected in the project area . According to discussions with Jim Urland, the Park Supervisor, the park is used for drainage and it has an adjacent bike trail. The City added that that there is a lot of bike traffic on the trail through the park. There are also benches in the park, as well as a picnic area. The City indicated they do consider it to be a "significant park." 5. Wendy said one purpose for the meeting was to discuss anticipated impacts in the vicinity of Grant Park. There are some improvements proposed for the roadway close to Grant Park which will temporarily impact a portion of the trail. This portion of the trail to be im pacted is within CDOT right-of-way and wil I be replaced in kind when constructio n is completed. The original design impacted homes in the subdivisions near Grant Park in order to accommodate the water quality ponds. The project team found these impacts to be unacceptable and investi gated other water quality pond locations in the vi cinity. Grant Park has been proposed as a place for these. T he City agreed that piaci ng the water quality ponds in Grant Park is more desirable than impacting homes in the nearby subdivision. • V\ x jai • , L r '9' 'i ` g t _0 9 o N W J ri 9 '6 _A ` � Q `� ccr- C i v 3- :te7 — +.0 i I S O ` V �- c 4 z II ^/ �1J o Ai co it ,Rs A -cr7 i 2 C d 6' 1 I .4.• d —i 1 1 as _., _ , p ----,6 s c. i 1 O E S , „ 1/4 ! " i.,;-, 0 g , — o . . o • C csio _ s .C * aC O 0 _° ` ' cn I .C � . z t } O zosc o Qr A �--� 7 �i ---4, 0, .41 1 .— i t-si 4) Th.ail 44 t 4 1%. I O) LI % A ., t , , ,AIM_ C C \•L U. CD S , -.1/4 ._‘) cy LA F— _.� v. t Cn c W 4) W E -- 2 5" .. cn 9 It si 6Y ki % 0 1 Z ..3__ yll 4 ict ' z , :. .1 i al 7 C �; c\ dl 1 -4r- o � � l >J a R3 im C — I a r j a c 0 I - 1 1- • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation Meeting with Northglenn re: Grant Park May 14, 2007 2of3 7. Pam said it is hard to give blessing until final design. In theory its okay but their hands are tied , water doesn't have jurisdictions boundaries. 8. We are sizing ponds for capture only. Pam said we are not getting much water quality improvement because there is nothing there now. Ed Lind will send PDF. • Olson needs to send a cadd file to FHU. • FHU needs to contact Thornton regarding design file. • Final PDF attending this meeting . . • Including utilities that we did get. 9. 120th—Kurt said there are some detention ponds, and they are wondering about removing berm to use for water quality and detention. CDOT does not allow for detention in their right-of-way. Kurt said if they connect these ponds and enlarge the ponds wouldn't it create efficiencies. 10. Justin said the way this was handled is there was some wetland mitigation in SE quadrant at 120th. They would like to bring current detention pond around the hotel. Kurt is curious. Northglenn does not want to put anything on CDOT's property, Justin would need to see proposal. Kurt will send conceptual design to Justin for follow-up. 11 . Midstream status of Scout Park: Scout Park—what plan is there? Travis needs to check master plan—is it occur in a master plan . 12. Pam said this is currently unused open space with some natural habitat qualities . 13. Ed can tweak the water quality ponds—and avoid impacts to the park. • 14. Timing of land swap, maybe with a year. 4— its ta4O1- STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ow A • Region Four Ir • . OT 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland, CO 80537 (970) 622-1270 Fax (970) 669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 11 , 2006 Mr. Gene Putnam City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Re: CDOT's North Corridor Environmental Study and Basic Engineering - Design Assumptions used on Cross Streets Dear Mr. Putnam; Attached please find the North Corridor Environmental Study's Technical Memorandum documenting design assumptions related to improvements/impacts of local roads crossing 1-25 from approximately US 36 to SH 7. One of the North Corridor alternatives that are being considered includes widening 1-25 to include • managed lanes. This wider section of 1-25 will require the reconstruction of some local roads crossing 1-25. As part of the local agency coordination during this study, we are asking for your review of this document to verify that the assumptions made in developing the alternatives and identifying impacts associated with the alternative is consistent with the City of Thornton's policy and criteria. Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22, 2006. If you agree with our approach and criteria used for the City of Thornton's roadways, please sign the attached letter and return to me. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lonq.Nquyen(c�dot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, t--47 A 17 • Long Nguyen, P. E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez (COOT), J. Schwab (CDOT), S. Olson (CDOT), M. Pavlik(FHWA), T. Anzia (FHU) Attachments FE [� ,_ELI \Y7 D7 • _ DEC 1 4 2006 "Taking Care To Get You There " FELSBURG, HOLT & ULLEVIG fif , tour_ NI LS c. • MEETING MINUTES 'ntaT�� - : : s' rat{or ;transportation. GWRR Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: April 14, 2006 OmniTrax offices LOCATION; 252 Clayton Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO ATTENDEES: GWRR: Alex Yeros (Broe Properties) C&B: Paul Brown, Craig Gaskili PREPARER: Carte rteUnj Paul Bro Attendees, Dave Martinez (CDOT), Tom Anzia (FHU), Steve Silkworth COPIES: (MDG), Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, Chris Primus, Jennifer Merer (C&B), C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY s 1 . Alex Yeros opened the meeting with a brief description of the Great Western RR and its current ownership. He actually works for Broe Properties, and part of his role is management of development opportunities for the GWRR. a. Broe Properties purchased the Great Western Railroad (GWRR) from the Great Western Sugar Company in 1986 as their first venture into the railroad industry. Since that time, Broe has formed OmniTrax, a railroad management division, that owns and/or operates about eighteen short line railroads or rail terminal facilities in the US and Canada (including the GWRR). b. When purchased in 1986, the GWRR moved about 400 carloads of goods. In 2005, the railroad moved over 13,000 carloads (almost 20% annual growth). Current major GWRR customers include Anheuser Busch in Fort Collins and Eastman Kodak in Windsor. Connections are available to both the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. 2. Paul Brown and Craig Gaskill presented the overall North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and shared the current Draft EIS alternatives (copies attached). a. The EIS process consists of defining purpose and need, developing a broad universe of alternatives, screening those alternatives to a small group that can be evaluated in detail, and determining a Preferred Alternative that best meets the project Purpose and Needs statement and project goals. b. The North 1-25 EIS has defined a Purpose and Need statement that includes addressing congestion on 1-25 between the Denver area and the North Front • Federal Highway Administration ■ Federal Transit Administration ■ Colorado of Transportation Department p ti ate tee 1CX < LieR .i NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETINGMINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. GWRR Coordination Meeting MEETING DATE: May 15, 2006 OmniTrax offices LOCATION: 252 Clayton Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO ATTENDEES: GWRR : Alex Yeros, Mike Ogbom (Broe Properties) C&B: Paul Brown, Craig Gaskill PREPARER: CdrterBurges Paul Brown Attendees; Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Stan Elmquist, Carol Parr, COPIES: Steve Olson (CDOT); Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison (FHU); Steve Silkworth (MDG); Gina McAfee, Julie Morrison, Chris Primus, Jennifer Merer (C&B); C&B File #071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1 . Paul Brown opened the meeting with a brief summary of the April Great Western RR (GWRR) coordination meeting to bring Mr. Ogborn up to speed. A general GWRR background discussion followed, which built upon the April 14th information. a. In 2005, the railroad moved over 13,000 carloads. The railroad is expecting significant growth in 2006, with an ethanol plant coming on line and the Owens Illinois glass plant reaching full production (both are in Windsor). Mike estimated that carloads would grow by 4,000-6,000 over 2005 values (25%-50% growth). b. Much of the GWRR's interchange with BNSF and UPRR occurs in Fort Collins (North Yard for BNSF, along Riverside Drive for UP). The 75-car unit corn trains for the ethanol plant will typically come from UPRR, and UPRR has built an interchange track in Fort Collins for this purpose. GWRR is hoping to shift this interchange to Greeley, and is discussing the costs and logistics with UPRR. c. The railroad currently operates about 80 miles of track. This reflects the fact that they recently ceased operations between Windsor and Eaton. The alignment is being preserved under a rails-to-trails agreement in case the GWRR ever needs to restore service. 2. A discussion of operations followed. Most GWRR lines see an average of one round-trip train per day, but this can increase significantly for several weeks during various agricultural harvests in the North Front Range. Service is typically provided weekday or weekday plus Saturday, using a staff of 20-25 employees. a. Anheuser Busch is switched daily from North Yard. • Federal Highway Administration / Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Tic NORTH 1-25 :. . : ' ; y :w4 • EIS , MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. GWRR Coordination Meeting May 15, 2006 3of3 a. Craig described how a preferred alternative from this EIS might be funded. Mechanisms include (but are not limited to) CDOT or other state funds, transit fares, toll lane revenues, a potential Regional Transportation Authority (referred to as an RTA, which the North Front Range MPO is considering), and possibly various federal sources. b. Alex asked how OmniTrax could encourage consideration of a rail feeder service in lieu of a bus feeder service. Craig noted that the consultant team has considered rail feeder service but due to the limited feeder ridership, considered bus service more cost effective. Craig did note that regional transit service between north front range communities could make rail service more attractive. There is a NFRMPO transportation summit planned for June 13, 2006 to discuss the RTA and other regional transportation issues in the North Front Range. This may be an appropriate forum to discuss rail service. Alex will contact the MPO regarding this event and potential GWRR participation. • ):V Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Agency\GWRR Coordination Mtng 5-15 vl.doc • NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES u,turmauun cooperation. tifinSpOiletu7;1 GWRR Railroad Coordination October 31 , 2006 Page 2 of 2 3. Attendees discussed any issues or circumstances surrounding the five GWRR crossings with 1-25 and the associated frontage roads. • Black Hollow Line (Located between LCR 48 and SR 14) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25. B. Two frontage roads currently exist on the east and west side of 1-25. C . Existing horizontal clearance is acceptable. No need to increase, to allow for access road, because Chris mentioned that any increase in clearance will likely entice more vehicles to use the access road for a u-turn on frontage roads . D . Service has recently been reactivated on the east side of 1-25 with two to three trains per week. • Greeley Line (Located just north of LCR 40) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25. B . Existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25 . C. The GWRR has recently installed a private crossing for the City of Fort Collins just west of 1-25 to access the nature preserve. Access is from the existing frontage road on the northeast of the crossing of 1-25 and GWRR • tracks then traverses along the north side of the GWRR, and then crosses over the GWRR track west of 1-25 . This crossing will likely need to be relocated with the 1-25 improvements. • Loveland Line (Located one half mile south of US 34) A. GWRR currently goes over 1-25 B. The existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25 is at the elevation of the GWRR. C . Chris Dodge mentioned that CDOT has plans to upgrade the signal at the crossing, currently only lights, to gates and lights within the next 2 years . D. The railroad bridge over 1-25 only needs to accommodate the one existing track. No allowance for an access road is required. E . Chris Dodge also mentioned that there are possible development plans for the east side of 1-25 north of the GWRR to US 34. • Welty Line (Located one mile north of SR 56) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25 . B . Existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25 . C. GWRR currently has no service on this line, but a company is interested in leasing GWRR land east of 1-25 for use of unloading poles via GWRR. • Main Line (Located between WCR 36 and SCR 34) A. GWRR currently goes under 1-25 . B . Existing frontage road on the east side of 1-25 has bells and lights. • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation .1 03225 02. MINUTES(NON-COMM177 F E) ENGINEERING RAILROAD COORDINATION GWRR 103106 MW doc • FELSF URG HOLT TransmittalULLEVIG 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, Colorado 80111 (303) 721 - 1440 FAX (303) 721 -0832 To: Andy Amparan Project No. BNSF Railway 4515 Kansas Avenue Date: 8/20/2007 Kansas City, KS 66106 Ph . 913-551 -4964 Subject: North 1-25 EIS Denver, CO The following items are transmitted via: Hand Deliver No. of Copies Description 1 Portion of Level 3 Alternatives involving Commuter Rail Description or Remarks: • Andy — Enclosed are three exhibits and attached text descriptions of possible alternatives incorporating commuter rail into the North 1-25 corridor north of Denver. This EIS is progressing with further evaluation at this time. However, we wanted to put this in front of you and ask for any comments or suggestions with regard to these three potential commuter rail routes. The designated FasTracks routes are shown in grey. Extensi ons being considered as part of the North 1-25 E IS are shown in gold. The existing BNSF track that is included in these routes is the line between Longmont and Fort Collins. Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns a bout these possible routes with regard to any operational or m aintenance issues or pos sible planned improvements for the BNSF track that should be considered as the EIS analysis continues. I would appreciate any feedback you can offer. Thanks in advance. Your feedback is always appreciated. The above items are submitted: Copies are being sent to: Project File, At your request T. Anzia — FHU, P. Brown — C&B For your review For your files For your approval For your action For your information• By: Stephanie J . Sangaline, P. E. , CPESC ,.7-t r, NORTH 1-25 .. 0 E I ;�C `'i a information. cooperation transportation. January 28. 2008 Paula Fitzgerald Parks & Open Space Projects Coordinator City of Longmont 7 South Sunset Street Longmont, CO 80501 RE : North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and Oligarchy Primary Greenway Dear Ms. Fitzgerald , The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration , in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) , have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods. and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25 , as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support III economic growth . Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B. are being evaluated , as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening , tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit ( BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package A (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction , including this proposed section of the Oligarchy Primary Greenway. These improvements include an additional railroad track, adjacent to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe alignment. If Lanyon Trail exists at the time of construction a trail closure will be required , necessitating a detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect Oligarchy Primary Greenway, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U .S . Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such , five specific conditions must be satisfied . These conditions, and CDOT's efforts to meet them. are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e. , less than the time needed for construction of the project. and there should be no change in ownership of the land . The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will he no change in ownership of the land. • 1 Norm I-25 E15 Letter of Concurrence, Oligarchy Primary Greenway Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i .e. . both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A calls for the construction of an additional railroad track that will cross the trail. This would result in an additional rail crossing, both adjacent to, and at the same grade, as the existing crossing. Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor there interference with the activities or purpose of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will provide detours, with signage, for the duration of the trail closure. The map and narrative description (Attachment B) provide the proposed detour route. Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored , i.e. , the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the additional at-grade crossing and related signage, the trail will see no permanent adverse impacts. • Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. Should you . or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach , Senior Project Manager. at 303-820-4807 , or wendy.wallach(aajacobs.com. Sincerely. Cc: Project file • NORTH 1-25 0 EIS Letter of Concurrence, Oligarchy Primary Greenway • Attachment B : Detour Map and Description arr�rr w. o i. • ^ PT t J � LEGEND fliktp, Si i 4 4 .+_i I i 1.; ' .•:It.„.'• ' i ( 3 ice. Package Proposed ROW rte, . 4 .� t 110 =fiat ,x � 4 °% k 142 3 O Package a Promised ROW 1 -4 I s i T• 4.1.4. . ♦ t 1.• Existing 11 ail I%EN-,' 'S, tit ,_ !•a ' . , •'4 r `• •ea.ee Proposed Tra4I ;,( .r • a. , 4 1 a.{ • • e 4` . . A •;' 4. _ i, .. , 0 :•Proposed Tr 41 Detour , ' . • � •i 1 S '!+- - _ ;i , •_, ( • '.t_ taa tM1l �* ��. `C.. �. �a ,`� S i; - } ,mac ' r • ; • 4!i . _'� S. ,% �': tS• >r 4 • ` i s« y; _f � f,.. ; 7,Olt rf •A/ �0ligarcly Primary Greenway : r + „ -. �S� arias 4 •� t: � f�� " , a 4-' law t '1 f ~ t ; 1 t • ,J; . . /�n �• . `y A l Z 1w"s :• 4 t•.,. . !� L' • . . . ).? - .-5 x • r, • F * «.mss •.'��1�`. ::,,,,.S. I - + f. .R �1r - drwasogifi • ' ' t i .. Y1' r ;• tt . ,. M.. y • . ` i.-4t4:.?!... —44: . tv k, '• ' 'r- . , :. f-t' ~ J � w ,7 Y� \ -- rat i-. lb:. +•tG 7 - 0 Wit .. :1-IT ` rK y t 1 fF. . • , ,r. . r '• !..-+R_. '1 . l •• '4 rm' �} 11- ,�, ,�'.�'�.,i4. ` .• • , , 416'" "l •-t A ;.� dry „or. - .,•n•oe f •o _ + . p •an a - A; 'a,i (y et. :.•` .•. 4, a .a. etr- .litif ••. .• I- _, ay �j • r ( t f • 117L" }. �. - �_ '•t + � f r y r k:::::7" ▪ • 4� r • Jam..•. 24. .; iiii•.3:2i t '' r;i ;- r %. `j-4 I. T.' "�I : :„�:.� M-.4ti�-.&•r't s; ' . i . ' � r • 7'fr e`Q iC ` . . _,lb •.; ?1 1 r..'7.4,:ct,; .-..eii4. ..,zs, i i'tit- ty 9k 'Z ' 1t J`.� a'r' 1, • t: 4. .a- �' N'' :4sr- - . - I ..: ', . c . . •-to14.2 1. ti t' ° - a.;.. . t • :^f 4. Ti• '/ :! YA $ ! t' • ra s it-2%!, ,91,ra M- 1 tr l , : M� TIE .��a e 494;7 T, 1's •iq ' • �`� �i ,5• • t i • ice._firr' yam-- ° i' k, The detour will require trail users to take 15th Avenue east to Lamplighter Drive, then north until 17th Avenue, and west to reconnect with Oligarchy Primary Greenway. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • NORTH 12 5 %z; • EIS information. cooperation . transportation. January 31 , 2008 Bill Bodkins Public Works Director Town of Wellington 3735 Cleveland Avenue Wellington . CO 80549 RE : North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Box Elder Creek Trail Dear Mr. Bodkins, The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration , in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people. goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility , accessibility. safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25 , as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support • economic growth . Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B, are being evaluated , as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening , tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction . Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit ( BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements, in both Package A and Package B (Attachment A), may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction , including the Box Elder Creek Trail. These improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpass as part of the effort to replace aging infrastructure along Interstate 25. necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Box Elder Creek Trail, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U .S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965 . To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied. These conditions. and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary. i.e. , less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land . The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. • I NORTH 1-25 • EN Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment A (1 of 2): Package A, North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND Correct geometric INNE 1 New General Purpose (GP) Lane in Each deficiencies Direction and replace aging a . 1 New General Purpose (GP) Lane + -� "°`"" infrastructure Auxiliary Lane in Each Direction 287 4 ir Commuter Rail (CR) Commuter Bus (CB) Service in General { ' '® A,,,, Purpose Lanes and Que Jumps Feeder Bus Service Fort limn 86 :._ -Yry : I 4 Interchange Upgrades ' natter of LanesIr. 6 0 Irate' ► - - -492, OCommuter Bus Station i Stop M."d.:. '}` — 0 co �tic Commuter Rail Station l` Greeley FasTracks Rail Line 14 la 0 t FasTracks Transit Station Love d 6+ Potential Commuter Rail Operational & �" ' Maintenance Facility c. •- --. "•tar " r. trail II Potential Commuter Bus Operational & r, Maintenance Facility t _= .,t . - 'NNE' - O craw -Y • Congestion Management .. • Measures could include : . . - New local transit routes ra. c, I' .u.na„ei, - New express transit routes -- •, i:e -- - Enhanced carpool lot parking capacity and amenities ! . iii' - ° - Courtesy patrol (incident man- es' agement) from SH 14 to SH 7 „g . . n...*... - Variable messaging signs at root 2°7 "`` all transit stations '�r z .,, `"" - Automated Vehicle Locaters on -.2 .. all transit vehicles - "next bus" - Er4• technology „ii: Ate..hoe� • - Ramp metering and variable ' 9a"f-fine Rd. - <' it,,.� - messaging signs at selected • ' n, ••• interchanges : 1 U. no,'._ ` ' " ' i" Right-of-Way - Access management alon ;, Northwest—, � ' Preservation US 85 Corridor Railj _act — - E470 Continuous links to local bike • b - and pedestrian systems Im • lem - nt »<�� 9b•• -. N N . £ cti . n f '*" - North Metro - Support for development of a ' It - rn . tiv • • ' Corridor Transportation Management ' r•j - cts � .. � Organization (TMO) NOTE: $ r Select sections of I-25 would require auxiliary lanes and / or an additional through lane in addition to this 6-lane cross section. Daffier !Map Station - Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7. the median would be used. • 3 NOvEH 1-25 Rig 6 • EIS Letter of Concurrence, Box Elder Creek Trail Attachment B : Detour Map and Description i : • LEGEND P in Package A Proposed ROW } ` " c O Package B Proposed ROW - N1 • ::4,, ,t'a`i s• 4'; t ' �� Existing Trail f . • ' ' .1 Proposed Trail ii, .,n .. r �; _ ? v s c C%gProposed Trail Detour II i • -:,--a-, ,, Box Elder Creek Trail 3' ' y'• i. f 1 I • ,r , , { :: ; • i` �- ' i - • t q y% r •'i a •Jar; , tt.;1 i,1 4• � K yr 0. •Y ' : • ',.• .it; •••. i 1 3 : t.: .4 1 .V ., . J 1 ,•1. .._ .. tit - r,r. � `" �ti ` �F v + ' ,Psis I z ' A \' •i 4 1 r - 1- i r - in `3 r ! 0 A. eao x.600 �v, b.4 _ s , _a_- • : '4 • This detour will require trail users to take GW Bush Avenue west, then proceed south on the eastern frontage road to CR 58 , west on CR 58 to the western frontage road . and then proceed north to Box Elder Creek Trail . . Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. January 28, 2008 Travis Reynolds Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Division City of Northglenn 11701 Community Center Drive Northglenn, CO 80233-8061 RE : North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the 1201h Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Dear Mr. Reynolds, The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods. and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the • improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along I-25 . as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth . Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B, are being evaluated , as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening , tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction . Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package B (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction , including the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail. These improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpasses to accommodate additional traffic lanes on Interstate 25, necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the 120th Avenue Underpass or the Farmer Highline Canal Trail, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U .S . Department of Transportation Act of 1965 . To be classified as such , five specific conditions must be satisfied . These conditions. and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary , i.e. , less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land . • 1 NORnt 1-25 • EIS Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Attachment A : Package B , North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND Correct geometric 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Express deficiencies Lane (TEL) in Each Direction »aitesto and replace aging r J 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Express l infrastructure Lanes (TEL) in Each Direction 2F7 4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route (Uses TELs on 1-25) I Ault Feeder Bus Service Fort Collin + . 4/2 . SS \> Interchange Upgrades " 0 Number of Lanes: General Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes 287 winner Bus Rapid Transit Station * 4/4 Ceeley _34 � "l' FasTracks Rail Line ; 1` u ' Love • 'fid •. : --- 0 FasTracks Transit Station ' °` Whiners-+, Prat rtim. 60. a Potential Commuter Bus Operational �' }'"'�"ra _ & Maintenance Facility ---^ 7 thond . . • Congestion Management Measures could include : 4/2 - New local transit routes - New express transit routes "" '' Piattevilll - Enhanced carpool lot parking • - -rc-66- capacity and amenities ►«a,..".t - Courtesy patrol (incident man- agement) from SH 14 to SH 7 _ . 1 86 - Variable messaging signs at „-: ' F""'""' all transit stations 2Y7it, ,„? . �l�r - Automated Vehicle Locaters on • 6 I ' 5" ..: all transit vehicles - "next bus" peo" technologyc. ` • �E./. .,F;�,` j2 Right-of-Way • Preservation - Ramp metering and variable . � n " • 6„wldq' seNpe�Rit messaging signs at selected �, mot,, —,'1 interchanges ss d336 to"tivl� __ _ ` - Signal coordination along US 34 - i and Harmony Road tact,. 1"1h''�!yLii n "�- ,,,� - Continuous links to local bike _1_`'' . S -1E470 and pedestrian systems r Northwest ir., ,,,, • - - -- Ouadrant Rail ' ' North - Support for development of a ( Metro Transportation Management . ' �2 r'. ' Corridor Organization (TMO) i' ,- NOTE: East - A wider barrier and express lanes cross section is included • . C idor. between SH 60 and Harmony Road ♦ ` 1 - BRT stations located within an expanded median area. Denier .. Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7, the median would be used. • 3 Noun 1-25 25 i.Iry,cr E� '�rVIr'Mfkt? Letter of Concurrence, 120th Avenue Underpass and Farmers Highline Canal Trail Farmers. Highline Canal The detour will require trail users to take Community Center Drive south at EB Rains Jr. Memorial Park. Community Center Drive crosses 1-25 as an overpass with wide sidewalks suitable for bicycles. Once on the west side of 1-25, users would take West 112"' Avenue to Huron Street, go south and reconnect with the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. i i -a • NORTH 1-25 ~. :. EIS information. cooperation. transportation February 19 , 2008 Craig Foreman Park Planning and Development City of Fort Collins 413 South Bryan Street Fort Collins. CO 80521 RE : North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Spring Creek Trail Dear Mr. Foreman, The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility. accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support . economic growth . Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B. are being evaluated , as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening . tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction . Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package A (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction , including the Spring Creek Trail . These improvements include an additional railroad track, adjacent to the existing railway , necessitating a temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B) . CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Spring Creek Trail, and therefore be classified as a `temporary occupancy' as defined by Section 4(f) of the U .S . Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such, five specific conditions must be satisfied . These conditions. and CDOT's efforts to meet them, are outlined below: Condition (i) Duration must be temporary , i.e. , less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land . The trail closure will only occur during times of immediately adjacent construction and there will be no change in ownership of the land. • I NORTH 1-25 • ElL, Letter of Concurrence, Spring Creek Trail Attachment A: Package A, North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND _ C • rr - Ct • - • m - tric i 1 New General Purpose (GP) Lane in Each • • fiCi - fCi • S Direction . n • r • 111I . C • • In • - re a 1 New General Purpose (GP) Lane + r 0,,,i.„„,„„" infr • structur Auxiliary Lane in Each Direction zr woe Commuter Rail (CR) • ca sh -i . MEM Commuter Bus (CB) Service in General 'M A•U Purpose Lanes and Que Jumps i Feeder Bus Service Fort i Ilin a , as 17 • Interchange Upgrades � � ::. • •` ,. r_ ....\._ © Number of Lanes • . i- - 9 Commuter Bus Station I Stop 287 W[ W l Commuter Rail Stationf. Greeley -- FasTracks Rail Line u ' % t --• t. 34 _----.� FasTracks Transit Station Love d ---• 1. ,P i• 6+ �.. Gorden C• t •^ Q Potential Commuter Rail Operational & �, • Maintenance Facility • 'ea la Sat C. _ t_;_el,it Potential Commuter Bus Operational & f Maintenance Facility se f•:<<,'{ ,!, - __ _ • Congestion Management • Measures could include : - New local transit routes • -` „ ►t•tt.nt - New express transit routes -- O ti - Enhanced carpool lot parking Lan -1 capacity and amenities art 14. - Courtesy patrol (incident man- 85 • agement) from SH 14 to SH 7 119 ' y Ptomains °""° - Variable messaging signs at sar all transit stations ' - Automated Vehicle Locaters on •'-� `' " 5 ChM) °° all transit vehicles - ' next bus" - e'• �` technology 0,9 . Arapahoe - Ramp metering and variable �� •t Y.,� - ------ f • messaging signs at selected ��``36 Lint . -,• •• •. interchanges p 13 ' - Access management along Northwes 7 . O j Right-of-Way [Corridor Rail r" - ;" - I Preservation US 85 ,. .- , 8470 - Continuous links to local bike ��. Im • I - m • nt N.,t • and pedestrian systems N • i cti . •tet 'North Metro; - Support for development of a It- rn - tiv Corridor Transportation Management • r•j • Organization (TMO) _ . • */ r. NOTE: - Select sections of 1-25 would require auxiliary lanes and / or an t •{e , additional through lane in addition to this 6-lane cross section j ., , o ndlif i -tniob Sta.b,Jr) - Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7, the median would be used. 0 3 Craig Foreman - Spring Creek Concurrence Letter Sig Page.pdf Page • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. February 19, 2008 Craig Foreman Park Planning and Development City of Fort Collins 413 South Bryan Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17'" Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 RE Letter of Concurrence North 1-25 EIS and the Spring Creek Trail Dear Ms. Wallach, Based on the provided information the City of Fort Collins finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied. Thus, the City of Fort Collins concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Spring Creek Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name- CrtJ 'J L �1J✓ ��-s�� Date: /'�� Signature: ` is • NORTH 1-25 MI • rkvrn,;M mcnhi ramac" -ranun Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail Condition (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e. , both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the resource are minimal. Package A calls for the construction of an additional railroad track. To accommodate this construction the underpass will require lengthening, which will have no impact on the trail alignment Condition (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource. on either a temporary or permanent basis. CDOT will provide detours, with signage, for the duration of the trail closures. The map and narrative description (Attachment B) illustrate the proposed detour routes. Condition (iv) The land being used must be fully restored , i.e. , the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. With the exception of a slight visual alteration caused by the lengthened underpass, the • trail will see no permanent adverse impacts Condition (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal . State. or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. The attached letter of concurrence serves as the agreement of local officials that the efforts described above would meet these conditions. Should you, or others in your department, have concerns or questions regarding the above information please contact Wendy Wallach. Senior Project Manager, at 303-820-4807 . or wendy.wallach@jacobs.com. Sincerely, Cc: Project file • NORTH I-25 :" • IS ''CI rhilt,' ::'.i•'S:all re"1:4 '1 S:4<' Letter of Concurrence, Fossil Creek Drive Trail • Attachment B: Detour Map and Description t.„-.. —_'—_ m _.. 47 �♦ T \ -w ] jr r a 7. ♦ —r.r1 pia•};a--•LEGEND j a•a - ,fit. l 1 �e agi .1 ' �• I t c---1 PackageA Proposed ROW •` , of +r • r. i. • at., t r. �, r ',Ili.? . • �.J !Y ! if,•r �!�• • re, • r �a'M A.•T1 ��a • • • may, r -, h1i Y. { i Package 9 Proposed ROW „ -fats. , fl .f v* s Alt 1•,• : �' 'f+4 �� _ �- • r ,. (' a s `;. _L r r � .lw, .... .r ° - � - � :• • . "a ��:. ErisbngTraft \ ✓1. 1 f ay.t ° x '5 f*, r !a••-f Proposed Tr ail :-4 � •' •t".> � ' !- - .• • 0• Ye_•`, �'� .•[ .C . '. e ..I 1. . ' - G Proposed Tr oil Detour r.,-. . a ; . - ., or, , 4.`. •-. s ti . e, o?! .t T 2-r la. 1li i. - _ • . F� atilt i ter. ____ _ - _._ _ _.a � ._ • •* , a • •t1 - r• _ . f_j -:-. 1.`a ..Q. !!n • d' a 4 0 „*V t � 7 . ,__, : ,, tip r, .... - . _; • .. r Yi �R o • 'N „ \i,,4-4 ti r rwa s t at , ',_y'6y 1ti4e.P_ ..it I_f 4.1.....' II L_ • �- 4`� it f,r�_- L r. .1(1�ai �fi ` a .r.a wwa F. .- .> ri y •ii - Mr ^•.fe '• 1� .^.•y JN�!! }1 cC i %�i' • �I w. - -' ,l i-• ♦ a V *.• ,- , • 3. '" n�' • _ ., , „c4.1 r1 ! '. - ' 14.:: - Y - • 3. - Fossil Creek Drive trailA. -. 3 • 2. r. • 1.1 }._l 1 •} II 1inend_ ,600 - r V 0 MOt1\ COO .� � 44,ti 'Feel ;>±HY _-.. - r.. 1'L ..s'• • _ :II This detour will require trail users to take Shields Street north to Harmony Road . then head east until Mason Street. At which point trail users will travel south on Mason Street until they reach Fossil Creek Trail. Please advise if alternative detour routes exist that you would prefer. ill NORTH 1-25 Aims • EIS information. cooperation transportation. February 20, 2008 Rich Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 W. 92nd Avenue Westminster, CO 80031 RE: North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and the Big Dry Creek Trail Dear Mr. Dahl, The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along the 70-mile 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in this Draft EIS would address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support • economic growth . Two multi-modal build packages, Package A and Package B, are being evaluated, as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening, tolled express lanes and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. The proposed improvements in Package B (Attachment A) may affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities within your jurisdiction, including the Big Dry Creek Trail These improvements include the lengthening of the existing underpass to accommodate additional traffic lanes on Interstate 25. Construction impacts may be mitigated in one of the following two ways: 1 . A temporary trail closure and detour of pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Attachment B). 2. A three-sided trail enclosure, which would protect trail users from overhead construction . The specifics regarding the proposed improvements, such as the construction footprint or the location of cut and fill slopes, will not be known until final design . These details will provide the required information regarding safety and viability of the alternatives, therefore it is during final design phase that the alternative will be selected. CDOT is asking that you concur that these improvements would not adversely affect the Big Dry Creek Trail, and therefore be classified as a "temporary occupancy" as defined by Section 4(f) of the U .S. Department of Transportation Act of 1965. To be classified as such , five specific • I NMI - EIS • Letter of Concurrence, Big Dry Creek Trail Attachment A: Package B, North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement LEGEND Correct geometric sag 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled Express deficiencies Lane (TEL) in Each Direction Weibel . and replace aging NA a 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Express infrastructure Lanes (TEL) in Each Direction 287 4 , Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route (Uses TELs on 1-25) Ault '. Feeder Bus Service ` Fort • • Din- i 412�>t sa OInterchange Upgrades ` " . eat_ - •T © Number of Lanes: General . , Lucre. +�Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes � ..Sy2- a Gown J . : . Bus Rapid Transit Station _ 4/4 Cl' I ' -.. -� �. FasTracks Rail Line • • t i. AO O FasTracks Transit Station .2sy Cam MI Potential Commuter Bus Operational ' _-tau b Maintenance Facility 'b Congestion Management r • Measures could include : - 4/ 2 - New local transit routes w,:: i. �s x - New express transit routes i• - Enhanced carpool lot parking 1/4,-,. .. 0°' capacity and amenities ' - Courtesy patrol (incident man Ca '"t # agernent) from SH 14 to SH r , ) " BOULDER - Variable messaging signs at i - ' - It4'. , all transit stationss - Automated Vehicle Locaters on r f• all transit vehicles - ` next bus" - � Right-of-Way technology Ent 6/2 Preservation - Ramp metering and variable I einenn. Rd - nicssagrhg-sTgns' at- selected L petty WM . ." interchanges 3. . i - Signal coordination along US 34 - �-. ,44tiac,. ` and Harmony Road svp. n• i -nine. - ta e - - - - Continuous links to local bike — H- • Eao and pedestrian systems Northwestre � Quadrant Rail North t - Support tor development of a 6�2 { Metro '- Transportation Management ` : 'Corridor Organization (TMO it I. ; East NOTE: C idor' - A wider barrier and express lanes cross section is included - pal ,p air� waggle ,;-. between SH 640 and Harmony Road. , It. ere - BRT stations located within an expanded median area. • ' c1nl• tsrarten - Where widening is needed between SH 66 and SH 7 the median would be used S 3 NORTH I-25 a. EIS information cooperation transportation. February 20, 2008 Rich Dahl Parks Services Manager Parks, Recreation and Libraries City of Westminster 4800 W. 92nd Avenue Westminster. CO 80031 Wendy Wallach Senior Project Manager Jacobs Carter Burgess 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Letter of Concurrence North 1-25 EIS and the Big Dry Creek Trail Dear Ms. Wallach, Based on the provided information the City of Westminster finds that the criteria of a temporary occupancy have been satisfied . Thus, the City of Westminster concurs with the temporary occupancy designation for the Big Dry Creek Trail in regard to the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Printed Name: 7- ieK04i26 b`9- k c Date: 3 l Signature: Merk-h-ryt‘ , • • NoRTHI-25 &' EIS information cooperation . transportation . APPENDIX B Agency Coordination • • APPENDIX B AGENCY COORDINATION Chronologies of letters and minutes by federal and state agencies included in this appendix Multiple Resource Agencies January 19, 2004 Invitation letters to resource agency scoping meeting sent to 11 agencies February 26, 2004 Attended by EPA, USFWS, SHPO, RTD, and DRCOG May 2, 2006 Attended by USACE, USFWS, and CDOW April 10, 2007 Field meeting with EPA, USACE, and CDOW July 27, 2007 Response memo to comments from the April 10th field meeting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) January 13, 2004 Scoping Meeting with FHWA and FTA January 21, 2004 Letter of invitation from CDOT to scoping meeting for resource agencies February 5, 2004 Letter from FHWA and FTA to USACE requesting them to be cooperating agency March 5, 2004 Letter from USAGE accepting FHWA invitation to be cooperating agency April 21, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, FTA, EPA, and CDOT June 14, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, EPA, and CDOT December 8, 2004 Meeting with FHWA and EPA to discuss purpose and need, alternative screening process • March 2, 2005 Meeting with FHWA to discuss purpose and need, and evaluation criteria for screening May 11, 2005 Meeting with FHWA, USFWS, and EPA to concur on purpose and need and discuss Level 2 screening July 19, 2005 Transmittal letter from FHWA to USAGE for Purpose and Need Statement July 25, 2005 Letter from USAGE to FHWA concurring on Purpose and Need Statement May 15, 2006 Meeting to update USACE on status of the 404 Merger Process August 4, 2006 Letter from FHWA to USACE requesting concurrence on alternatives for detailed evaluation August 9, 2006 Letter from USAGE to FHWA concurring on alternatives for detailed Evaluation July 29, 2008 Letter from USAGE to CDOT concurring with Wetland Delineation Report, Corps File No. 200480110 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team April 21, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, FTA, USACE, and CDOT (see minutes in the USACE section) May 17, 2004 Letter with 11 pages of scoping comments to FTA and FHWA June 14, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, USACE, and CDOT (see minutes in the USACE section) July 15, 2004 Meeting at EPA to discuss scoping comments December 8, 2004 Meeting with FHWA and USACE to discuss purpose and need, • alternative screening process (see minutes in the USACE section) • Colorado State Parks December 1, 2006 Request for confirmation of parcels acquired with any Land and Water Conservation Funds January 22, 2007 Second letter of request March 8, 2007 Request for concurrence that the build alternatives would not impact any properties where LWCF monies were used Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team May 2, 2006 Attended a meeting with FHWA, USACE and USFWS on any agency concerns or new methodologies (see minutes in the USACE section) Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) January 19, 2004 CDOT invitation letter to resource agency scoping meeting February 20, 2007 Meeting with FHWA, NPS, EPA, and CDOT on air quality in Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado Department of Revenue December 8, 2006 Letter to four Dept of Revenue personnel transmitting technical memo for the new Port of Entry near Ft. Collins • Colorado Geological Service January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,► { • #0T Region Four "tea 1420 2"'Streeter `� Greeley.CO 80531 oximomair it I( IP. 'Iormokom mook (970)350-2146 (Fax)350-2198 Distribution list is attached. January 19. 2004 (di-atme» «lname» ««title» t<agency» <<dept)i 'addl» «add2+> ocitystatezip>i Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting • Dear Mr. «]name»: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(E1S) process in COOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31.2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. "faking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting l r the Resource Agency"team. "Phis meeting%yili be: Thursday, February 26,2004 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 • � / , fJORTN I-25 FRONT RANGE EIS NORTH 1-25 FRONT RANGE EIS Resource Agency Contact List (11 ) David Noe Alison Deans-Michael Chief of Engineering Geology U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Geological Survey 755 Parfet, Suite 361 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Lakewood, CO 80215 Denver, CO 80203 Tim Carey Suzette Thieman U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transportation Planning Manager Tri-Lakes Project Office North Front Range MPO Offices 9307 S. Platte Canyon Road 235 Mathews Street Littleton, CO 80128 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Steve Fender Aaron Linstrom Principal Regional Inspector Terrestrial Biologist Federal Railroad Administration Colorado Division of Wildlife 555 Zang Street, Suite 263 Denver Service Center and Denver, CO 80228 Northeast Region Office • 6060 Broadway Dan Corson Denver, CO 80216 State Historic Preservation Office 1300 Broadway Howard Roitman Denver, CO 80203 Acting Director of Environmental Programs Scott Weeks Colorado Department of Public Regional Transportation District Health and Environment 1600 Bloke Street HMWMD-ADM-B2 Denver, CO 80202 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 George Scheuernstuhl Denver Regional Council of Deborah Lebow Governments Environmental Protection Agency 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 800 NEPA—Ecosystem Protection Denver CO 80246-1531 Mail Stop BEPR-EP 999 18th Street Denver, CO 80202 J , f r,nst;ortaaon;0/1505•IOU'r;6naue cart AgenC/,RetQurti• Agency,itr c cc • Meeting Minutes—North I-25 Front Range EIS_Resource Agency Scoping Meeting February 26, 2004 page 2 • c. Deborah Lebow, EPA Question: Are there any corridor alignments being identified thus far? Answer: Not really, although we anticipate looking at existing highway and railroad lines. d. Bob Garcia: There is a study titled Weld County's Parallel Corridors Study that looks at alternative corridors to I-25. The project team needs to be aware of this as we proceed. e. Tom Anzia: We've gotten some input on regional travel patterns but not much on local and community travel patterns. We are working to identify community traffic and travel patterns. f. Robert Edgar, EPA Question: What's the time frame for the study? Answer: The draft and final EISs will be completed in a little over three years. Travel Demand modeling will have to blend DRCOG and NFRACOG models and a piece of the Upper Front Range planning area, so this will take some time to complete the model. In addition, the sheer size of the study area will require more time. 3. The agency representatives then identified specific issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS: a. RTD had the following comments: • • Relative to the North Metro Study, we need to look at downstream effects on 1-25. • FasTracks will probably go to the ballot this November. If it passes, an interregional system will be more feasible. b. DRCOG had the following comments: • DRCOG has rail concerns. They are working on 2030 plan. Potentially, they would include FasTracks in transit network, but rail north from Longmont to unknown termini may be included in the transit network as well as rail north from SH 7 to 160th. • Metrovision plan identifies 1-25 up to eight lanes up to SH 7. • The Front Range Commuter Bus Study should be reflected in the North I-25 Study. • The DRCOG TAC has requested to review purpose and need. We would likely present them with information in late spring. Jennifer Edwards will be participating in our TAC. c. USFWS • Refer to their scoping letter. • • South Platte water depletion issue—this is an evolving program which is also a big issue for EPA. We will need to work together to identify an approach for this issue. Meeting Minutes—North I-25 Front Range EIS_Resource Agency Scoping Meeting February 26, 2004 page 4 S • Ozone non-attainment is an issue so reasonable mitigation measures, including measures outside the preview of CDOT, that could mitigate impacts (i.e., stage I and stage II vapor controls for petroleum vapor capture would dramatically reduce NOC emissions) are important. The ROD can include recommendations for mitigation measures outside their control. The public can make comment on this and make suggestions to different entities regarding mitigation. 4. The agency representatives were then asked to provide input on cumulative issues. Secondary and cumulative impacts to historic districts (identified earlier by SHPO). EPA is concerned with: • Land Use Impacts. • Water quality and supply/depletion. • Habitat fragmentation for wildlife, associated impacts to wetland and riparian communities. • Wetlands. • VMT (vehicle miles traveled) impacts on AQ. 5. Following this discussion of Cumulative Effects several additional comments and concerns were raised: • EPA would like us to figure out impacts to water quality from additional impervious • surface using the Driscoll model (for cumulative impacts). • Also, EPA feels it would be good to calculate the infrastructure costs of growth. • The lack of transit ridership numbers could be addressed through a good survey of potential riders (how much would you pay? How often would you use transit? Etc.). Perhaps this survey could be tied to the travel demand modeling we're doing. Tom feels that the model might be able to shed some light on "mode choice". We need to ensure that we have really defensible transit ridership projections. • DOW should be contacted for wildlife migration patterns in the area. Roland Wostl at CDOT is working on mapping some of these areas. This effort is called the "Connectivity Campaign" sponsored by CDOT and FHWA. • EPA: Any idea of total wetland acreage in the project area? This is unknown at this time. • Alison Michaels said a portion of this project will fall under the "shortgrass prairie programmatic" initiative. 6. At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that this larger group should meet again at key points in the project development process, including when preliminary alternatives have been identified and prior to the release of the Draft EIS. Meanwhile, this group will be kept apprised of project progress through newsletters, E-mail updates, and meeting invites. • &Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Resource Agenry 022604mef.doc NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Resource Agency Meeting May 2, 2006 2 of 4 5. Commuter bus includes bus stations (parking and drop off). This alternative includes feeder bus service which would be local system to feed bus or rail. 6. Mike Vanderhoof asked about right-of-way preservation shown on the study area map. Gina answered that this is part of FasTracks; right-of-way is set aside for future transit use. 7. There are maintenance facilities associated with each alternative package; size will be determined by operating plans. 8. Gina passed out the summary of public meetings held in January and February 2006. Twelve meetings have been held with average attendance of 30 people. Summary of public meetings: • Comments on interchange configuration • People felt 2030 was not far enough for evaluation. • How is fuel factored into this? • • Travel time of each mode. • How was transit selected (i.e., CR on western alignment versus CR on central alignment). What technology ended up where? • How will the study affect land use? 9. Since the town hall meeting, there have been a series of interchange reconstruction meetings. There are also transit station working groups. We are also working closely with local jurisdictions while siting stations. 10. Gina asked about South Platte River water depletion methodology. Alison said methodology is still undetermined, but she is anticipating it will be complete in late summer. First, determine whether or not we are using water from the South Platte River—for compaction or dust suppression. Compare historical water use versus new depletion; there may be some actions grandfathered in. 11. Environmental Justice (EJ): Gina reviewed what next steps are related to EJ. Small group outreach will occur soon. She noted areas where there may be special outreach conducted to Hmong populations. Sharleen said to work with Jonathan at CDR who did this for US 36. We are working to map concentrations of potential EJ areas and then select meeting locations, meet and document concerns. We will meet with the Steering Committee after we solicit input, but will invite Michelle Rabouin to a project team meeting in the interim. 12. Water Quality: Will not be using DRISCOLL model. Art has met with EPA and devised his own model. Copies of this methodology were available at the meeting. • 13. Induced Growth: Concern from public, TAC and RCC. We are planning a methodology similar to other projects—Delphi Plus. Land use could be changed as a result of these Federal Highway Administration /Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Resource Agency Meeting —� May 2, 2006 4 of 4 places where we may choose to concentrate mitigation. Mike would like to start having this conversation soon—the earlier the better. 18. Gina asked if there were other issues. • DOW—more general issues, MBTA, raptor, nesting area. We want to be aware of these issues. They are documented in the previous scoping letter provided by USFWS. 19. Mike asked about the status of the schedule: We are in the process of surveying wetlands and cultural resources. Impacts won't be known until later this year or early next year. 20. Gina talked about potential impact areas: noise and vibration, EJ, wetlands, cultural resources, and Section 4(f). 21. Michelle asked about the summary of town hall meetings. She would like to review the answers to questions. The team is working on categorizing and summarizing them. General summary will be posted on the Web site and distributed to this group. 1. 22. Sharleen said there is robust conversation within TAC and RCC. She said we get regular feedback and this is quite an involved process so these packages have come down through that. Dave Martinez talked about the interactive workshop held with TAC/RCC to make sure we covered everything. He thinks we really captured everyone's desire in these two packages. 23. Gina said the biggest challenge is disconnect between what people want (transit) and what we can easily provide, because there are no funding mechanisms for transit and ridership forecast is just not there. Census data showed that it is a very dispersed population and employment is very dispersed. ACTION ITEMS: ❑ Follow-up with USFWS in early fall to obtain South Platte River water depletion issues. (Quinlan) ❑ Invite Michelle Rabouin to project progress meeting this summer after we start concentrated EJ outreach. (Wallach) ❑ Coordinate with Sharleen on induced growth after CDOT meets with EPA. (McAfee) ❑ Revisit air quality methodology with agencies. (Schlaefer) O Contact Jonathan at CDR about Longmont EJ outreach. (Wallach) ❑ Schedule a meeting with the Division of Wildlife to review station locations. (Butler, ERO) ❑ Distribute Public Meetings Q&A Summary to the group. (Larson) • J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\resourceAgency_0502061gj.doc Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES hilt n.t ui Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting MEETING DATE: April 10, 2007 LOCATION: Wetland locations along North 1-25 Interchange ATTENDEES: C&B: Bill Knapp, Wendy Wallach, Gina McAfee, Diane Yates ERO: Steve Butler, Ron Beane EPA: Sarah Fowler COE: Margaret Langworthy FHU: Kendra Gabbert, Jeanne S harps,Tom Anzia CDOT: Jim Eussen, Carol Parr CDOW: Chad M organ, Larry Rogstad, Mark Leslie PREPARERS: Diane Yates, Wendy Wallach ATTACHMENTS: Meeting handout(9 sheets) • COPIES: Attendees, Bob Garcia, Steve Olson, Rebecca Pierce, Dave Martinez, Long Nguyen,Alison Michaels, Dave Beckhouse, Danielle Smith, Gayl Harrison, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY Purpose of Field Meeting • To review wetland delineation at 1-25 and major river crossings • To review current designs for the two build alternatives (Package A & B), avoidance and minimization measures, and potential impacts. • To receive comments from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives were unable to attend. Field Meeting Agenda Meeting participants met at the 1-25 / US 119 park-n-ride to board a large van for the project tour. All agency representatives (CDOT, COE, EPA and CDOW)were able to ride in the van with most of the natural resource specialists, highway engineers and environmental planners from the North 1-25 team, allowing project discussions while traveling between each tour stop. • Federal Highway Administration / Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 3 of 7 • There is a bald eagle mitigation area at the Boulder Estates gravel pit mining reclamation area, near Boulder Creek. The gravel mine is putting up two posts at this site to mitigate for the impacted trees that are used for perching. • There is also an active nest site near the confluence of Boulder Creek and Idaho Ditch a little more than 1 mile south of the 119 bridge. • The city of Longmont Parks and Recreation also has a mitigation area nearby. • The St. Vrain serves as a wildlife crossing of SH 119. The agencies asked if new bridges for SH 119 and commuter rail can incorporate a wildlife crossing. COE asked if this was a significant wildlife migration location, because the wildlife crossing could count as mitigation for the North 1-25 project by improving the value of wildlife habitat for the existing wetlands and river corridor. COE referenced SH 285 as an example of a wildlife crossing. • CDOT answered that only the eastbound bridge will be replaced, and CDOT will try to incorporate a wildlife crossing in the highway project. Team engineers said the crossing would be under the SH 119 bridge spans and would require widening and raising the spans to allow deer to cross. CDOW said 10-feet • would provide sufficient height of the crossing. Engineers said it's possible for 7 to 8-foot height to be made without changing the superstructure, using soil nail walls and providing bank stabilization. Carol Parr to send updated animal- vehicle collision data to Ron Beane. STOP#2: 1-25 CROSSING at ST VRAIN RIVER Proposed Improvements: Package B proposes widening 1-25 toward the center median. Package A does not include improvements along this section of 1-25. No change to the Frontage Road or bridge. During summer 2007, the 1-25 bridges will be reconstructed. Wetland and other site conditions: Scrub shrub wetlands and riparian vegetation line the banks of the St. Vrain River. Agency Comments, Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts, and Mitigation Options: • COE asked about fill impacts. There will be no impacts from fill, everything is on structure or impacts will be temporary. • COE asked about the difference between Package A and B. At this location, Package A assumes the capacity will be okay with the current widening project; no improvements are proposed for 1-25 between SH 52 and SH 66. Package B will add 1 tolled express lane in each direction. • We talked about the current Region 4 project and wetland impacts associated with this. Region 4 will be requesting a nationwide Sec 404 permit for this project. Terry McKee determined jurisdictional wetlands to be less than 1/10 of • • NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Lt owefirin rnt•pur u;im Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 5of7 fore-bay must be integrated with the water quality pond and both should not be in the park/4(f) property. 1-25 CROSSING at LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER(not a stop on the tour, but discussed from review of design plans) Proposed Improvements: Highway would be moved to the west and widened. Frontage Road would not change. Safety median is 80-feet wide. Interchange with SH 392 was pulled in to avoid wetlands. Wetland conditions: Scrub shrub wetlands line banks of the Little Thompson River. Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts: Water quality ponds moved outside of wetlands. Agency Comments and Mitigation Options: • COE asked if anything can be done to enhance the buffer to Little Thompson • River wetlands STOP#3: I-25 CROSSING at BIG THOMPSON RIVER Proposed Improvements: For Package A and B, 1-25 was widened east and west, maintaining the rural median width of 80 feet. Proposed US 24 exit/entrance ramps extend south of the Big Thompson River crossing, making the width of the highway more than twice the existing 1-25 width. The Frontage Road would be placed adjacent to 1-25 with a barrier separation in lieu of the normal 40-foot ditch section. Wetland and other site conditions: Wetlands line the river bank; extend across the floodplain and along 1-25 roadside ditch. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (BTP SWA) is adjacent to river and 1-25 to the west. This area is Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts: Jeanne Sharps said retaining walls were added to the west and east sides of 1-25, ramp alignment was modified, and river crossing designed with bridges instead of culverts, to avoid wetland and 4(f) property Agency Comments and Mitigation Options: • CDOW does not want the highway to expand west into the State Wildlife Area or west into the riparian area along the Big Thompson, adjacent to the roadway. The cottonwood riparian area provides nice riparian habitat, COE agrees. • Engineers said 1-25 improvements follow design standards by maintaining the rural design standards (80-foot center median)and widening to the outside. • • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES rivrrodl,EI.i Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 7of7 o Arapahoe Bend Natural Area • COE suggested wetland restoration in Ft. Collins 4(f) recreation property southwest of Poudre River/ I-25 crossing. ACTION ITEMS • FHU to explore and document design variations at the St. Vrain and the Big Thompson rivers with the intent to minimize impacts to wetlands and Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. (Riparian habitat). This information will be included in the DEIS. • Carol Parr to send updated animal-vehicle collision data to Ron Beane. JI_Tryupalonalo)I6M 40Nwa,kw➢IYobAiay 5_ llajdm,poc m l6Ogariia,Pkg A 6 811E)Air 0)woS Sac 404 field m(g1MlD kbW 11W oo_0TSoe k1 0on 404 Romeo Agencie<Fmk Mooing4,000)FINAL doe • • • NORTH I-25 EIS MEMORANDUM To: Margaret Langworthy, COE; Sarah Fowler, EPA; Jim Eussen, CDOT; Carol Parr, CDOT; Larry Rogstad, CDOW; Chad Morgan, CDOW; Mark Leslie, CDOW; Tom Anzia, FHU; Kendra Gabbed, FHU; Jeanne Sharps, FHU; Steve Butler, ERO; Ron Beane, ERO cc: File From: Jeanne Sharps, P.E., Tom Anzia, P.E., Wendy Wallach, & Carol Parr Date: July 27, 2007 Subject Responses to Comments Raised During the April 10, 2007 Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting Regarding Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation of Wetland Areas Potentially Impacted by the North 1-25 project Introduction . This memorandum is in response to concerns raised by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), Colorado Department of Wildlife(CDOW) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of wetland areas potentially impacted by the North I-25 project. These concerns were raised during the April 10, 2007 Section 404 resource agencies field meeting (see minutes attached). The agencies expressed three primary areas of concern on the field trip,where mi nimization and mitigation was of special interest to them.These are discussed below: Cache la Poudre River. Wetlands line the riverbank and extend along the floodplain o n the east side of 1-25. The agencies asked that consideration be given to m inimize impacts to the adjacent river banks associated with the widening of the bridge. The agencies asked that the design team explore a design exception at this location in order to narrow the median and lessen the impacts. Big Thompson River. This wetland area provides an important riparian area with mature cottonwood trees for wildlife habitat. The adjacent Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area is located west of 1-25. These areas are considered Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. The agencies asked that every effort be taken to mi nimize impacts to the adjacent river banks associated with the widening of the bridge. The agencies asked that the design team explore a design exception at this location in order to narrow the median and lessen the impacts. St Vrain River. Wetlands are abundant adjacent to SH 119. The agencies asked if CDOT could increase the vertical clearance at the two bridges (eastbound and westbound)to provide greater height for larger mammals to use as a crossing. S Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation July 27, 2007 • Responses to Comments Raised During the April 10, 2007 Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting Page 3 For the Cache la Poudre River, the reduction in median width would minimize wetland impact by about 0.5 acre. Original im pacts under Package A were estimated at 5.59 acres and under Package B were estimated at 2.14 acres. There would be minimal changes to construction costs, and approximately 15,000 square feet less of right-of-way acquisition. Mitigation for Wildlife—St. Vrain Crossing For the SH 119 crossing at St. V rain River, the CO E requested that on the west side of the eastbound bridge CDOT should try to move or position the pier to allow for ad ditional elevation for wildlife movement. The eastbound bridge is currently under design for replacement by CDOT. The existing elevation will be retained as the new eastbound bridge is designed. Additionally, riprap will be buried and covered with exi sting substrate to provide a natural surface for wildlife and backwaters will be left in place per CDOW reque st. Conclusion With regard to the Big Thompson and Cache la Poudre crossings, the DOS environmental analysis will continue to reflect the impacts of the standard median in the original design, since the median design is consistent with both build packages. The DEIS will include this possible option to narrow the median as a mitigation measure to be explored in more detail during the FEIS process. During FEIS design, consideration will be given to incorporating a closed median • section at river crossings into the preferred alternative design if other mitigation measures do not adequately minimize impacts. During the design process, potential safety concerns wil I be thoroughly addressed. For the St. Vrain crossing proposed within the N orth 1-25 DEIS, CDOT will commit to continued collaboration with the CDOW and COE on other concerns in this geographic area. This could include effects to backwaters by any future design changes and opportunities to minimize impacts to wildlife when and if the local agency constructs a bike path under SH 119 at the S t. Vrain bridge. J:LTransportatIon\071609.900\manage\corr\Mem o\memo_w etla nd072707.doc i Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Meeting Minutes—North I-25 EIS_Corps of Engineers Scoping Meeting • January 13, 2004 page 2 The Corps could put a condition in the permit that before the last phase of the project, you would reassess the wetland conditions. Or you proceed with what was authorized in the permit regardless of what has changed (unless it is the design—and you need to get a permit amendment for that). The Corps will not do separate permits for each phase. The level of design is up to CDOT to determine what level of risk they are willing to accept. You will need to do enough to determine bridge piers, retaining walls. US 285 was a good example. 7. The Corps looks at: • Have you avoided as much as you can • Have you minimized impacts Only after these have been satisfied can you look at compensatory mitigation. 8. We must submit a complete mitigation plan for the requirements of RGL 02-2. It is okay to have phased mitigation. 9. The Corps would like to see a 404 permit application at the time of the FEIS, as long as they have been involved and EPA has been involved. The Corps would like to see the merged process. • 10. On 1-70, a FTA person said that commuter rail on 1-70 would not be funded. If that is the case,why was rail still a reasonable alternative? 11. The Corps will still do field reviews to verify delineations. 12. The Corps recommends a meeting with them and EPA (Deb and Glen Rodriguez) to discuss purpose and need and alternatives. Before the meeting, the Corps would like to see draft purpose and need and alternatives with screening criteria. Subsequent meetings would be needed just prior to the time that alternatives are screened. 13. For wetland delineations, is it okay to just map wetlands and then do a delineation at the time the preferred alternative is chosen? Tim Carey said it is okay to do the delineation just prior to permit application. From Ron's perspective, you need to delineate wetlands partway through the process. 1-70 used color infrared photography with some ground truthing, looking at vegetation and hydrology. 14. The Corps is moving away from mitigation on an acreage basis, but focusing on functional replacement. The Corps is going to use the Summit County methodology used by the Sacramento District. Tim has been working with Kris Meiring to refine this. By the end of 2004 the Corp will have a functional assessment methodology they will be using for individual permits. • ]:\Transportation\071609.900\manage\mtgs\minutes\Corps Scoping_011304j.doc • 2 B. Is your initial project purpose too narrowly or broadly defined? Broad definitions require too many alternatives to be analyzed. Narrow definitions eliminate alternatives that could truly meet your purpose and need. C. Have you sufficiently demonstrated a public need for the project? Alternatives: A. If the discharge involves a special aquatic site(wetlands,mudflats,pool&riffle complexes),are sufficient alternatives presented to clearly select the least damaging,to the aquatic ecosystem,alternative that meets the"overall"project purpose? B. Have you considered any off-site alternatives? If not,why?(For projects with large- scale impacts,the Corps must consider off-site alternatives. Just because you now have a legal interest in the land(e.g.,right-of-way already purchased),or have an option to purchase one, doesn't mean that off-site alternatives can't be considered.) C. Prior to receiving a permit,you must provide an alternative analysis. The analysis should provide at least 3 alternatives;no build;build; and build with total avoidance of impacts to waters of the U.S. The number of acceptable alternatives varies with the size of the project and value of the aquatic resources to be impacted. • D. We must screen alternatives based on the following criteria: We can only issue a permit for the practicable alternative that has the least adverse affect on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as there are not other significant adverse environmental consequences. Practicable means capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. E. Since many transportation projects have an EA or EIS prepared under the auspices of the Federal Highway Administration,is the preferred alternative presented in the EA or EIS the least damaging to the aquatic ecosystem? Is the Purpose and Need correctly defined for our purposes,so as not to eliminate alternatives that would meet our definition of overall project purpose? Avoidance,Minimization&Compensatory Mitigation: A. The applicant must demonstrate,and we must verify,that you have avoided and minimized impacts to aquatic resources to the maximum practical extent. This must occur prior to any consideration of compensatory mitigation(compensatory mitigation is necessary to offset unavoidable impacts,after minimizing these impacts). B. Buffers can be both a form of minimization and compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation includes creation,restoration,enhancement and/or preservation used to offset unavoidable impacts. Buffer areas created merely by moving development areas further away from aquatic resources are considered a form of minimizing impacts. If a buffer area is enhanced,through the planting of native vegetation,shrubs,frees,etc.,this enhancement may be counted as compensatory mitigation. • State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 4-Loveland Residency __ _.- ._..'O_.. 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537-8885 OFPARTWWT OF TMSMRTATIM January 21,2004 Tim Carey U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Tri-Lakes Project Office 9307 S.Platte Canyon Road Littleton,CO 80128 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Carey: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • L Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, ?a Vid ifrtaitc David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. 1-25 Front Range EIS • cc: Project File Mr.Timothy T.Carey trri • January 22,2004 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers page 2 • You have the right to expect that the EIS will enable you to carry out your jurisdictional responsibilities. Likewise you have the obligation to tell us if, at any point in the process, your needs are not being met. We expect that at the end of the process the EIS will satisfy your NEPA and Clean Water Act requirements including those related to project alternatives, environmental consequences and mitigation. We expect the permit application to proceed concurrently with the EIS approval process. Further,we intend to utilize the EIS and our subsequent decision making documents(ROD) as the basis for your issuing a Clean Water Act permit. We look forward to your response to this request and your role as a cooperating agency on this project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EIS,please contact Jean Wallace (FHWA) at(303)969-6730 extension 382 or John Dow(FTA)at(303) 844-4266. Sincerely your blur . o . a dleton Division A istrator Regional Administrator cc: Mr.Bob Garcia, CDOT Mr.Dave Martinez, CDOT Ms. Carol Parr,CDOT • Mr. Stanley Elmquist,CDOT Mr.Tom Anzia,FHU Ms.Gina McAfee, Carter and Burgess Mr. John Dow, FTA Ms.Jean Wallace,FHWA File • I:LTranspottatlon\071609.400\manage\corr\Pgency\Carey_Itr0122045.doc NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES CORPS OF ENGINEERS COORDINATION MEETING (REVISED) MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers FHWA: Mike Vanderhoof, Jean Wallace Corps: Margaret Langworthy ATTENDEES: CDOT: Carol Parr, Dave Martinez, Pete Graham FTA: John Dow C&B: Gina McAfee EPA: Sarah Fowler PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee • Attendees, Chris Primus, Laura Backus, Wendy Wallach, COPIES: Kim Gambrill, Rebecca Pierce, ZafarAlikhan, Tim Carey, Beth Chase, Holly Miller, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. The Corps number for this project is 2004-80110. 2. Gina gave a brief update to the project and a summ ary of scoping impact. Margaret asked why traffic volumes have increased. This is likely due to increases in population and employment in the study area. The NF R household survey found that I-25 is used for local trips but also that not much traffic goes all the way from Fort Collins to Denver. Trips are often dispersed. 3. Gina gave a summary of agency scoping input. The functional evaluation of wetlands is being developed by S colt Franklin. Something in between the Florida procedure and a Summit County procedure is likely. They would like to capture some of the biological functions. When we get ready to do our wetland delineation, we should c heck with Scott Franklin, to see if we need to include functional evaluations in our delineations. 4. In the permitting process, we should show both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Corps will be evaluating indirect impacts to all wetlands and will want to review mitigation for all wetlands. Per Executive Order requirements, mitigation for all wetlands will be provided. All permit applications should now show both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. i Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Corps of Engineers Coordination MEETING DATE: June 14, 2004 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers Offices CDOT: Stan Elmquist FHWA: Mike Vanderhoof ATTENDEES: Corps of Engineers: Margaret Langworthy C&B: Gina McAfee, Laura Backus FHU: Tom Anzia EPA: Sarah Fowler PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Tim Carey, Carol Parr, Jean Wallace, Holly Miller, John Dow, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina and Tom provided an update to project activities. We invited Sarah Fowler to the EPA meeting. 2. Margaret likes our criteria and process for Level I screening. This demonstrates that we used the Corps criteria and it is visual. 3. Regarding the evaluation criteria, we might want to look at people movement not just vehicle movement. 4. Tom described the comments received on purpose and need relative to the ordering of the needs. 5. The measure of improving accessibility...is confusing. Should this be"Improve accessibility of?" Could it be"Improve transportation access options?" 6. The need which is stated as continued growth pressure really consists of two issues: ► Land use and development is proceeding at a very high rate. ► The encroaching development restricts future transportation uses. 7. There is real interest in this corridor in rail transit. 8. Why are there more accidents in certain segments? There are a couple of super elevation problems; the speed is an issue, the vehicle mix is an issue. fIbGNL-1 - No TH 1-25 EIS , '/ MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation Discuss Issues with the Corps of Engineers MEETING DATE: December 8, 2004 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers EPA: Sarah Fowler COE: Margaret Langworthy ATTENDEES: FHWA: Jean Wallace, Mike Vanderhoof CDOT: Dave Martinez, Pete Graham FHU: Tom Anzia, Gregg Mugele Carter and Burgess: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carters:Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Wendy Wallach, Holly Miller, Carol Parr, Dave Beckhouse, COPIES: Alison Deans-Michael, Julie Morrison, Craig Gaskill, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist, Pete Graham, Dave Martinez, Becky Noe, • C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. One comment on purpose and need is that the terminology of generally "decreasing congestion" is preferred over increasing capacity. For purpose and need, Margaret thinks we need thresholds. Mike indicated that the merger agreement commits to quantifications where possible. The screening criteria are really thresholds. 2. Gina, Jean and Tom described the Level 2 alternatives. Margaret asked for clarification about HOT lanes. Sarah asked if limited access lanes could be HOV—or could they have a different speed limit? For additional lanes (alternative C)—this should be a six to eight lanes total. Margaret is concerned that the new arterial roads will stimulate growth and will have a greater impact on the environment. 3. Mike asked for a clarification of where we are in the process. We have completed Level 1 screening and still need to get official concurrence on purpose and need. We will be adding more data to purpose and need, like travel patterns, most recent travel projections, origin and destinations, etc. The merger agreement says that we cannot use purpose and need to screen alternatives • until the Corps concurs with our purpose and need. The merger agreement also says that Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration If Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Briefing with the Corps of Engineers MEETING DATE: March 2,2005 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers Corps: Margaret Langworthy FHWA: Monica Pavlik,Ron Speral,Mike Vanderhoof,Bill Haas,Jean Wallace, ATTENDEES: CDOT: Dave Martinez,Brad Beckham,Carol Parr, Renee Galeano-Popp FHU: Tom Anzia,Holly Miller,Gregg Mugele C&B: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees,Craig Gaskill,Julie Morrison,Sarah Fowler,Alison Michaels, Bob Garcia, • COPIES: Stanley Elmquist,Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina went over the agenda,which is to discuss two items: Purpose and Need and the Corps' version of the evaluation criteria for Levels 1 and 2k After this meeting,we will make a formal request of the Corps to formally approve our Purpose and Need statement. Then at our next meeting, we will plan to present the results of Levels 2A and 2B screening and will request informal concurrence on that. 2. Holly described the changes in this Purpose and Need statement from the previous one: changes in terminology,charts added. • Can we use the journey to work data to screen alternatives? • Do we need to define when the criteria are required for both highway and transit? We will need to make it clear which criteria are absolutes and which are not. • Can we use an absolute for measuring level of safety service? Any places that fall above the line would be studied with the intent to reduce the rate at that location. • Is the project purpose consistent with the project purpose required by the Corps? • Federal Highway Administration 1 Federal Transit Administration /Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225WEETING,1IINUTES4WdiM-,btisc Meeting Minrdes12005 Mimues1COE-030205.doc NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transpoi tenon Briefing Related to Section 404 Merger MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005 LOCATION: US Army Corps of Engineers USACE: Tim Carey, Margaret Langworthy EPA: Sarah Fowler USFWS: Alison Dean-Michaels ATTENDEES: FHWA: Ron Speral, Mike Vanderhoof, Jean Wallace CDOT: Carol Parr, Brad Beckham FHU: Tom Anzia, Holly Miller C&B: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Robert Edgar, Julie Morrison, • Gregg Mugele, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina went over the agenda: • Final comments and concurrence on purpose and need. • Discussion of Level 2 screening. 2. We will take final comments today and send out a final draft to the Corps, Sarah Fowler, Deb Lebow, Sharleen Bakeman, Brad Beckman, FHWA, and Region 4. 3. Holly described the main changes that have been made since Tim Carey's comments which had been received a month or so ago. 4. Tim had one over arching comment which is related to transit. The statement on page 7 that is: "There is a need to develop a coordinated, overall long-term strategy for ROW preservation..." is very all conclusive and broad. Does this mean that at the end of the process we cannot recommend an alternative that just solves a specific transportation need unless it also provides for future ROW preservation? Brad described the phased ROD assumption, which is identifying a phase 1 which has AQ • conformity and independent utility. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transpoitation Briefing Related to Section 404 Merger May 11, 2005 3 of 3 8. Holly described the 2A screening results. Margaret questioned how much of an impact on 1-25 traffic would an arterial road have? We modeled US 85 and if you improved it, it would take 5 to 10% if traffic off of 1-25. For the CM Alternative, we need to document the most generous assumption for each of the elements and show if it can stand as a stand-alone alternative. Sarah asked for clarification about transit operators. We will be developing a future plan for transit operations. What about guided bus (like on 1-70 West)? We need to make sure we allow this as a derivative of BRT. 9. The Corps needs to be provided with a table for 2A and 2B—that shows clearly why different alternatives were dropped out. • 10. Holly described the roadway analysis results for 2B. The only alternatives that were eliminated were the shorter distance alternatives. We need to provide Tim with the very specific data for wetlands, endangered species, and water quality (Waters of the US). If we are screening based on social, we need to make sure we have quantifiable information. 11. Gina described the transit 2B results. Commuter Rail F may drop out because of impacts to rare or T/E species. Commuter Rail A may also drop out because of environmental reasons, but not if the most substantial impacts occur on the FasTracks corridor. 12. Once the southern terminus issue is resolved, we will need to send out: • Revised (and final) purpose and need. • Level 2 screening table. • Quantitative data for aquatic resources. 13. If Tim sees a problem with any of this, he will let us know. I I:LTransportauon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Section 409 Merger 051105 tdg.doc is "410:: ,�'`'' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Wl 3. _ CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT • "" TTTT� : DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD. LIT LETON,COLORADO 80128-6901 July 25, 2005 Mr. David Nicol Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Colorado Federal Aid Division 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 180 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 RE: North I-25 Front Range EIS Dear Mr. Nicol: I'm writing this letter in response to your correspondence of July 19,2005. In your letter, you requested that the Corps of Engineers(Corps)provide concurrence on the Purpose and Need Statement for the above referenced EIS. In response to your request, and in accordance with our NEPA/404 Merger Agreement,the Corps concurs with the Purpose and Need Statement. • Please extend my thanks to Ms.Jean Wallace and the project team for taking my earlier comments into consideration and revising the original draft Purpose and Need Statement. I believe the cm-rent statement more accurately reflects the purpose and need for the project. If you have any questions,please call me at 303-979-4120. Sincerely, TimorT. Chief, er Re Office ti • NORTH I25 � EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation Section 404 Merger Update May 15, 2006 2 of 2 7. Brad asked about the physical impact difference between toll and HOT. The two had slightly different alignments. Both were assumed to be express tolled. At Level 3, we assumed two managed lanes in each location. 8. For travel time comparison between highway and transit,there is a discrepancy between our criteria and the transit travel time. We will add this to the transit travel time column. Action: Holly 9. There seems to be a discrepancy in the highway chart between the hours of congestion and the miles of congestion. Action: Holly will check with Chris Primus. 10. The reason there is such a large capital cost difference between six lanes and toll is that the tolled lanes would be longer because of the seventh pot committed project. 11. BRT looks pretty good from a purpose and need, practicability, and environmental standpoint. • 12. Sarah would like to see a robust discussion of indirect impacts in the DEIS. What will be the trade-offs between the two packages in terms of land use patterns? 13. FHWA will send an alternatives sign-off request to the Corps. Action: Jean Wallace/Mike Vanderhoof. 14. Mike questioned whether or not we could mix and match along 1-25. 15. We should combine the purpose and need, practicability and environmental matrices. We need to make sure that we never eliminate the LEDPA. Action: Wendy Wallach 16. We will send out revised charts. Action: Holly 17. We will set up avoidance and minimization meetings to look at"hot spots." Action: Gina ]:\Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtg s\minutes\Agency\Corps404merger_0515061oJ.doc • 41O- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �� /jh CORPS OP ENGINEERS,OMAI IA DISTRICT wl lei ilt DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD. • LITrLETON,COLORADO 80128-6901 ut a�e sr August 9, 2006 Mr. David Nicol Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Colorado Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 180 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Mr. Lee Waddleton Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration Region VIII 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 310 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 RE: North I-25 EIS Dear Messrs. Nicol and Waddleton: • I'm writing this letter in response to your correspondence of August 4, 2006. In your letter, you requested that the Corps of Engineers(Corps)provide concurrence on alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS for the above-referenced project. In response to your request, and in accordance with our NEPA/404 Merger Agreement, the Corps concurs with the alternatives to evaluated, as the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative has not been eliminated. Please extend my thanks to Ms. Monica Pavlik and the project team for taking my earlier comments into consideration and revising the alternatives. If you have any questions,please call me at 303-979-4120. Sincerely, Timo Chief; Dens r Regu Ice CF: Sarah Fowler, EPA Alison Michael,USFWS Martha Chieply, CENWO-OD-R • State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,+ P OT Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537-8885 Dmnewr«mnuwvrenow January 21,2004 Deborah Lebow Environmental Protection Agency NEPA—EcoSystem Protection Mail Stop 8EPR-EP 999 18th Street Denver, CO 80202 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Ms.Lebow: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • L Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and mil technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, DAM RA. David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. I-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File • • intend to address these issues within each of the EIS alternatives. We look forward to working with you on the development of a strategy for a comprehensive impacts analysis. If you have questions about these comments, please feel free to call me at(303)312-6004 or Robert Edgar of my staff at(303) 312-6669. Thank you in advance for consideration of these comments. We look forward to a continued cooperative working relationship with your agencies. Sincerely, �• V Larry Svoboda Director,NEPA Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Enclosures (2) cc: Jean Wallace, Program Manager, FHWA David Martinez, CDOT Region 4 • • MAY I 9 .. ,. i 2 • the document: • The pollutants to be evaluated should include CO,nitrogen oxides (NOx),volatile organic compounds and hydrocarbons, ozone, and PM10. • Any local and regional air monitoring data. Local hot spot monitoring and ambient monitoring projects implemented by the state or local air agencies would also be sources of short or long-term air quality data. • Analysis of the Clean Air Act attainment status for CO, PM10, I-hour ozone,NOx, sulfur dioxide, and PM 2.5. The recent non-attainment status for 8-hour ozone in this project area should be discussed as well as local actions being planned to reach attainment such as the Early Action Compact. • Any air dispersion modeling that has already been completed including urban air-shed modeling and hot spot assessments. Include relevant climatological data such as the incidence of hazardous weather that may impact transportation as well as a windrose showing the prevalent wind directions and wind speeds. For modeling results, describe the type of model used and include a summary of the values used for the model input parameters. 411 ▪ A complete inventory of mobile source emissions in the area of the project as well as a cumulative impacts analysis that accounts for both mobile and stationary sources. Recent mobile source estimates may be found in local and regional transportation plans or in a conformity determination. The estimates should include fugitive or re-entrained road dust. Hazardous Air Pollutants Recent studies are showing a variety of health-related effects near high traffic areas. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health or environmental effects. Section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act established the list of HAPs. There are currently 188 HAPs. In a rulemaking published on March 29,2001, EPA identified a subset of 21 mobile source air toxics (MSATs), a subset of the 188 HAPs with the addition of diesel exhaust(PM and organic gases). EPA recognizes that the methods and procedures for assessing the environmental impact of MSATs may be new to many parties working on transportation projects through the NEPA process. Policies, procedures, and methods for assessing MSATs in NEPA documents are still being developed. Although regulatory standards for MSATs have not been set,there is substantial information on impacts that can be ascertained from emissions and concentrations data. The level of analysis of MSATs is most appropriately determined on a case-by-case basis, • 2 • For the purpose of conformity, complete CO hot spot analysis is required (See 40 CFR sections 93.116 and 93.123). Possible mitigation of impacts We suggest that the EIS include possible methods and techniques that might be employed to mitigate the negative impacts of the project on air quality. A few suggestions follow: • Implementation of stage I/ stage II vapor controls(reducing vehicle refueling emissions). • Limitations on idling emissions from diesel engines particularly during construction • Use of soot filters on diesel powered construction equipment • Use of watering to control fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. Where possible, estimate the air emissions reduction for various mitigation measures. • Mitigation of construction impacts should be fully considered. Mitigation methods include dust suppression using emulsion solutions and temporary paved or aggregate road base, diesel oxidation catalysts on engine exhaust,ultra low sulfur diesel fuel,biodiesel, engine idling time-limits,use of modern low emission equipment,time limitations on idling emissions from diesel engines, and the use of soot filters on diesel equipment. • A list of suggested practices is attached. • Hazardous Waste/Superfund The analysis should include a list of potentially affected hazardous waste sites, and mitigation measures to ensure avoidance of hydrologic and other disturbances at these sites. If any underground storage tanks are found in the proposed right-of-way, CDPHE should be notified. A contingency plan on finding unidentified petroleum and hazardous substances should be in place prior to disturbing the soil. Water Quality As you know, highway construction and completed highway projects can result in increased surface water runoff, stream channel alternation, alteration in hydrology,wetland modification and other water quality-related problems. In rapidly growing areas such as this corridor, the majority of the water quality impacts will be indirect and cumulative. This project crosses over several streams that are in the South Platte drainage system. Degradation and depletion of the South Platte River are major issues, and we suggest looking at the impacts on a watershed scale and addressing these water quality issues accordingly. The question to be answered is whether this project contributes to those overarching impacts. In addition,the water quality section of this EIS should analyze the following topics: • Present Colorado designated uses of the affected water bodies and identify if uses are currently impaired. (CDPHE 303(d) list). For example, a segment of the Cache LaPoudre • 4 • the BMPs if monitoring data shows that water quality is being impaired by the highway project. Storm Water Runoff Storm water discharges associated with highway construction are an industrial activity according to federal storm water regulations (see 40 CFR section 122.6). Highway construction projects must obtain a pollution discharge permit for storm water if construction activities will disturb more than one acre of land. Construction activities may be covered by a general pollution discharge permit rather than an individual permit. If a storm water permit is required,on-site notification must be posted along with a pollution prevention plan. Normal highway runoff contains contaminants which could affect surface and ground water quality. The EIS should characterize the current quality of streams and ground water resources in the vicinity of the project, as well as the quality of the anticipated highway runoff. Copper, lead and zinc at a minimum should be addressed. Existing water quality impairments or effluent limitations should be considered so that the storm water runoff related to both construction and post-construction does not cause or contribute to a problem with water quality standards. BMPs for collecting and treating storm water during construction and post- construction as required in state and federal pollution discharge permits should be outlined in the EIS. The EIS should include an estimate of increased storm water flows from impervious surfaces for each alternative and should address the potential effects of these increased flows to adjacent receiving waters. We suggest using the Driscoll model for these estimates and for the impact the runoff will have on receiving waters. EPA and FHWA are currently working with the Driscoll model to ensure that it is appropriate for these uses in Colorado. Provisions for hazardous waste containment in case of a spill, and means of collection and treatment of storm water runoff both during and after construction, should also be included. Although this project falls under a State rather than an EPA permit, EPA requires a sediment basin during construction where one outfall drains ten or more acres. Flow attenuation devices or sediment basins during construction,therefore, are suggested but are not required. Regional stormwater detention facilities may be used as a BMP for reducing sediment loading provided that the proper authority and/or permissions are obtained so those facilities can be maintained in a condition necessary to provide adequate sediment removal efficiency. Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. Road construction clearing and earthwork generally includes sedimentation and hydrologic impacts which may cause changes to surface and subsurface drainage patterns and, ultimately, wetland integrity and function. Wetlands are significant environmental resources that have experienced severe cumulative losses nationally. We do not know the extent of wetland impacts from this project. We are nevertheless including this information so that this scoping letter is complete. • 6 • known wildlife corridors/trails and habitat fragmentation. When evaluating wildlife impacts, include the impacts on birds. Existing wildlife mortality should be disclosed,if known. The document should evaluate the increased mortality from higher traffic levels,habitat removal, reduced access to available habitat and habitat fragmentation, effects on biodiversity,and estimated reductions in impact due to mitigation. We recommend the use of GIS habitat fragmentation map series to visually depict the footprint and zone of influence for each alternative and reasonably-foreseeable build-out scenarios. In addition, information on how invasive species will be handled would be appropriate. Threatened and Endangered Species We are not including information in this letter on threatened and endangered species other than to emphasize that the EIS should include the Biological Assessment and the associated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) Biological Opinion or formal concurrence. Maintenance and Construction Impacts Maintenance and construction activities can have significant air and water quality impacts. This project area is a maintenance area for some of the criteria pollutants, and has recently violated the new 8-hour ozone standard. If it is not already required in the SIP, we encourage you to estimate the most likely daily emissions associated with each construction phase of the project and review possible mitigation actions. Air quality impacts during construction are potentially significant, and construction periods can last quite a few years. We • are enclosing examples of mitigation for air pollution during construction that you can require of your contractors. We suggest that you incorporate whichever of these actions that make sense for this project. In addition,to minimize water quality impacts,properly staging construction activities so that there is a manageable amount of exposed soils at any given time, is encouraged. If construction activities cannot be staged and/or stormwater runoff cannot be effectively treated to remove sediment during construction, steep slopes and exposed soils should be stabilized to minimize sediment transport to local water bodies and to reduce the risk of localized flooding in roadways. Recommended slope stabilization techniques may include but are not limited to the use of erosion control blankets and soil binding polymers. Road standards and design have a major effect on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance needs. Scheduled maintenance, such as ditch cleaning and disposal of debris generated from sanding, as well as anticipated but unscheduled maintenance of debris from slumps, should be analyzed and planned for during the design phase of construction and reconstruction projects. Past practices of sidecasting material over the shoulder, filling depressions and widening shoulders have an adverse effect on wetlands and riparian areas,and should be addressed. Winter maintenance often results in the introduction of sediment and salt,either directly • 8 • with information on new ideas and technology. Please contact John Brink at(303)312-6498. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Growth The indirect impacts from the induced growth that may occur because of transportation. improvements,both highway and transit, in this corridor will need to be addressed, as well as the cumulative environmental impacts from potential growth in this area. EPA understands that FHWA, CDOT, and RTD-Denver have proposed using Delphi-Plus as a methodology for assessing indirect induced growth effects for this project. Transit options in particular may induce growth in and around transit stops. The end of the transit corridor will be of concern for potential environmental impacts, as well as impacts on feeder routes. A comparison of alternatives with reasonably foreseeable growth patterns should be included, and their impacts addressed. Environmental criteria that may be important to consider include the following points: • Differences in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)translating into air quality improvements; • Differences in open space translating into habitat preserved; • Flood plain, wetland and riparian areas preserved or avoided,through sustainable development; • Amount of impervious surface per alternative, translating into water quality impacts; and • Infrastructure costs, translating into wastewater and drinking water investments,and • economic impacts. The land use section may be the appropriate place to document the actual environmental impacts of any induced and cumulative growth. In most EIS's, we see a good summary of what will happen to the land use in the area, e.g.,how many acres will be converted from farmland to commercial or residential, but we do not see those changes translated into environmental impacts, e.g., acres of wetlands lost or increased stormwater flow due to increased impervious surfaces. We would like to see an impacts analysis performed in the EIS. Land conversion changes the ecosystem through paving,fragmenting and increased human activity, all of which invariably change the natural migration processes and brings non-native plant species to the area. The document should analyze these potential impacts, rather than just reporting acreage potentially disturbed. We understand that land use decisions are not FHWA, FTA or CDOT's decisions to make. However, if alternatives with land use components that reduce the environmental impacts of the expected growth on air,water,habitat fragmentation,etc,require actions by local responsible entities, those actions should be addressed in the document through agreements, plans,or some process outlining how those actions will be developed Mitigation The mitigation proposals in this EIS should have enough detail to allow the reader to determine how the mitigation will be implemented,where it will be implemented, and whether it • 10 • Possible Mitigation Strategies for Air Quality Highway Projects Construction phase-requirements which can be included in construction contracts Construction vehicles (source of air toxics): • Require that construction vehicles meet EPA's most recent standards for new onroad and nonroad diesel engines • Require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on all construction vehicle diesel engines (gg, diesel particulate filters/traps,oxidizing soot filters, catalytic oxidizers, and other feasible control devices that become available to limit or prevent exhaust emissions) • Require diesel retrofit of construction vehicle engines as appropriate • Use alternatives in engines and/or diesel fuels e.g., engines using fuel cell technology; electric engines; engines using liquified or compressed natural gas; diesel engines fueled with biodiesel or ultra-low sulfur fuel; fuel onsite equipment with lower sulfur highway diesel instead of nonroad diesel fuel • Require heavy duty construction vehicle fleet owners in nonattainment areas to participate in EPA's Clean Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program to gradually increase the • percentage of low emission vehicles in their fleets, meet specified federal emission standards for low emission vehicles, and power such vehicles by clean diesel, natural gas,propane, ethanol,methanol or electricity • Prohibit excessive idling by setting an idling time limit and training employees on requirements (must be in compliance with local municipality's anti-idling regulations; go beyond local requirements if circumstances warrant). Install engine preheater devices to eliminate unnecessary idling. • Prohibit tampering with equipment to increase horsepower or to defeat emission control device effectiveness • Require construction vehicle engines to be properly tuned and maintained • Use construction vehicles with minimum practical engine size for the intended job Construction site logistics: • Route diesel truck traffic to and from the construction site away from communities and schools • Minimize construction-related traffic trips through appropriate policies, implementation measures, and employee education Construction materials - must meet Architectural Coating Standards for VOCs (since many VOCs are air toxics) - see 63 FR 48848, 9/11/98. There are standards for the following compounds used in road construction: • Compounds for concrete curing, concrete curing and sealing, concrete protective • 1 • Possible Mitigation Strategies for Air Quality (Particulates-Related) Highway Projects Construction site: • Require permits with time and weather conditions if open burning to clear right-of-way • Require dust suppression measures on all unpaved work areas, haul out roads, borrow and waste sites, including use of dust suppressant solutions,temporary pavement, aggregate road base, and/or temporary seeding • Require procedures for loading and covering haul trucks to minimize track out and material spills in transit • Require frequent cleaning of paved roadway and paving access points Maintenance phase • Comply with existing sanding/de-icer/street sweeping requirements in local ordinances or the applicable State Implementation Plan • Develop sanding program that specifies: (1) sanding material size that will minimize re- entrainment; (2) sanding material testing procedures; (3) record keeping and reporting requirements; and (4) area of application • Institute street sweeping program that specifies frequency, equipment, record keeping and • reporting requirements, and area of application • 3 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES EPA Meeting July 15. 2004 2 nf 3 We will form an Air Quality Working Group to meet to discuss methodology and project- specific results The NFRMPO draft 2030 Plan has some 1-25 improvements in it For mitigation, we should look at cleaner diesel locomotives—there are 2010 standards we should look at 4 Hazardous waste—none of this should be a problem 5 Water quality Monitoring has been recommended by EPA This was intended to be during and post construction The intent is to commit to monitor BMPs m impaired waters This would be committed to as needed For existing conditions, we will use existing data from CDPHE and watershed agencies For sensitive streams permanent EMPs will be recommended. consistent with MS4 S We have a concern about using the Driscoll model Art has a handout that describes his concerns It has limitations Art is proposing that we model only in situations where we are proposing to discharge into an impaired stream with no EMPs—or into a stream that is close to being sensitive(with no EMPs) The model Art is recommending is a spreadsheet that breaks the river down into different segments. calculates mass, includes EMPs and results in an indication of whether or not there is a potential to exceed a standard FHWA has been working on alternative rays to model water quality They are planning to come up with a different approach Mike recommends we wait until after the upcoming course to decide for sure on the water quality modeling approach For adaptive management we could commit to monitoring, agency roles and EMPs. It is okay with EPA to use a spreadsheet model Art should talk to Gordon McEvoy and Torn Boyce about this spreadsheet model. We will wait until after the course has been held and then Art will prepare a proposed methodology 6 For wetlands, we are doing a merger with 404 so will be closely evaluating avoidance alternatives We will plan to delineate wetlands prior to defining DEIS alternatives 7 For maintenance and construction, these suggestions came as a result of T-REX problems. Mag chloride may become an issue CDOT is doing a new study on maa chloride impacts Temperature monitoring can be done to determine when to apply mag chloride • State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,� I OT Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537-8885 uIT,v.,uvrar te,.zraeTATio. January 21,2004 Steve Fender Principal Regional Inspector Federal Railroad Administration 555 Zang Street, Suite 263 Denver,CO 80228 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Fender: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2001 The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: I. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4_ Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, Rog 114 114,101ri David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. I-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File • • U.S. Department Federal TranceAdministration Federal Highway Administration Region VIII Colorado Division of Transportation 216 Sixteenth St.,Suite 650 555 Zang St.Room 250 Denver,Colorado 80202 Lakewood,Colorado 80228 (903)844.3242 (303)089-6730 - 4 4AR2004 March 10, 2004 Mr. Steve Fender ` Chief Inspector Federal Railroad Administration 555 Zang Street, #263 Lakewood,CO 80228 Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Cooperating Agency Agreement Dear Mr.Fender: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)Region 4,are initiating an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the North I-25 Front Range area,which includes area from Denver Union Station to Fort Collins,to improve transportation and transportation linkages. The transportation improvements may require FRA action and we are requesting that you be a cooperating agency_ Your agency's involvement should entail those areas under its jurisdiction and no direct writing or analysis will be necessary for the documents preparation. The following are activities we-will take to maximize interagency cooperation: 1. Include you on mailing lists for coordination meetings. 2. Invite you to meetings related to rail engineering. 3. Consult with you on any relevant technical studies that will be required for the project and share information that may be useful to other studies in the area(US 36, Boulder/Longmont Feasibility Study and North Metro study). 4. Organize joint field reviews with you; if requested. 5. Provide you with project information,including study results. 6. Encourage your agency to use the above documents to express your review on subjects within your jurisdiction or expertise. • 1 U.S. Department Region VI DOT Building of Transportation 901 Locust Street,Suite 464 Kansas City,MO 64106 Federal Railroad Administration April 5, 2004 Mr. William C. Jones Federal Highway Administration Colorado Division Administrator 555 Zang Street- Ste. 250 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Jones: Regarding your correspondence dated March 10, 2004, directed to Steven Fender, the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Chief Inspector at the Lakewood District office. I understand that Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for the I-25 corridor is being developed. As has been past practice at Denver and in western FRA Region 6, and according to FBA's previous interdepartmental agreements, we formally agree to support these studies as required. We recognize that we may be quite interested in this corridor due to the possibility that passenger rail may be a preferred transportation alternative. FRA is also aware of and preparing for our safety regulation and related responsibilities if these projects develop as anticipated. As has been past practice, Steven Fender will be the principal contact for FRA on issues such as this. He will continue to manage FRA involvement there as appropriate with the resources he has at his disposal. He will also communicate with our passenger rail team at FRA's Office of Railroad Development and involve them as necessary. Please feel free to continue to communicate with Steve at the Denver FRA office and continue with the relationship that now exists. Should you need assistance from me at any time, please feel free to call. Si .; e,, • e J. Tisor ' •final Administrator • — R-•ion 6 P ttrr ORTyR aT 4, United States Department of the Interior f FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ,,e„ �' Ecological Services Colorado Field Office 755 Parfet Street.Suite 361 Lakewood. Colorado 80215 N REPLY tE ER TO' ES/CO: ER04/0001 Mail Stop 65412 . David Martinez Resident Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation. Region 4 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland, Colorado 80537 Dear Mr. Martinez. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your Notice of Intent (NO1) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for transportation improvements between Denver and Fort Collins in Denver. Boulder, Broomfield. Adams. Latimer, and Weld Counties.Colorado. We have comments regarding threatened.endangered. and candidate species: migratory birds: and highway permeability to wildlife. Several species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended (16 V.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) (Act)which may be affected by the,proposed action may occur along the corridor. These species include the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapzrs hudsonius preblei), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoc•ephalus), the Gte ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). and the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neoznexicana ssp. coloradensis)_ The black-tailed prairie dog t C'nomyr liulovicivnust is a Candidate species under the Act and the Service is interested in their protection and avoiding adversely impacting their habitat to a degree that they would need to be listed and,therefore, protected under the Act. We are also concerned about the effects of depletions to the South Plane River system on downstream species. Transportation projects typically cause depletions through use of water for compaction and dust control. although other uses are conceivable. Impacts to all listed species will need to be addressed in the EIS and consultation under section 7 of the Act may be necessary. In addition, all native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. and impacts to them will need to be anticipated and addressed in the EIS. Maintaining or improving the permeability of highways to all wildlife species is becoming of increasing concern to all wildlife resource agencies. including the Service. We would like to see wildlife movement across the 1-25 corridor and animal-vehicle collisions addressed in the EIS. S Carter-Burgess October 27, 2004 Jan Fritch District Conservationist Platte Valley District 57 West Bromley Lane Brighton, CO 80601 RE: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Dear Mr. Fritch Carter& Burgess, Inc. is assisting the North 1-25 Front Range EIS project in developing inter- regional solutions to traffic congestion, mobility problems, safety issues, and air quality problems between the northern Colorado populat ion centers and the Denver metropolitan area. • Specifically,the purpose of the study is to investigate a range of transportation alternatives for moving people, goods, and information throughout the region. These alternatives are to include highway improvements, inter-city passenger rail alignments and technologies, and bus and other modal options. The project area is from US 287 and SH 119 in the west to US 85 in the east; from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south, but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options. The legal sections for the study area include: R650W R660W R670W R680W R690W R700W 45678916 1239101112 17 18 19 20 21 1314 1516 17 TAN 28 29 30 31 32 ALL ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 5678171819 15 16 17 18 19 12345910 Ti. S 20 30 31 ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 Page 1 of 3 Carter Burgess October 27, 2004 Jeanene Hess, District Manager Fort Collins District Office 415 N College Ave., #3 Ft Collins, CO 80524 RE: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Dear Ms. Hess Carter& Burgess, Inc. is assisting the North 1-25 Front Range EIS project in developing inter- regional solutions to traffic congestion, mobility problems, safety issues, and air quality problems between the northern Colorado populat ion centers and the Denver metropolitan area. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to investigate a range of transportation alternatives for S moving people, goods, and information throughout the region. These alternatives are to include highway improvements, inter-city passenger rail alignments and technologies, and bus and other modal options. The project area is from US 287 and S H 119 in the west to US 85 in the east;from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south, but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options. The legal sections for the study area include: R650W R660W R670W R680W I R690W R700W 45678916 1239101112 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 T.1 N 28 29 30 31 32 ALL ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 5678171819 15 16 17 18 19 12345910 T.1S 20 30 31 ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 29 3334 35 36 Page 1 of 3 Carter. Burgess MNorth I-25 Front Range EIS R650W R660W R670W R680W R690W R700W 1 234891011 12 13 14 15 16 2N 5 6 7 8 17 18 19 ALL ALL 17 19 20 21 22 25 35 36 20 29 30 31 32 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 14 15 123111213 T.2S 16 17 18 19 20 ALL 14 24 25 21 22 27 28 29 30 3132 33 123491011 456781718 12 13 14 15 16 T.3N 19 20 29 30 31 ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 32 26 27 28 33 34 35 36 123458910 11 12 13 14 15 T.3S 4567818 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 _ 29 32 33 34 35 123456789 123491011 1011 121314 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 11 TAN 6 2 21 222 ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 20 21 22 23 27 26 27 28 33 34 28 29 30 31 32 35 36 3334 123491011 4567891617 12 13 14 15 16 T.5N 18 19 20 21 29 ALL ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 26 27 28 33 34 35 36 123491011 5678171819 12 13 14 15 16 T.6N 20 28 29 30 31 ALL ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 32 33 26 27 28 33 34 3536 1 2 3 10 11 12 T.7N 6 7 18 19 29 30 ALL ALL ALL 13 14 15 22 23 31 32 24 25 26 27 28 33 34 35 36 4567891015 16 17 18 19 20 1 11 12 13 14 15 T.8N 21 22 23.25 26 ALL ALL 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 27 34 35 36 32 33 34 35 36 19 20 21 25 26 24 25 26 27 28 T.9N 31 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 32 33 34 35 36 36 S Page 2 of 3 United States Department of Agriculture • A MRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service Phone:303-659-0525 57 West Bromley Lane Fax:303.659-1768 Brighton,Colorado 80601-2697 October 29, 2004 Kirk Webb Carter&Burgess, Inc. 707 17t Street, Suite 2300 Denver,Colo 80202 Kirk, As per your request, enclosed are list containing Prime and Important Farmlands soils. I have included lists for the entire project area. The approximate area that is under my work unit are the parts that are in Adams County and the Southern part of Weld County up to about Gilcrest. There are no Unique Farmlands within my work unit and no identified Farmlands of Local Importance that I am aware of. Project parts not in this area are serviced from other Natural Resources Conservation Service offices. The location of these offices can be found at the web site listed below. On the bottom left of the screen click on Find A Service Center. The information found on the enclosed sheets is available on the web at; htto://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov under Quick Access locate eFTOG Section 11 Soils Information Click on the County you want information for Click on Soils Reports On Survey Area screen Click on Generate Reports On Map Unit screen Click on Select All Under drop down menu labeled please select the report that you would like to generate, Click on Prime&Important Farmlands Click Generate Report Please note for Weld County there are choices for Northern Part&Southern Part. Hopefully this covers the information you requested. Tan Fritch District Conservationist • The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,maintain,and Improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 11/01/2004 09:24 FAX 9703510392 USDA GREELEY SRV ern' IJ002/004 III Prime and other Important Farmlands Weld County,Colorado,Northern Part Map symbolMap unit name Farmland classification i :.-- Aiurer:figeaanayltlem'6wte ercltnkslo• ,� � . . "., i - - . . �.r 'A,. Pas . . f ..; FamJand4sf e18fet'f(de lmparlance'.-;' 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 15 BressersandYlaein Oto3percentsfopes 1 .°: Fa. ._mi fana gfgtatewiaeJmpatane:' 17 Bushman fine sandy loam,0 to 3 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 29 - • Nav4 n loam 0 to 3:p, silo"., . la4 . .�f � >-,_ :. :' . . :Fairt;J0ndofptelSftle4'rtgrorisnpe:. :..'. '34 Manter sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 44 .: Olney:One sandy'ivaln,0 io 6perEentslope's ,. -. ,'',F*SarM'ofaiaiewjde keporlence: •r. , 49 Paoli fine sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 56 .9usebudtinesandylaam,0106 percent stops ,FewrSand ofs>af dt Ilnpi orarlc O'.;2 - - 61 Stoneham fine sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 64 Teriy sandy loam 0 lb'1peroant slopes - _ Farmland ofatatewldb Importance: 73 Vona sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 75 ' 't4tagesfipe Aand¢ldani;0 t0 6 Pempd)tslope5 - . Farmland of statewida Itrgroortati( .-. 60 Manter sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 23:' , :Dacano.clayloam,0.t06 pereentslopes _ ` _ Piiiie lgrtnlandlIfithia(E'd . 30 Keith loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Prime farmland If Irrigated 40 - (4°0OP8. MI 010 6:percentslapes.,°}., ,, y-..'../'. ".Pdm¢far landlf:, 1-214edi. f., 41 Nunn clay loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Prime farmland-If 54. Plater loam 0t'3 percent slopes ,-•.-: Prbmeefannfand1tingated r• -4';'. 77 Weld loam,0 toe percent slopes Prime farmland If irrigated 7$ ASetrtgr loam Ote$peryerdslopes:721104 r Ptlitie(armTarid H4rd9eted - 83 Wages loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated �" 86 "•Playas Pmsueiamilapdttgo.(eeddiromYlb odmgor hat frOq'ireittlyflbede :dunrtg Ne tin)44ng season USDA Natural Resources _ Conservation Service Tabular Data Version:1 Tabular Data Version Date:04/13/2004 Page 1 of 1 a 11/01/2004 MON 10:23 (TX/RX NO 53711 Z002 11/01/2004 09:25 FAX 9703510392 USDA GREELEY SRV CNT 2004/004 8, Prime and other Important Farmlands Weld County.Colorado,Southern Part - Map Map unit name Farmland classification symbol 32 : - Kiln'loem 110 3pement Stapes *;;.,: . , :.. .. - `Pfrnti faririland:if anGatu4d. . ,...' 39 Nunn loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 40 • Ntnnloam;iao;3.percentsfopes-?l. Prinie farralandlflr rgaidd i 41 Nunn day loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 42 Nunn day loam.Ito_3_Percen]algpe@ , - - Piime(enpland ifimgated. , 43 Nunn loamy sand,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 44 Olney learn)"sand,t to 3 percent slopes :;;,. ` -PthnefarMend;ifrtfgatad 46 Olney fine sandy loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 47' bineyfinesandYlodm;.•1td Spercenlslupes 'Pnme(amda14,10riiyated" 50 Otero sandy loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 51' Otero-sendy loam.Ito petebht'slop`es , ; If-... -':. . '' , PilmWlarmlend'Y ted'Irriga ' . ' ..' ', ... 54 Pang loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland Irrigated , _ 55 Pao]14oem•1 to 3 percent stapes ' i ; ', -. : Prime tatmletiq :1MAdeA .. .. ''' 66 Ulm day loam,0 to 3 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 78 . .Weld loam 0to1 atcerd41 s 'Vt4t. Iarmrend4lhl !ed 79 Weld loam,1 to 3 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 81 •Wdey-ColbyaimpleJt,0'to 111arcent1slopes ":P'ri'me farmland if inigatetl '; H .' 52 Why-Colby complex,l to 3 percent slopes Prima farmland If irrigated 04 < Playas .• - Primabflntagddp„nitediedfrumiioodingornol . 1'. IregaefMkn*4ed:dudng the9iowlnOiasdn ill USDA Natural Resources aConservation Service Tabular Data Version:2 Tabular Data Version Date:10107/2004 Page 2 o1 2 S 11/01/2004 MON 10:23 [TX/RI NO 5371] a 004 • Carter° Burgess Consultants in Engineering,Architecture, Planning and the Environment MEMO TO: Boyd Byelich— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: September 4, 2007 MAILING ADDRESS: Longmont Service Center 9595 Nelson Road Ste D Longmont, CO 80501-6359 FROM: Shonna Sam SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS Project No.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Wendy Wallach; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North I-25 DE IS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Shonna Sam, AICP Carter& Burgess, Inc. Environmental Planner 303-223-5831 shonna.sam o(�c-b.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encom passes the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa F e (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east(Figure 1). Two multi-modal build packages(Packages A and B)are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement 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. Carter a Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 • Carter- burgess Consultants in Engineering,Architecture, Planning and the Environment MEMO TO: Jon Wicke— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: September 4, 2007 MAILING ADDRESS: Greeley Service Center 4302 West 9th Street Road Greeley, CO 80634-1317 FROM: Shonna Sam SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS Project No.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Wendy Wallach; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farm land that have been identified in the North 1-25 DE IS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Shonna Sam, AICP Carter& Burgess, Inc. Environmental Planner 303-223-5831 shonna.samac-b.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along I-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encom passes the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington N orthern and Santa Fe(BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad(UP RR) routes on the east(Figure 1). Two multi-modal build packages (Packages A and B)are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement 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. S Carter&Burgess.Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 23001 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 NRCS farmland Impact Memo August 2007 Page 3 Package A would include adding one additional general purpose lane in each direction for a total of eight total lanes on 1-25. The additional general purpose lanes would extend from SH 14 to the interchange of 1-2 5 with E-470 and Northwest Parkway. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a new double-tracked corn muter rail line along the BNSF railroad right-of-way from downtown Fort Collins to the 1st and Terry rail station in Longmont. Additionally a new double-tracked commuter rail line would be built along 119 that would go south along SH 7 to connect with the North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. 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 Denver Union Station and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport. Package B would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane to 1-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated lanes would be added. Tolled express lanes would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue in Thornton. Tolled express lanes would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll, and by bus rapid transit(BRT)vehicles. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would include 12 BRT 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, BRT service would be provided along E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport. IMPACT ANALYSIS Impacts were calculated in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) using soil data downloaded from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the limits of construction as determined by project design. Soils within Census 2000 urbanized areas and existing highway right-of-way were e xtracted from the dataset and excluded from analysis. The GIS files that contain the soil data, limits of construction, and calculated impacts are included on the CD attached to this memo. Impacts were assessed for each package by component(e.g., commuter rail, commuter bus, highway widening). As the project continues, components may be repackaged or selected individually for implementation. If repackaging results in additional impacts to farmland, revised data sets and NRCS-CPA-106 forms will be provided. The total impact to farmland associated with Package A is 982.3 acres(1.8 to Farmland of Local Importance, 44.4 to Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 936.1 to Prime Farmland if irrigated or drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the gro wing season). The total impact to farmland associated with Package B is 926.8 acres (1.7 to Farmland of Local Importance, 35.7 to Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 889.4 to Prime Farmland if irrigated or drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season). Because the project crosses county boundaries, coordination is required with multiple NRCS Service Centers. Each NRCS District Conservationist will receive only the impacts that occur within the counties under their jurisdictions. In Adams County, Package A would result in impacts to 30.1 acres of Prime Farmland if Irrigated. Package B would result in 70.2 acres of Prime Farmland if Irrigated. Impacts to any other Prime or Important Farmland classifications are not anticipated. It is important to note that impacts are primarily a result of widening the existing roadway/railway and do not constitute a new alignment through agricultural land. Acres required for the project are immediately adjacent to the existing highway/railway. Impacts that would occur in Adams County are shown by location in Figure 2 for Package A and Figure 3 Carter&Burgess.Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page 6 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo August 2007 0 FIGURE 3: DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS —PACKAGE B LEGEND li i ' del Adams County Boundary + _ Limits of Construction:Package B �.. h.�. _ Impacts to Prime Farmland if Irrigated `)• ��Highways - :1.i; lH}'-'}`I / �Arterial Roads I I �..- �J Water Bodies If i.L �,r r ...-r1--...SIT Erie � Fes: 1 ' _sa" ` rat Project Location Map > 702Acres .-_.,....1-43...a...-55--5,73S5.524-55477);i5., , . . 4111 Lafayette , - �- ' s� tee%* '�'4�s ''� + .# r �-& a ' r x Fr.Broomfield 7 ; .. n 1 Miles Ih *x ) North lenn J 0 1 9 Norin ter. . _= s Carter&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver.Colorado 80202 1303)820-5240 CSUnited States Department of Agriculture • N®ralResources Conservation Service 970-295-5650-Office Fort Collins Field Office 970-295-5668-Fax 2150 Centre Ave Building A,Ste 116 www.co.nres.usda.gov Fort Collins,Colorado 80526 todd.boldl@co.usda.gov Tuesday, October 09, 2007 Carter& Burgess, Inc 707 1701 Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Shonna Sam Subject: North 1-25 EIS Enclosed is the completed NRCS-CPA-106 for Larimer County- I apologize for the delay in getting this completed; I had an unexpected leave of absence. If you have questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, .� Todd D. Boldt District Conservationist Fort Collins Field Office The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,maintain,and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.t-el) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS d PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 8/28/07 greet i ci 1.Name of Project North I-25 EIS 5.FFNW l Agency Involved 2.type of Project Transportation 6.County and State BoulderBroomfield,Colorado PART II (To be completed by MRCS' 1.Dale Request ecely d by NRCS 2. Person Completin9 F rrnm p q 67 O-7 j� G L( C/) 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? A. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size YES NO (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). 3/, /a3 / .CY 5. Major Crop(s) / 6. Formable Land in Goverrnmert Jurisdiction 7. Amount of F rmland As Defined in FPPA' 6.02A/ 4 L F��.i-4 Acres: 107) C�7 ? % 3 Acres: f0 c:,?,6 ;b S. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 2. Name of Local Site Asse s ent System 10 Data Land Evaluation Returned by NRC l\f/ VVr 9 Alternative Corridor For Segment PART Ill(To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Aces To Be Converted Directly 72 91 R. Tota Acres To Be Converted indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 20 C. Total Acres In Corridor 72 111 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information �yQ A. Total Acres Prime And Jnique Farmland CO `b u B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted +er417 r'_i2 ,-et3rQ °l0 D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value ?/ S ' .- //5 9c PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation information Criterion Relative 0< --7 —^-7 value of Farmland to Re Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) /---', / 7.-)s f/ PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained!n 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points Si. Area in Nonurban Use 15 10 12 2. Perimeter InNonurban Use 10 5 10 �3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 3 6 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10 5 , 5 6. Creation Of Nonfarmabte Farmland 25 0 21 7. Avaitablility Ot Farm Support Services 5 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 4 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 43 74 0 I 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 c` j • /-9—r-7--) r Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local s to 163 assessment) 43 74 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 111i313,-7 0 I I,1%1 0 0 1. Corridor Selected. 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Or Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project. YES ❑ NO 0 5. Reason For Selection: Signature of Person Completing this Part. IDATE isNOTE:Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor / U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 f Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev 1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 8128107 I4 Sheet I ol_ 1.Name of Project North I-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and State Weld County,Colorado i PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by NRCS 2.pPe`rson CompleIyynnng Form t• • 9- 5--DRry.y7Man frlgeFawze i 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm SizeSize (If no,the FPPA does not aYES NO ❑ 3.z6r`f 9 y /SA wp apply-Do not complete atldilional parts of•this form). G P 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FP A BeenI cU c -(a�54Vs/ L4,1,023/41-Acres: 87.8,10I X ,37 Acres: 4878 /o / %3'-7 B. Na e t Land/Evaluation yste sed9. Name of Local Si A sessment Sy ter 10. Dale Land Evaluatign Returned by NRCS /44-LVW r e e.S4tEL4fw'Ski, fel /O C. ConJ4 Pea rie oar d/-6- 08 PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 313 285 B. Total Acres 7o Be Converted Indirectly.Or To Receive Services 40 40 C. Total Acres In Corridor 353 325 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 2-s.c. 9 '.-a 43 e 2 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland • . 27. 3 - at. 9 • C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted 0.400 y.` 0 iove7'] D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 0, copy p.:6 0037 PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative O n S value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of0-100 Points) O / O PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(0) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 14 14 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 9 9 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 17 17 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10, 2 2 6. Creation Of Nonfarmabte Farmland 25 15 15 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 77 82 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 B..' 8S Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 77 82 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 -rt 1 ,4 /_f 16 } 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: YES 0 NO ❑ 5. Reason For Selection: Signature of Person Completing this Part: 'DATE NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor C C.. • U.S.Department Federal Highway Administration Of Transportation 555 Zang Street,Room 250 Lakewood,CO 80228-1040 Federal Transit Administration 216 Sixteenth Street,Suite 650 Denver,CO 80202.5120 April 20,2004 Ms.Maxine Natchees,Chairwoman Umtah and Ouray Tribal Business Committee P.O.Box 190 Ft.Duchesne,UT 84026 Dear Ms.Natchees: Subject: Request for Section 106 Consultation,North I-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement,Adams, Boulder,Broomfield,Denver,Jefferson,Latimer and Weld Counties,Colorado The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)andFederal Transit Administration(PTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(COOT)and Regional Transportation District(RTD),are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)on a proposal to address transportation demand along a segment of Interstate 25 between Denver and Fort Collins,Colorado(please refer to the enclosed maps). Improvements to this severely congested corridor,as well as portions of adjacent and closely related roadways and other transportation corridors,are needed in order to address substandard capacity and safety conditions in a fast-growing environment Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations(40 CFR 15004508),FHWA,FTA and CDOT are documenting the potential social,economic and environmental consequences of this action in an EIS. The agencies are seeking the participation of regional tribal governments as described in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act implementing regulations 36 O1'R 800 et seq. As a consulting party,you are offered the opportunity to identify traditional cultural and religious properties,evaluate significance of these properties and how the project might affect them. Further,if it is found that the project will impact cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and are of religious or cultural significance to your tribe,your role in the consultation process would include participation in resolving how best to avoid,minimire,or mitigate those impacts. If you have interest in this project and in cultural resources that may be of religious or cultural significance to your tribe,we invite you to be a consulting party. n 3 Ralf t al1CK EeP AMERICA • FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • SECTION 106 TRIBAL CONSULTATION INTEREST RESPONSE FORM • PROJECT: North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement The Tribe[is/is not](circle one)interested in becoming a consulting party for the Colorado Department of Transportation project referenced above,for the purpose of complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). If your tribe will be a consulting party,please answer the questions below. Signed: Name and Title CONSULTING PARTY STATUS 136 CFR§800.2(cx3)] Do you know of any specific sites or places to which your tribe attaches religious and cultural significance that may be affected by this project? Yes No If yes,please explain the general nature of these places and how or why they are significant(use additional pages if necessary). Locational information is not required. SCOPE OP IDENTIFICATION EFFORTS[36 CFR§800.4(a)(4)] Do you have information you can provide us that will assist us in identifying sites or places that may be of religious or cultural significance to your tribe? i • Yes No If yes,please explain. CONFIDENTIALITY OP INFORMATION[36 CFR§800.11(c)] Is there any information you have provided here,or may provide in the future,that you wish to remain confidential? Yes No If yes,please explain. Please complete and return this form within 60 days via US Mail or fax to: Dan Jepson,Section 106 Native American Liaison Colorado Department of Transportation Environmental Programs Branch 4201 E.Arkansas Ave. Denver,CO 80222 FAX:(303)757-9445 • . MR WILLIAM L PEDRO MR JOB BIG MEDICINE • NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE NAOPRA REPRESENTATIVE MR ALONZO SANKEY CHEYENNE&ARAPAHO TRIBES CHEYENNE&ARAPAHO TRIBES NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE OF OKLAHOMA OF OKLAHOMA CHEYENNE&ARAPAHOE TRIBES/OKLA PO BOX 41 500 S LEACH,APT36 P.O.BOX 836 CONCHO OK 73022 WATONGA OK 73772 CANTON,OK 73724 MR GORDON YELLOWMAN MR GILBERT BRADY NHPA/TRANSPORTATION PLANNER TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVEREND GEORGE DAINGKAU CHEYENNE&ARAPAHO TRIBES/OKLA OFFICER NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE ROADS CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE • KIOWA TRIBE OP OKLAHOMA PO BOX 137 P.O.BOX 128 II8 N STEPHENS CONCHO OK 73022 LAME DEER MT 59043 HOBART OK 73015 MR JIMMY ARTERBERRY MRROBBRTGOGOLBS MR HOWARD BROWN,CHAIR THPO/NAGPRA-DIRECTOR NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COMANCHE NATION OF OK NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE NORTHERN ARAPAHOE TRIBE PO BOX 908 LAWTON OK 73502 PO BOX 396 PG BOX 9079 FORT WASHAKIE,WY 82514 ARAPAHOE,WY 82510 MS ALICE ALEXANDER MR NEIL CLOUD MS BETSY CHAPOOSE,DIRECTOR NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE CULTURAL RIGHTS&PROTECTION TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION CULTURE PRESERVATION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICER,PAWNEE NATION/OKLA SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE NORTHERN UTE TRIBE PO BOX 470 P.O.BOX 737 PO BOX 190 PAWNEE,OK 74058 IGNACIO,CO 81137 FT DUCHESNE UT 84026 MR TERRY()KNIGHT MR JIM PICOTTB TIM MENTZ NAOPRA REPRESENTATIVE NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE INDIAN TRIBE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCE PLANNER PO BOX 102 PO BOX 590 PO BOX TOWAOC,CO 81334 EAGLE BUTTE,SD 57625 FT YATES,ND 58538 •' TERRY GRAY (ROSEBUD SIOUX) NAGPRA 000RDINATOR SGU HERITAGE CENTER BOX 576 MISSION,SD 57566 List of Individuals Who Received Copies of Letter based on Tribe rw • CJ.$,.Dep ' eat Colorado Federal Aid Division Of.J`ta'pstion. 555 Zang Street,Room 250 �$e4er 't . 5vay Lakewood,CO 80228-1040 Admit i ira$0n tcsru::Ey:mil July 20,2004 tms:;jo:Y M3.Blaine At¢itty Cotmeil Representative Whit04esa:Ute Tribe P4)439,541994 wlsite;Meea,UT 84511 Dear.Ms.Atzitty; Subject: Request for Section 106 Consultation,North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement,Adams, Boulder,Broomfield,Denver,Jefferson,I.arimer and Weld Counties,.Colorado Thank,you for.yaur request fora.eopyof ourApril 20,.2004,.consultation letter. We are *toeing elite copy with:a complete recipient list;location map,and tribal interest response forth. M noted,the purpose of the letter is to request participation of regional tribal governments in consultation as required by Section 106 the National Historic Preservation Ace. • We look.forward to your response. If you have.any questions.or comments,please contact Mr. MlebeetVandethoof..Environmental Program Manager,at 720-963-3013,or Mr.Dan Jepson, C9torado Department oflransportation,et 303.757-9631. Sincerely yours, 72? 4df t/cr�,4m tt /n Douglas Bennett Acting Division Administrator Enclostlr(rs cc.. 'MS..7oitp Walla c,FHWA. Mr.Dave Beckhouse,PTA 'Mt..Daniel:Jepson,CDOT Env. Programs/ Ms.Carol Patr,CDOT Region 4 Env. Mr.Torn Anzia,PHU Ms.Gina McAfee,C-B istat f U L, 'AMERICA. • t1,S.Department Colorado Federal Aid Division Qf Transportation 12300 W.Dakota Ave.,Ste. ISO Federal:Highway Lakewood, CO 80228-1040 Adtnitusfration July 23,2004 File: 14276, 13599 Mr.'Gordon Yellowman NHPA/Transportation Planner Cheyenne.3nd Arapahoe Tribes of Ol<laboJna Roads Cons6rstetion Program 13* 13.7 (lunclo;"OK 73T24 Subject: Ikegttesc:for:t ection 4O6 Gonsultationi-Noitb 1-25 F:ronoilso'ge•l nviroiinrental ImpaetStatementrAdants, Boulder,l3roonifield,Denver,Jefferson,Lorimer and Weld Counties,Colorado RequestfOr Section.lt)fi:Gonsaltation,Interstate 70 tag Corridor Environmental Impact Statement, Adams,Arapahoe and Denver Counties, Colorado Dear Mr. Yellowman: Thank,you for your request for a copy of the April 20, 2004 consultation letters for our North 125.Front Range, and 170 Cast Corridor Projects. We have enclosed a file copy with a • t:omplet :retipierztIiat,location map,and tribal.interest response!brat for each project. As note..d;,,thg::ptteposesof the letters are to request.participation of regional tribal governments in anitsaitation as iequired by'Section I06 the National Historic Preservation Act. Weiookfonvard.to your response. If you have any questions or comments please contact Mr. Michael Vauderhoof,Enihronmentaf Program Manager at(720)963--3013 or Mr-.Dan Jepson;Colorado Department of Transportation at(303)757-9631. ✓ �yati`1J b,14.77 iitr�P<ac ! U� lr /ry Douglas Bennett Acting Division Engineer .13nolosures. c,; Ms.Jean Wallace,FHW Mr.(l,icliony PI'ZWA 'Mr Unyu Beddrnuse,F'RA OW;tDi;ilWepstin,COOT:Brie:Pregame ys Cant Pu:4(110T!ration4.r&.. Ol iacnrcc,C-13 ':i1s,Snnree Cult,CbOT'Reeicn 6 ISB.tl • I'VIII lOYYY 1� 1. '1Ltlu po V.IrV ♦M i•:it •:•r• . Alltre 20D1 16:20 0111-031 ENPII0M5PA1 PAN 6tkl t101f51tnlii 145' P 0O/001 F-455 FED$RA.BIM1WlrAYADMINISTRATtON/COLOR.A[IODEPARt'M ?Pf1 OF TRANSPORTATION 6SCTs0'N 146 TRIBAL CONSULTATIONfffFEB.ERT RESPONSE FORM RRQI)8G'I 1t.pnh1.25FmntRanalitauu menSImpaecStatateot Tboa t ASr • �N/dt- . Tribe 7h out](earth eve)mtcrest&w beeomiuga onsuIt eing paddtth foe CaToxado Dcpnimentof Trrinsponation project referenced above.for the purpose of oannp1yragwithSeetloa146n0&oNatiOnali enicPreseevat(ouActauditsintplatoentiagmgniolioas(S6CFR SOD) Ifytiaf etvi3tbeaeoasa7imgpatty please wtttLegteestionsbtiow. Signet TffpO' N and Title CONSULTING PARTY STA1x1S[36 en i800,2(c)(3)1 Do miaow aow of any specific sites orplaces w which your tribe attaches religious aunt cultural siymificance that nmybaaatfectatl by t/th project, to .� If yait ppoace explain theseerrel taw these plates mad how or why they am / digaifit ent(useadditIomai pages if eeenaaty).Locadonal information is not required. St; ug1116N1lgcKnon RFFOnS[36 Cm$800A(dt(4)] De la htealrifsmetfanyolx-dstt ptorida to trim will assist min ideafifying sites or places that may be of seltiaasur witch sigat:fcanee ta.ydertribe? Yes a ffyes,please explain. • COrnagPITIkkIrtY OPNEORMATfON(86 CF12 i800.11(c)1 Is them auy'ipfpmation you bye ptavf d-ate,or may provide in the future,that you wish w tamale tde0tie(7 ".-.•a ,No Ifyasr,�P�lease anowd tea" it s&W u S S .ea�_ Rill y4" — 4 a. dd,-, ,Msy ""'9 - net,- or' #. .ec gen./•i'4° Pleasetetop(eteaid retort this iben within 60 days via OS Ma or Fax to; Dsr.epsop,Sedtaa106NativeArnericam raisam COloiado begavnehtaf Ttenspatalion Etiviiatmi4*Pitgt ra a1 era 4401:6;AdraBsas I . > iiiv eo 10.* Tvl iii0*14445 e p* ♦ M Ott t. 4 4:-:'(P% - 4 i tti ' • FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 106 TRIBAL CONSULTATION INTEREST RESPONSE FORM RkOTE..1.4: Ninth-la-Front Range Environmental Impact Statement The.:$ .4i1th•Eir'tul t3'i'E. Tizt(3 Tube as is boll(circle one)interested in becoming a eo(isitlthig(ti tyforthetColorado Depattmeut ofTranspottaion project referenced above,for the purpose of comgLyThg.withSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 80O):HyOnntritie will be a consulting party,please answer the questions below. Signed:/VC,I,. &. CLorjD--IVAr.r'rft'• r..00N Name and Title CONSULTING PAkt?.SPATUs[36 CPR 480D.2(o)(3)] Do:you khow.pf.any specific sites or places to winch your tribe attaches religious and cultural significance that maybe affectecHsy fins project? "'Yes No If yes,please explain the general nature of these places and how or why they are significant(use additional pages if necessary). Locational information is not required. Wes_ t+.4,,v-top Ernie scasie-s ' 'R' ' /PJ 7Wo ,& AQr,,5_ SPOPBOF.'IDDN1pICATION EFFORTS{3G CM§80UA(a)(4)] Do you biiv'emf'otmtttign you can p'rovide•us that.will assist us in identifying sites or places that may be of reeligions.or significance to your tribe? Yes C) If yes,please explain. • tON IDEN71ALITY Of INFO,RMATION[36 CFR 4800.11(8)] is;Thereinyibforination you have provided here,or may provide in the future,that you wish to remain obrifideittaal? Yes No If yes,please explain. / F ) 'oa hits-- .t& CC2jd}tnt A4&t\ 5 )'C F'v/ft t,.-eg.p'7En;74 . CotdE& I4ti r1/2 au Rct'tAle N S „ Please complete and return this form within 60 days via US Mail or fax to: Dan Jepson,Sectipn 106 Native American Liaison CdlaradoDepartmen't of Transportation .En.vironmental,P,tpprams Branch. 4201 E Ma isas Ave. D'eaver,;CO:80222 'FYsX;?F3Q3)757=4445 • • • Ms.Contiguglia • January 29,2007 Page 2 abandoned Union Pacific Railroad tracks near Erie. The APE includes the existing railroad tracks and ROW along the existing BNSF tracks. There are several areas along the BNSF alignment where curves will be slightly realigned. In those areas the APE includes the adjoining parcels. From Longmont to the south and east,the APE includes the parcels within a 300-ft.corridor along the proposed new alignment. Oueue Jumps—Bus Rapid Transit The APE for the queue jump improvements occur along three highways:US 85 from Platteville through Evans;US 34 from SH 257 to US 85;and SH 68 between 1-25 and US 287. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance. As with the North I-25 corridor,in instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity beyond the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150 ft.buffer,that property was also included within the APE. There are proposed queue jumps to accommodate the commuter bus on US 85,and on US 34 to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit. Most of these queue jumps will be improvements within the existing right-of-way. For improvements associated with queue jumps outside the existing right-of-way,we will include the adjacent first-tier properties. We request your review of and agreement with the APE boundary(ies)as discussed above and represented on the enclosed maps. Your response is necessary for CDOT's and FHWA's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. If you require additional information,please contact CDOT Acting Staff Historian Robert Autobee at(303)757-9758. Very truly ydurs, • " Brad Beckham,Manager . . Environmental Programs Branch Enclosure:APE maps cc: Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Gina McAfee,Carter&Burgess Melinda Castillo,Fli WA File/CF • • • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch '', +OT Shumate Building , -- - 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado B0222 marAlt raft OrIanwrcmAnw (303)757-9259 May I,2007 Tom Vaughn,Museum Director Berthoud Historic Preservation Commission P.O.Box 225 Berthoud,CO 80513 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Vaughn: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(ELS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaldng subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Berthoud Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(1)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 condor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North I-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150=foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. • • Mr.Vaughn May 1,2007 Page 3 Very truly yours, '- r B�Beckham,Manager Environmental Programs Branch Enclosure:Map of Study Area cc: Carol Parr,CD DT Region 4 Melinda Urban,PHWA Wendy Wallach,Carter Burgess Carol Legard,ACHP Georgianna Contiguglia,Colorado SHPO F/CF • • • • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch Pri. OT Shumate Building _ 4201 East Arkansas Avenue T-- Denver,Colorado 80222 (303)757-9259 oevurwevrermnnivinAnee May I,2007 Karen McWilliams Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission Fort Collins Advance Planning Dept. 281 N.College Ave. Fort Collins,CO 80524 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.McWilliams: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4701)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Fort Collins LandmarkPreservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3()(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • F • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pr Environmental Programs Branch OT Shumate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 00222 va,zmoa OF inusbernTnn (303)7579259 May 1,2007 Tonya Haas Broomfield Historic Landmark Board 1 Descombes Drive Broomfield,CO 80020 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Vaughn: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(PTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(COOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the 1-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Broomfield Historic Landmark Board the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(0(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties, Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 846 Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7+ Environmental Programs Branch ,!- 1Ol Shumate Building - 4201 EastArkansas Avenue eaminimam Denver,Colorado 00222 °MA MMY0rnAA**0fTATION (305)757.9259 May 1,2007 Ms.Barbara Pahl National Trust for Historic Preservation Mountains/Plains Office 535 16i°Street,Suite 750 Denver,CO 80202 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Pahl: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(COOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470O and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the National Trust for Historic Preservation the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(0(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE.Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • • • : STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch ' •OT Shumate Building --- 4201 East Arkansas Avenue usenniam Denver,Colorado 80222 IMPARTMENT OF TPN SFORTAl1OX (303)757-9259 May 1,2007 Greg George Loveland Historic Preservation Commission 500 E.3'd St. Loveland,CO 80537 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.George: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4709 and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Loveland Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(9(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84d'Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. • • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch Ir C l OT Shumate Building - - 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 otYnmewrwnuaraar noa (303)757-9259 May I,2007 Betsy Kellums Greeley Historic Preservation Commission City of Greeley Museums 714 8th Street Greeley,CO 80631 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Kellums: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FM),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4700 and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Greeley Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(0(1)of the regulation. -_ Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along 1-25 from 84ib Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0\ Environmental Programs Branch , s OT Shumate Bulking 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 (303)757-9259 ovAarNwrarw,rsroarA May 1,2007 Denise Grimm Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board Boulder County Land Use Dept. P.O.Box 471 Boulder,CO 80306 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Grimm: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4700 and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential:effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section • 800.3(0(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84'h Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • • aat. City of Fort Lupton "' 4„ Planning and Building -r tan an Department AtteimikWilty0M Sent X303)857-6696 x 125 Ton Parka,Planning Director Fax(303)857-0351 1308.MciGnlayAvenue a inat roarkoetawpla,.org Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 h1tp/Nnva.orduplon.org June 26,2007 Brad Beckham,Manager Environmental Programs Branch Colorado Department of Transportation Shumate Building 4201 E Arkansas Ave Denver,CO 80222 Mr.Beckham; The Historic Preservation Board for the City of Fort Lupton has reviewed the proposed multi- modal transportation improvements along US Highway 85. • Upon review of the application the Board finds that there are no conflicts with the Fort Lupton Preservation Plan or applicable Municipal Codes with regard to Historic Preservation. The Board would like the Colorado Department of Transportation to be aware that the South Platte Valley Historical Society owns prvp..'ty that serves as a Historic Park and includes several historic structures. The Board requests that access to and from this Park not be hindered by this proposed project If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 303/857-6694 ext 125 or tpari oafortlupton.ori. �`h „ige 0 Tom Padco Planning Director • • COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver,Colorado 20203.2137 August 21, 2007 Brad Bcckham Manager, Environmental Programs Branch Colorado Department of Transportation Environmental Programs Branch 4201 Fast Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO 80222 • Re: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement: Determinations of Eligibility. (CHS#42346) Dear Mr.Beckham, • Thank you for your correspondence dated August 1,2007 and received by our office on that same date regarding the consultation of the above-mentioned project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(Section 106). After review of the provided information,we have additional questions regarding the resources listed below. • 5WL.5205. According to the site form the chimney is located in the center of the roof of the main section. This chimney placement strongly suggests that the house conforms to the saddlebag type,which features a central chimney flanked by rooms, This example appears to feature the central chimney with a hipped with ridge roof. The additions appear to be within the historic period and do not overwhelm the house. In our opinion, the property has the potential of being eligible as a good representative example of a saddlebag type residence. • 5WL.5201. We do not concur that this resource is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP). In our opinion,the property is a good representative example of the I-House type featuring the Gothic Revival style. The rear addition does not appear to overwhelm the historic character-defining features of the house. While the agricultural setting has been lost, the historic setting around the house still appears to be intact. Therefore,we feel the property is eligible under National Register Criterion C for architecture. • 5WL3146.1. No official determination has been made by the SHPO for the entire ditch. The submitted site form states that the SHPO officially concurred with a finding of not eligible for the entire ditch in 2001. Item 17 of that form states that the evaluation of the • entire ditch is a field determination and not an official SHPO determination. The entire ditch has not been surveyed nor evaluated. The 2001 evaluation was for the segment 11/29/2007 TAU 23:43 [TX/RX NO 6937] [1002 • regardless of the value of any existing structure." Was the townsite of St. Vrains significant at the local level for its history? We concur with the findings of eligibility for the bridges within the Area of Potential Effects as presented in your cover letter and in the survey report. We concur that resource 5 WL.2985 is eligible and listed on the NRHP on October 15,2002. In regards to resource 5LR.11396/Einarsen Farm,we concur that this resource is eligible under National Register Criterion C. Was the resources evaluated under National Register Criterion A for significance in agriculture? The resource features the main house,agricultural outbuildings, and farmed fields that can convey and represent the historic association of agriculture. Item 44 on the site forms for resources 5WL.5267,5WL.5272,and 5WL.5274 was not marked. From the narratives and the survey report we were able to determine that the evaluation for these resources under item 44 was"not eligible." Staff has marked the forms accordingly. We request being involved in the consultation process with the local government,which as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.3 is required to be notified of the undertaking,and with other consulting parties. Additional information provided by the local government or consulting parties might cause our office to re-evaluate our eligibility and potential effect findings. Please note that our compliance letter does not end the 30-day review period provided to other • consulting parties. If we may be of further assistance,please contact Amy Pallante,our Section 106 Compliance Coordinator,at(303)866-4678. Sincerely, ' �1 „,Ak w %4 Georgianna Contiguglia State Historic Preservation Officer • North 1-25 215:Determinations of Eligibility 3 August 21,2007 CFIS 442346 11/29/2007 THU 23:43 [TX/RX NO 69371 2004 Ms.Contiguglia • October 4,2007 Page 3 5WL5308.1:Your office requested additional information regarding the history of the New Thomas Lake Feeder Ditch and its relationship to New Thomas Lake. Archival research indicates that the ditch functions as a supply ditch to both Thomas Lake(built in 1891)and New Thomas Lakc,which was built between 1949 and 1979. Research also indicates that the portion of the ditch west of Interstate 25 was built c. 1891,and the ditch to the east of the highway was built c. 1965. CDOT has determined that the entire ditch is not eligible to the NRHP and that the segment in the project area lacks integrity. We request your concurrence with the additional information and determinations of eligibility outlined herein. If you have questions or require additional information in order to complete your review,please contact CDOT Senior Staff Historian Lisa Schoch at(303)512-4258. Very truly yours, i 3 Brad Beckham,Manager Environmental Programs Manager Enclosures: Revised site forms cc: FiIeIR • • Mr.Nichols October 6,2008 Page 2 • a determination of effects for National Register of Historic Places(NRHP)-eligible properties within the I-25 North project corridor at a later date. Eligibility Determinations 5BL10636,Boggs Residence, 122 81°Avenue: This structure was initially constructed in 1939 and appears to have been a rental property since the mid-I960s. The house displays elements of the hipped- roof box style with an arcaded porch and stucco walls indicating a Mediterranean influence. These style elements are unusual for Longmont residences built during the mid-201h century. There is no historically significant individual or event associated with this location. CDOT has determined that 5BL 10636 is not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP)under Criterion A. Despite the introduction of new windows along the basement level during the past 20 years,the Boggs house has retained much of its original integrity and is eligible to the NRHP under Criterion C as a good example of the hipped-roof box style. 5BL9186,833 Baker Street: Cultural Resource Historians,Inc. (CRH) initially surveyed this property as part of the City of Longmont East Side Neighborhood Historic Context and Survey Report and recommended 5BL9I86 as not eligible to the NRHP in May 2003. Modifications to the front porch,the introduction of a garage and new siding since the mid-1970s has altered the structure's original integrity. There are no historically notable individuals or events associated with this residence. CDOT concurs with the previous recommendation that 5BL9186 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. 5BL9187,841 Baker Street: CRH initially surveyed this property as part of the City of Longmont East • Side Neighborhood Historic Context and Survey Report and recommended the residence as not eligible to the NRHP in May 2003. Built in 1961, 5BL9187 is in residential neighborhood dominated by houses dating from the early 20th century. There are no significant historic events or individuals associated with 58L9187 and the property displays poor physical integrity. CDOT concurs with the earlier recommendation that 5BL9187 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. 5BL10637,Carlson Farm, 11120 Vermilion Road: This 155-acre property has been in agricultural production since the early 20th century, but there is no association with any notable historic figure and event in local history. The removal of the original farmhouse for a modern residence during the last decade,and the re-use of the silo as a telecommunication antenna support, has altered the site's original historic integrity. Because there is no association to any historically significant individual or event,and the severity of the alternations to the integrity of the original farm site,CDOT has determined that 5BL10637 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. 5LR12015, 1933 S.County Road 15: The main house associated with this Berthoud farm site was built in 1915 and underwent remodeling during 2002. There is little detailed information on the property's ownership over the last century. The gradual loss of the surrounding farm acreage to new tract housing has severely altered this site's original historic setting and feeling. For these reasons,CDOT has determined that 5LR 12015 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. We request your concurrence with this additional information and determinations of eligibility outlined herein and on the enclosed forms. Your response is necessary for the Federal Highway Administration's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. December 1, 2006 Greg Monroe Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Monroe, Carter& Burgess, Inc. has been retained by the Colorado Department of Transportation to provide environmental consulting services to complete a transportation study and environmental documentation for the North 1-25 DEIS project. The project runs from Denver Union Station to Wellington along 1-25. As part of the environmental impact assessment prodess we consider the impacts to parks, recreations areas, trails, and any other parcels that have received Land and Water Conservation funding. We have attached maps and tables that identify the parks and open space areas that are adjacent to the project alternatives. We would appreciate confirm whether or not any Land and Water Conservation Funds [6(f)] were used at any • of these locations. A map or land description to accompany any results would be useful. Please respond at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 303-820-4807 or email me at Wendy.WallachAc-b.com. Sincerely, 'Atra9 v Wendy Wallach, AICP Carter& Burgess, Inc. attachments 2 �J Cc: Gina McAfee, Thor Gjelsteen D, EC a U v E DEC - 7 2006 D FELSBURG, HOLT&ULLEVIG J:\_Transportation1071609.400\working\Wendy\120106_6fLetter.doc $ t NORTH I-25 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. March 8, 2007 Greg Monroe Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Monroe, This letter serves as follow up to previous letters sent to you on December 1, 2006 and January 22, 2007 regarding the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In the email you sent to Diana Bell of Carter& Burgess on January 2, 2007, you indicated that, of the park properties we sent to you, you found only three sites where Land and Water Conservation Funds(LWCF)were used: Pearson Park in Fort Lupton, Grant Park in Northglenn, and Riverside Park in Evans. In a later phone call, you confirmed that these three park properties were the only park and trail facilities that received LWCF funding, of those listed in the tables we provided in the correspondence mentioned above. In reviewing the locations of these parks relative to potential impact areas, we determined that none of the transportation build alternatives currently under study would require land from any of • these properties. I've attached a map that shows the property boundary for Grant Park in relation to proposed impact areas. Pearson Park and Riverside Park are located more than 8 and 14 miles, respectively, from any areas where new right-of-way would be required. Please indicate your concurrence that the build alternatives would not impact properties where LWCF monies were used by signing below and returning to me at the address listed above. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 303-820-4807 or email me at Wendv.Wallach@c- b.com. Sincerely, Wendy Wallach, AICP Carter&Burgess, Inc. attachment Cc: Gina McAfee, Thor Gjelsteen • State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,A\ D Off' Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537-8885 onwTeeir OF711,031.01ITATIOU January 21,2004 Aaron Linstrom,Terrestrial Biologist Colorado Division of Wildlife Denver Service Center and Northeast Region Office 6060 Broadway Denver,CO 80216 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr. Linstrom: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North I-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • I. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely- David M. Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. 1-25 Front Range EIS • cc: Project File • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES [nfuruia'tion cooperation Iranspr Pauan Air Quality:Nitrogen Deposition Meeting February 20, 2007 2 of 5 6. Does FHWA only look at construction impacts? Will alternative-fueled vehicles be discussed? Gina described the impact analysis and mitigation commitment process—and the RTA discussions. 7. Will the component analysis look at each component as it stands on its own—or as a cumulative standpoint? 8. Local jurisdictions can implement mitigation like imposing use fees for vehicles as they enter a city center. 9. Gina described the SIP boundaries, the travel patterns, and travel time savings of the Tolled Express Lanes(40 minutes compared to SOVs). 10. Vanpools are a viable option for this area. Could this be something the project could do? Purchase vans? • 11. Will our ridership be able to take advantage of the FasTracks corridors? 12. What does the BNSF think about us using their right-of-way? There have been no discussions with them recently. They typically do not interfere in planning studies. There is no reason to think now that there will be an issue. 13. Karl Cordova from RMNP provided a brief discussion of the nitrogen deposition situation (see attached). Ozone is also an issue that will be addressed in the ozone EAC. The increasing NOx is affecting algae, plant species, composition, and variety of species. RMNP has initiated an MOU process with APCD and EPA. The Park is now looking at sources of NOx. The weather conditions bring air masses from the east which deposit gases in the park. Potential sources come from the east. The Park also in looking at their own operations. Suspected sources are: ► NOx ► Ammonia 14. Jill Schlaefer described the air quality analysis we will do from a transportation conformity standpoint. Both Larimer County and Weld County are projected to grow noticeably. Farmland is decreasing. The transportation analysis will look at VMT, speeds, EMIT (air quality), and hot spot analysis for CO and PM10. For the RMNP analysis, we will need to look at NOx and PM1o. NOx emissions will be dropping due to increase emissions controls, even though there will • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES :nlormation cooperation tianspr ,a,,on Air Quality:Nitrogen Deposition Meeting February 20, 2007 4 of 5 transportation and widened highways make this a more attractive place to live and work? Will there be less development if no transportation improvements at all are made? 25. In the cumulative impacts analysis,we will need to look at the cumulative impacts of all reasonable foreseeable changes to NOx deposition and ammonia. Can we commit to mitigation in concert with the NRDP strategies and indicate which entity would have responsibility for implementation? 26. In California, there is a similar situation with SH 99 and adjacency to Class 1 areas (Yosemite) and livestock. We could look at what the CARB is requiring there. 27. All participants are invited to come to the upcoming committee meetings: ► Land Use—May 10 1:30 p.m. (Technical Advisory Committee) 3:00 p.m. (Regional Coordination Committee—Policy-makers) • ► Air Quality—July 12 1:30 p.m. (Technical Advisory Committee) 3:00 p.m. (Regional Coordination Committee—Policy-makers) 28. Will Package A increase development overall since it adds improvements to three corridors? From a nitrogen deposition perspective, is it better to have development spread out? Package A does have more potential for TOC. It goes along the older established communities and fits with their development plans to strengthen the city cores. Package B addresses more of the development along 1-25. 29. Lisa Silva discussed possible mitigation strategies. ► VMT reduction (NOV lanes, rail, buses) ► VMT reduction (no vehicles zones, bicycles lanes or trails, pedestrian friendly, access to natural areas) ► Roundabouts instead of signalized intersections ► ITS (queue jumps, etc.) 30. The St. George"Smart Growth"chapter findings could be shared with the TAC/RCC. CDOT or FHWA could discuss mitigation to assist with city or county planning. The DEIS should acknowledge the interest of land use from the NFRMPO. • • .r4 it . J u y to v. F 2 8 _- v 0 1 (-14 4.1 o T e� � �1 gypp,, ttp Zr2101Qf `� 0 I m a) ›.. ec, _ i (1, kL _ O c c rb 1 < w O N 0 iv O• O R h , c c o = I) C " y0 O + • a�IL E a `,c, 6- t' „ -1' -S � C cn /©� .w cL� ILA ZaM ,� - U 4. � cv SC h O U i_ 'a 1- " r LLI E N Cr N N I 1 S ''' 2 .-t_ \‘‘-1 g) (,- g 1/4 1 \ 114 � CZ Z "IDA 1 E r J • STATE OF COLORADO . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four ,• I OT 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT or TRANSPORTATION December 8,2006 Ms. Kirstie Nixon Director Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street, Room 118 Lakewood, CO 80214-1497 Re: CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Ms. Nixon: Attached please find the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort Collins. • Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nouvenedot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, 41/17 Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT), S.Olson(CDOT), T. Anzia(FHU)J. Sharps (FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ I OT Region Four • 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 8, 2006 Mr. Rick Archer Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street, Room 118 Lakewood, CO 80214-1497 Re: CDOT's North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Mr.Archer: Attached please find the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort Collins. • Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nouvenedot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez (CDOT), S. Olson (CDOT), T. Anzia (FHU)J. Sharps(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four , O• T 2207 East Highway 402 " - " -"� - ---- Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DewnTnmar of TRANSPORTATION December 8, 2006 Mr. Dan Wells Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street, Room 118 Lakewood, CO 80214-1497 Re: CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Mr.Wells: Attached please find the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort Collins. • Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nouvendot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, /17 Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT), S. Olson (CDOT), T.Anzia (FHU)J. Sharps(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" • NORTHI-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . APPENDIX C Supplemental Resource Information • Land Use • Environmental Justice • • Noise • Wildlife • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • • Noma' I-25 El EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Land Use • • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Memorandum LAND USE CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS • Prepared by: JE JACOBS • October 2008 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information. cooperation. transportatim. Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Land Use Planning In The Regional Study Area 3 2.1 Local Government Planning 3 2.2 Local Government Comprehensive Plans 4 2.3 Regional Planning 15 3.0 Existing Land Use and Zoning 17 3.1 Corridors 17 3.1.1 US 85 Corridor 17 3.1.2 1-25 Corridor 21 3.1.3 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor 25 3.1.4 Connector Corridors 27 3.1.5 Corridor Zoning 30 3.2 Facilities 31 3.2.1 Commuter Bus Stations 31 3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Stations 33 3.2.3 Commuter Rail Stations 37 • 3.2.4 Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance Facilities 40 3.2.5 1-25 Interchange Upgrade Locations 41 4.0 Future Land Use 47 4.1 US 85 Corridor 47 4.2 1-25 Corridor 49 4.3 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor 49 5.0 Environmental Consequences 51 5.1 No-Action Alternative 51 5.2 Package A 52 5.3 Package B 57 5.4 Mitigation Measures 62 Appendices: Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts Evaluation Appendix B: Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Bus Stations Appendix C: Land Use and Zoning Maps Bus Rapid Transit Stations Appendix D: Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Rail Stations Appendix E: Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance • Use Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Maps Interchange Upgrade Locations NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation. transportation. • List of Figures Page No. Figure 1: North 1-25 Regional Study Area 2 Figure 2: Transportation Planning Regions/Metropolitan Planning Organizations 16 Figure 3: North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use 18 Figure 4: North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use 48 Figure 5: Induced Growth Impacts—No-Action 53 Figure 6: Induced Growth Impacts—Package A 58 Figure 7: Induced Growth Impacts— Package B 63 List of Tables Page No. Table 1: Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans 5 Table 2: Existing Land Use Categories and Acreage 17 Table 3: Generalized Zoning Classifications 30 • Table 4: Future Land Use Categories and Acreage 47 Table 5: Component A-T1 Compatibility 54 Table 6: Component A-T2 Compatibility 55 Table 7: Component A-T3 Compatibility 56 Table 8: Component B-T1 Compatibility 60 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1.0 INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum describes the existing land use conditions and potential impacts from transportation improvements within the North 1-25 regional study area (see Figure 1). Included in this memorandum is an overview of planning activities in the regional study area, including local government and regional planning. General descriptions of the existing land use and zoning follow for the corridors proposed for improvements, including US 85 along the eastern portion of the regional study area, 1-25 in the central portion, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad/Longmont North Metro Connection, and connector corridors throughout the regional study area. Following the corridors, descriptions of existing land use and zoning are provided for the proposed commuter bus stations, bus rapid transit stations, commuter rail stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations. Following existing conditions, a general overview of the future land use along the affected corridors is provided. Following the existing conditions sections is an analysis of potential direct and indirect land use impacts from the proposed improvements, including the No-Action, Package A, and Package B Alternatives. Potential mitigation measures are summarized at the end of this memorandum. There are two appendices included with this memorandum. Appendix A contains the complete indirect impacts evaluation. Appendices B through F contains land use and zoning maps for the commuter bus stations, bus rapid transit stations, commuter rail stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations under evaluation. Existing and future land use information was obtained from municipal and county land use • maps, 2002 to 2004 aerial photographs, comprehensive plans, and land use projections from the metropolitan planning organizations. It is important to note that development and conversion of agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses have already occurred and is occurring rapidly in the regional study area, particularly along the 1- 25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions contained in this section should be considered in a general context as specific land uses may have changed. Similarly, station and interchange zoning is based on 2004 to 2006 municipal and county information, which also has been changing rapidly, and should be considered in a general context. Zoning is only described generally for the transportation corridors because of complexities with a large regional study area and a large number of jurisdictions. • 1 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation III Figure 1: North I-25 Regional Study Area LEGEND r w Study Corridors tl /\,/ Highways ..---4 wewoton Z./\/ Arterial Roads \85 11:.1 Regional Study Area ---IL \ sr City Boundaries j Nice '•\ : / O Cities & Towns in Project Area i Fort .oltins - . ■ 4 alot 1 1 b Tomah 0 Sa.drircC210 (akin 1`` t Waists ‘AE 1 I i !L'fey ; ti 34 CI - . ice_ `l- . - GxdanciN 1 i Loveland ti!tt , , • % t'ham . . / j a in%die . : coven � iorwut mn i, '.our 4 /1 85 L! Bennouc ce mum, `%/' a wknni I I `J , lr 1,1aa0p %// II i Jtt4'Atl1, a ! ! Longmont • % • vdptw 0 ` / / 1 J �aoon non l 1 Wla e Gwd,mtel / J 1•a wamnbnq I Boulder Q loarctac "` lanm0e e� - J _ �. ,>rc j. \ BrOUrr rlq J liins� N - - i / I 1 ; . 1 Denver �/ �y t , 0 2 4 6 8 10 0ith-; J I I Miles North `--, ' ar..+.....t cap 4!tiw._t.n..,_—runt u-zc I 2 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 2.0 LAND USE PLANNING IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Land use planning in the regional study area is primarily undertaken by municipal and county governments. In addition, three regional transportation planning agencies are responsible for transportation planning in the regional study area, which incorporate land use projections. 2.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING The North 1-25 regional study area covers an approximately 70-mile stretch of the 1-25 corridor north of Denver and includes the parallel corridors along US 85 and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection. 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 six counties: Larimer, Weld, Boulder, Broomfield, Adams, and Denver. Both Broomfield and Denver are combined city/county governments. Most counties have coordinated intergovernmental agreements with many of the municipalities within their boundaries that address urban growth boundaries and development approval processes, important factors affecting land use planning. There are 38 municipalities along the three primary transportation corridors where improvements are being considered. With the exception of some smaller rural municipalities, most all of these municipalities have full time planning staff to address local • land use and zoning issues. Rural municipalities that don't offer planning services typically rely on the planning services of their respective county. 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 I-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. Figure 1 depicts the existing county and municipal community boundaries in the North 1-25 regional study area. County boundaries are generally considered fixed and do not change much over time, although Broomfield County was recently formed. Occasionally, a combined city/county government such as Broomfield or Denver may annex additional lands, but the boundaries of the larger counties such as Larimer, Weld, Boulder, and Adams remain fixed. Conversely, the influx of new 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 lands 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, 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. 3 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation. transportation. 2.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS • A summary of local government comprehensive plans within the North 1-25 regional study area is provided in Table 1. General descriptions of the plans and related transportation elements are provided below. The descriptions are organized into county or regional plans that apply to large areas and municipal plans for specific lands along each of the three primary transportation corridors. In general, the plans were reviewed and summarized for relevant future land use goals and policies. Nearly every municipality has established or desires some type of growth management boundary. Most define growth boundaries where urban-level development is planned to occur. 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. In all cases, cooperation with their respective county and intergovernmental agreements are necessary for comprehensive land use planning along community boundaries. County/Regional Land Use Plans Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan, 2001. This guidance document ' r" was prepared through a municipal and county > ax , . partnership for a 32-mile segment of I-25, from, County Road (CR) 58 north of Fort Collins to 2 kcjj 44,017-SrtI Si*V K ' miles south of SH 56 near Berthoud. The _ ■ k L F 4 • participating jurisdictions included Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, Berthoud, Timnath, Johnstown, sag, Y;t;GrIONLtiL GOMMUNITI��j and Larimer and Weld Counties. The preferred vision for the corridor consists of concentrated mixed-use activity nodes to support alternative modes of transportation and reduce land consumption. Larger employers and industrial uses are preferred to be clustered in a campus-like setting adjacent to activity centers or integrated with other uses into activity centers. River corridors, natural areas, and agricultural lands, where opportunities exist, would be preserved and maintained and development set back to protect long-range views. The preferred vision seeks to create a strong visual and physical connection to current and future transportation systems, to other development, and to 1-25. Single family detached residential development is discouraged within a .25 mile of 1-25 to minimize noise and visual impacts. The plan supports a continuous north/south road system set back .25 to .5 mile from 1-25 to provide efficient movement of local traffic between activity centers. • 4 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 1: Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans Jurisdiction Plan Year County Plans Adams County Comprehensive Plan 2004 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan 1978, as amended Broomfield City and County Comprehensive Plan 2005 Denver City and County Blue Print Denver 2000 Larimer County Master Plan 1997 Weld County Comprehensive Plan 1999, as amended (update in progress) US 85 Corridor Municipal Plans Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2000 Evans Comprehensive Plan 2002 Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan 2003 Platteville Comprehensive Plan 2000 Fort Lupton Land Use Plan _ 1997 Brighton Comprehensive Plan 2003 Comprehensive Plan and New 1985, as amended, and Commerce City Lands Plan 1992, respectively 1-25 Corridor Municipal Plans Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan 2003 Timnath Comprehensive Plan 2002 Windsor Comprehensive Plan 2002 • Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan 2001 (update in progress) Mead Comprehensive Plan 2004 Firestone Master Plan 2006 Frederick Comprehensive Plan 2004 Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2005 Erie Comprehensive Plan 2005 Thornton Comprehensive Plan 1997 (update in progress) Northglenn Comprehensive Plan and 1988 Associated District Plans Westminster Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2004 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Municipal Plans Fort Collins City Plan and Associated 2004 Subarea Plans Loveland Comprehensive Master 2003 Plan/Land Use Plan Berthoud Comprehensive Plan and Land 1992 and 2001, respectively Use Plan (update in progress) Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan 2003, as amended • 5 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Adams County Comprehensive Plan, 2004. Adams County b . has established three priorities in its comprehensive plan: 1) Adams County Comprehensive Plan work more closely with local governments, 2) provide January2004 opportunities for higher-end residential development and job and tax producing development, and 3) coordinate with local governments for public facilities and services. To meet these -- -- priorities, the county has placed an emphasis on attracting high- quality commercial growth in the E-470 corridor and Denver International Airport areas. Revitalization of older commercial and industrial areas in the southwestern portion of the county to preserve jobs and take advantage of the existing infrastructure is important for enhancing this area as a gateway to the county. Other land use elements include the desire to establish community separators and preserve existing agricultural areas, while allowing complementary levels of rural residential development. The county also promotes a program for transferring development rights from important open space, wildlife, farmlands, and floodplain lands in the county and identifies specific receiving areas (locations where the development rights can be applied). Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, 1978 as amended. Since its initial adoption in 1978, the philosophy of the plan has changed very little. Growth should be channeled to municipalities, agricultural lands should be protected, and preservation of environmental and natural resources should be a high priority in making land use decisions. The county uses Community Service Areas to • manage land development. The , � service areas are boundary lines , o drawn around a municipality within which a city expects to ' ' ' ztA o accommodate future growth. - o .. There are service areas for the 4r Boulder Valley, Louisville, Lafayette, Superior and ) � y o Broomfield. Non-Urban planned = " -t- unit development (PUD) o regulations guide growth in service areas. The county also r, has a transfer of development y r to° z _ rights program with designated sending and receiving areas. Larimer County Master Plan, 1997. Larimer County identified a number of guiding principles for land use. The county does not intend to provide urban services and therefore, the county believes the preferred location of urban land uses is within municipal boundaries where urban levels of service are available. Urban-type density development is encouraged in one of the county's many growth management areas. The county emphasizes annexation of existing development by the municipalities, and doesn't create disincentives for annexation of land within growth management areas. Transferring development rights and designated receiving areas is a tool the county uses to manage rural versus urban development issues. Larimer • County also places a priority on land use planning around the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, noting that land use decisions need to not only protect the safety of persons and property, but also prevent interference with the present and planned operation of the facility. 6 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Weld County Comprehensive Plan, 1999, as . amended. Weld County makes private property rights . • and respect for agricultural traditions its top guiding -, . principles, along with providing fair procedures and m regulations for addressing land use changes. The county also values its diversity of geography, demography, economy, and culture. While the county places emphasis on its agricultural history and current t agricultural economy, it recognizes that future growth •- will require conversion of some agricultural lands to other uses. Weld County has been experiencing record-setting population and development growth in Y'- recent years, particularly in the southwestern portion \' "'"'"'" _ ' "`� ' w '°" - of the county through the 1-25 corridor. The county has adopted a Mixed Use Development (MUD) code as part of its comprehensive plan that allows urban-scale development within unincorporated county lands. The county currently has one MUD area along the central portion of the 1-25 corridor in the vicinity of Longmont, Frederick, Firestone, and Mead (referred to as the 1-25 MUD). Another MUD is currently proposed along the 1-76 corridor, north of Hudson called the Southeast Weld MUD. Metro Vision 2030 Plan, 2005. This document provides a long-range plan to manage growth within the Denver regional area. It addresses development, transportation needs and environmental quality. Bringing communities together to enhance the region's quality of • life is the plan's most important goal. Metro Vision identifies six core elements and multiple strategies that characterize the desired future development for the metropolitan area. The most essential of the six core elements is the "Extent of Development". This element defines a regional growth boundary that defines where urban development will take place in the region over the next 25 years. The boundary contains 750 square miles of urban development, which is intended to achieve a 10 percent increase in the region's overall density between 2000 and 2030. The urban growth boundary will not exceed a maximum of 770 square miles in 2030. The transportation element of the plan assumes completion of the beltway system, including E-470 and the Northwest Corridor. • 7 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. US 85 Corridor Municipal Land Use Plans • City of Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan, 2000. Greeley's plan seeks to anticipate and promote a balance of land use types within the City's Mid-Range Expected Service Area to create an adequate supply and distribution of land uses. Land use densities and mixes that support the use of mass transit, walking, and other forms of non-motorized travel are important. The City has identified characteristics and development objectives for Neighborhood Development Districts within a one square mile area and Community Development Districts within a six square mile area. Density and land size characteristics are defined for residential, commercial, industrial, parks and natural areas, and public uses. The City of Greeley also prepared the University of Northern Colorado Study Area Neighborhood Plan 2004, which seeks to preserve the existing neighborhood character, upgrade physical improvements, pursue creative partnerships to fund infrastructure, and support neighborhood stability. City of Evans Comprehensive Plan, 2002. -- Evans has identified nine goals to guide growth and development, the first being to provide orderly . aw_ ,± ■ -r ' and efficient growth patterns. The City seeks to have an efficient and safe transportation system t . that addresses current and future mobility needs and balances dependency on the automobile with other means of travel, including transit, bicycle use, and walking. Evans envisions several activity " centers along 37th Street, with one at the • intersection with US 85. The City has established a growth boundary, with priority growth areas to the west of the South Platte River, and two areas of long-term growth to the east and southwest. Town of Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan, 2003. Gilcrest desires to maintain its rural small town atmosphere and establish an identity that is separate from other nearby towns. The Town's goals are to minimize pressure to convert farmlands to urban densities and encourage infill development. Gilcrest plans to create a commercial center at US 85 and Main Street to support existing local businesses and to attract new business. The Town maintains an urban growth boundary that forms approximately .5 mile perimeter from the existing sanitary sewer facilities. City of Fort Lupton Land Use Plan, 1997. US 85 bypasses the central Fort Lupton commercial district where the City plans to promote and revitalize the older core area of the community. Fort Lupton acknowledges development constraints to the west of US 85 because of the South Platte River and its floodplain, and seeks to limit growth in this area to take advantage of recreational opportunities. The City wants all annexation to be contiguous with current City limits and does not intend to annex outside its 2020 growth limits. The City also encourages expansion of mass transit connections to Denver International Airport, metropolitan Denver, and surrounding communities. • 8 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts US information. cooperation transportation. • Brighton Comprehensive Plan, 2003. Brighton desires to maintain a small town identity and not become a large Figure? Land Use Plan The Freestanding City sprawling city or suburb. The City looks to maintain or create ; strategic and economically viable agricultural areas and an •, open space system on its borders, and to be orientated towards community centers, rather than linear strips. Urban - F 'r � service areas (growth areas) have been established based on r existing City services or adjacent areas where extension of services may be financed by developers. Renewal and r� preservation of the core downtown area along US 85 and . Bridge Street (SH 7) is a priority. While the US 85 corridor j t y ' through Brighton is designated for commercial, employment, and some residential uses, it is an important gateway for C a Brighton and maintaining open space along the corridor is a ____--- priority. Much of Brighton's growth is directed east, between US 85 and the 1-76 corridor. West of US 85 is the South Platte River and associated floodplains where the City desires to focus recreational, open space, and agricultural uses. Commerce City Comprehensive Plan, 1985 as amended, and New Lands Comprehensive Plan, 1992. Commerce City is actively working towards the development of a balanced commercial, residential, and industrial land use pattern. The City wants to upgrade the image of its commercial corridors, and improve the quality of industrial land • uses while lessening the industrial impact on surrounding land uses. The US 85 corridor merges with the 1-76 corridor, just south of 120th Avenue in the Commerce City area. The City has identified three potential activity nodes through this corridor, at the cross-streets of 104th Avenue, 96th Avenue, and 88th Avenue. Commercial development is encouraged in these areas, with major residential areas adjacent. The City also seeks to construct structures and landscaping on the shoulders and medians of US 85 to enhance the visual aesthetics of the community. 1-25 Corridor Municipal Land Use Plans Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan, 2003. One of the Town's top priorities is to manage growth within three distinct boundaries; existing Town limits, a planned growth area where the Town will be able to provide services, and a larger growth management area where the Town wants to pursue intergovernmental agreements with Larimer County and Fort Collins concerning growth. Wellington plans to use these growth areas as part of a strategy to extend Town boundaries with greater predictability regarding the rate, location, type, and character of growth. The Town also desires to prevent becoming a suburb of Fort Collins by creating open space buffers. An area of auto-oriented commercial development has been identified at the Wellington/1-25 interchange, near Cleveland and 6th Street. • 9 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Timnath Comprehensive Plan, 2005. The Town of Timnath • desires to maintain its small town character and has prioritized a "Right to Farm" resolution. The Town has established a growth management area which identifies appropriate locations for future ] • '— urban-level development and has established a residential setback fs"t '!__ for the 1-25 corridor. The downtown area is planned to have a _ t balance of social, retail, civic, residential, and open space facilities. Timnath views the 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange (on the east side), Main Street, and the southern portion of CR 5 as the core p _ll -_ economic areas for the community. Collaboration with Larimer t -_ County, the City of Fort Collins, the Town of Windsor, and other . surrounding municipalities regarding development compatibility and i preserving community separators is important to the community. Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan, 2002. Windsor plans to annex all lands within its growth management area and only annex 1 lands outside for compelling or strategic reasons. The Town desires . to have agreements with Weld County and surrounding municipalities ==__ to ensure that all new development can be reasonably served with - _ r=- public utilities. Efficient and effective extension of public services and '! facilities is an important land use goal for the Town. Clustered residential developments are preferred over typical sprawl k 1 development patterns. Windsor seeks to preserve the historic nature of its core downtown area while promoting it as a commercial focal - point. Industrial areas are encouraged in the eastern and j • southeastern portions of the Town to lessen the impact on the downtown area and where traffic generation and environmental impacts would be the least. Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan, 2001 (update in progress). The Johnstown plan identifies three areas of interest: 1) the _. - Johnstown urban growth area where actions taken by the Town or L others will influence the Town, 2) the Johnstown planning area where Via. properties are eligible for annexation, and 3) the Johnstown service i r. , area which includes the existing Town limits. The Town desires a 3 - ,, t _! wide variety of residential densities in appropriately planned locations i, . • r - f and has identified standards for estate, low, medium, and high density ,,r -''i" developments. The 1-25 and SH 60 interchange is considered an area ".7 .• ` for regional commercial uses (highway-oriented development), , 1 t s ?� whereas the downtown area is considered more for destination 1• ' commercial uses with specialty retail and pedestrian-oriented development. • 10 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Town of Mead Comprehensive Plan, 2004. Mead desires to create and sustain a community with a small-town atmosphere. The Town currently does not provide many services, but intends to create a coordinated system of public services and utilities that can be operated in a cost-effective manner. The Town believes that not all subdivisions should be provided with municipal or sanitation district sewer service, but all should have potable water systems. The Town seeks to diversify its tax base through commercial development along SH 66, 1-25, Welker Avenue east of CR 7, downtown, and other future regional arterials and collector streets. A plan to revitalize the downtown is also proposed. Firestone Master Plan, 2006 (draft). Firestone bills itself as "a community in motion", seeking to maintain its small town t feel while taking a comprehensive approach to land use and - development issues to assure a high quality of life. The Town supports urban development within municipal limits and } establishment of urban and municipal growth boundaries. - Urban growth boundaries represent the extent of annexation S ," and municipal growth boundaries are proposed to preserve ' - agricultural community separator areas. The Town is looking 1 i to plan mixed use or commercial nodes at major cross-street i locations surrounded by residential areas. Higher density - o residential uses are being planned on the western side of the Town closer to the 1-25 corridor. • Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan, 2005. The Town of Frederick anticipates growth with the intention of maintaining a small town sense of community and of / _ using various measures for managing growth at the 1 s; - Town's edges. Frederick's guiding principles are to create a balanced community, embody a village _ concept, create a job and housing balance, integrate open space, address community connectivity, improve the downtown core, enhance neighborhood and � _ community identity, and seek high quality design. The Town desires to grow in a connected pattern and encourage infill development in the core downtown area. The Town participates in an intergovernmental agreement with Firestone, Dacono, and Weld County regarding growth management. The land use pattern envisioned by the Town includes a strip of employment-based uses along the 1-25 corridor surrounded by mixed use and residential uses. City of Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2005. Dacono envisions future development to be concentrated within a growth boundary and serviced by adequate public facilities. The City seeks to balance future land uses to ensure economic sustainability. Dacono recognizes that as development along its southern boundaries intensifies, the historic City center along SH 52 will extend further south to Colorado Boulevard (CR 13). The City seeks to create a center that has a mix of retail, commercial, residential, and civic uses. Dacono views the 1-25 corridor as an area of primarily employment and commercial uses, with residential uses to the east. The City is also planning a gateway center at the • southwest quadrant of the 1-25 and SH 52 interchange and a mall at the northwest quadrant of the 1-25 and CR 8 interchange. 11 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan, 2005. Erie recognizes the importance of conserving • and enhancing its historic small town character. The Town encourages a compact pattern of urban growth while promoting high quality design and development. Vitality of the core downtown area is viewed as important to creating a "center" for the community. Erie has identified three gateway areas for special consideration requiring a higher level of review including Leon A. Wurl Parkway (CR 8), SH 52, and County Line Road/Arapahoe Road. The Town envisions the 1-25 corridor as containing mixed uses adjacent to regional commercial uses. City and County of Broomfield Comprehensive Plan, 2005: Unlike most of the communities in the 1-25 corridor to the north, Broomfield has developed much of its land area. As such, the City/County has identified areas of change where — new development and redevelopment is likely to occur and areas of stability where maintaining the _ existing fabric is important. The largest areas of change are located along the 1-25 corridor, north of r ' the 1-25 and C-470 interchange. The City/County -- has also developed a "Green Edge" concept whereby a greenbelt is preserved around the City/County to protect environmentally constrained lands, steep slopes, creek corridors, and to buffer growth in adjacent communities. The City/County has also adopted a limit on annual residential building permits to manage growth. Broomfield plans to focus commercial and retail uses within its City/County limits along the 1-25 corridor. • City of Thornton Comprehensive Plan, 1997 (currently being updated). Thornton describes its desire to transition from a bedroom community to a full service community. The City has _ been expanding into unincorporated areas of Weld and Adams Counties and desires to ensure development approved by those counties in its planned growth area is consistent. Annexation and intergovernmental agreements are important tools to +, F ', controlling and defining growth. The City occupies a long stretch of the 1-25 corridor on the east side north of the 1-25 and US 36 interchange. Land uses along the 1-25 corridor are focused on .. commercial and mixed uses, while addressing compatibility with + _4 scenic vistas from eastern properties to the mountains. --- • 12 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • City of Westminster Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2004. . Westminster has adopted a commitment to quality for a variety of principles including a choice of desirable neighborhoods, convenient connection to the metro area, and a sustainable economy. The City has an urban growth boundary that was p ! -- defined in cooperation with the Denver Regional Council of „-_ Governments. Westminster is approaching full build out of its growth boundary. As such, the City seeks to balance community 1114,.. resource needs while maximizing development and It It a-- redevelopment potential of remaining lands. The City seeks to -r4'-- promote mixed use development at key transit facilities including their North 1-25 District Center at 140th Avenue. The City seeks to promote the 1-25 corridor for commercial uses where companies seeking regional access can locate. City of Northglenn Comprehensive Plan, 1988 (and associated district plans). Northglenn desires to create a full service community with a regional activity center. The City is surrounded by other municipalities and unable to expand within a contiguous area. As such, Northglenn seeks to maximize use on the existing land within its borders, balancing the needs of developers and property owners. The City views the northwest quadrant of the 1-25 and 104th Avenue interchange as a regional activity center, with mixed uses farther north along the corridor to 120th Avenue. The City has both existing and planned residential land uses directly adjacent to the 1-25 corridor. • City and County of Denver Blueprint Denver, 2000. The vision for Denver in 2020 is organized around the premise that growth should be directed to areas of change, while the character of neighborhoods in areas of stability should be preserved and enhanced. Denver has identified the 1-25 corridor within City/county limits as an area of stability from north of the interchange with 1-70 to approximately Park Avenue West. In this area, Denver's goal is to maintain the character of the area while accommodating new development as well as redevelopment. From Park Avenue south and east, most of the downtown core area and the US 85 and Brighton Boulevard corridors are identified primarily as areas of change. In this area, the City's goal is to channel growth where it can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer auto trips. Additionally, both the 1- 25 and US 85 corridors are identified as locations for regional rapid transit and the associated infrastructure. • 13 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation. transportation. Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)/Lonqmont North Metro Connection Corridor • Municipal Land Use Plans Fort Collins City Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and Subarea Plans, 2004. One of the City's principles for growth is to Downfown STRAILCIC PLAN promote a compact development pattern within a well-defined -- boundary. The desired urban form would be achieved by directing future development to mixed-use neighborhoods and .. t districts while reducing the potential for dispersed growth not -t. ! conducive to pedestrian and transit use. Fort Collins utilizes ) , subarea plans to address individual neighborhoods, districts, ,, corridors, and edges. Along the BNSF corridor, the City has made it a priority to protect and manage the downtown retail and A entertainment district and to use energy from the core to re leverage and attract new development. Along the 1-25 corridor, Fort Collins desires to maintain agricultural and industrial uses, while minimizing impacts to residential uses through a '/4 mile setback. Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan/Land Use Plan, 2003. Loveland has prioritized maintenance of the BNSF corridor as a core downtown area, an activity center, and historic district. Along the 1-25 corridor, Loveland is looking to establish a regional activity center at the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. The Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport along 1-25 provides an important regional transportation role and protecting it from incompatible land uses is a priority. The City also seeks a flexible plan for its growth management area through use of intergovernmental agreements with adjoining jurisdictions. An additional • component of the City's plan is the establishment of community separators to preserve the community character and identity of Loveland. Berthoud Comprehensive Plan (1992) and Land Use Plan, 2001 (update in progress). The Town of Berthoud strives to DRAFT„o�:�:uw maintain its small town atmosphere with rural surroundings and a vibrant downtown core. The Town desires a well-defined edge that quickly transitions to agricultural and very low density - residential uses. The Town has also annexed land along 1-25 and looks to that area as well as downtown as important commercial nodes. A subarea plan for 1-25 envisions employment uses adjacent to 1-25, surrounded by residential `3 uses to the east and west. The Town has a growth management area where it plans urban-scale development, future annexations, and public services. Berthoud also has a cooperative planning area and a community influence area as other means of balancing urban, rural, and non-developed lands. Creating community separator areas are an important outcome of these planning processes. • 14 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan, 2003 (as Cornprenenm,e Plan MCP amended). Longmont uses a three-tier planning process to guide growth and development: a municipal service area, the Longmont planning area, and the St. Vrain ' i Valley planning area. In general each tier successively surrounds the previous tier, with the municipal service area forming the core. Within the municipal service area, the City employs neighborhood planning areas as the basic unit for planning land use, social, and services. Land use emphasis is on urban design within the planning areas. Longmont also places emphasis on creating and promoting mixed use activities along major gateways such as SH 119, SH 66, and US 287. Development along these corridors should also maximize access and orientation to St. Vrain and Lefthand Creek greenways. 2.3 REGIONAL PLANNING Regional land use planning in the study area primarily consists of incorporating land use projections into long-range regional and statewide transportation plans. The state is divided into fifteen transportation planning regions, of which five are metropolitan planning organizations, based on geographic similarities, common transportation corridors, and socio-economic cohesiveness. Every four years, each region prepares a regional transportation plan based on the regions needs and priorities. The 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. The • North 1-25 regional study area bisects parts of three transportation planning regions including the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the Upper Front Range (UFR) planning area, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Figure 2 depicts the relationship of the North 1-25 regional study area to the planning regions. • 15 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. 111 Figure 2: Transportation Planning Regions/IVIetropolitan Planning Organizations LEGEND c i : ^l, Study Corridors : / ,/ Highways ,., ,n„ /N/ Arterial Roads ,,,,L____<ffik, 85 ( Regional Study Area ti - 1 County Boundaries / P.erce , a Cities & Towns in Project Area I - . \ to City Boundaries ._. - ,,t 14 ; Denver Regional Council , of Governments Upper Front Range Planning Area i North Front Range Metropolitan ,,y,-7, I Planning Organizations o" 392 I '1 an rf H erg [A - =-�.7-- -Loveland N i' • I- = - 1341 1._„:11 I , , ` } -1. a v 4` 185 /. . • Gila - -�- -,. � . . . . . . . . - - ! - - re / ` ' Mr-.3III r Nano* 66 j { IK • t Volh.li a 0 rrtecone I J '177 J `inlaid l \- J J ,aria fat lwly- w ' a / J p IUMM L.; Sara / + - Wattwd�,r_, • J .ALAI i 1 __ i/ '�"' - - ' 93 v ,�r C �',')c'''''� 7 72 - - I 0 2 4 6 8 10 --] li--7iril Miles North ' ' / i I 7112'x' I 16 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.0 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING 3.1 CORRIDORS This section summarizes existing land use for the US 85 corridor, I-25 corridor, BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor, and feeder bus connector corridors. Zoning information is only generally described for the corridors because of the large size of the regional study area, the number of jurisdictions affected (30 or more), and the complexity and variation of zoning definitions and districts within each jurisdiction. Existing land use information was obtained from municipal and county land use maps, 2002 to 2004 aerial photographs, and comprehensive plans. It is important to note that development and conversion of agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses is occurring rapidly in the Table 2: Existing Land Use Categories regional study area, particularly along the I- 25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions and Acreage contained in this section should be Land Use Category Approximate considered in a general context as specific Acres land uses may have changed. For Agricultural 446,400 simplification, land uses have been Residential 143,000 generally categorized into agricultural, Commercial 75,100 residential, commercial (including retail, Open Space/Parks 65,300 industrial, office, etc.), and open Surface Water Areas 39,900 • space/parks. Figure 3 depicts these Vacant/Unknown 6,400 generalized existing land uses. Table 2 Total 776,100 summarizes the estimated existing Note:Acres are approximate based on geographic information system (GIS)estimates from Figure 3. acreages in each land use category for the regional study. 3.1.1 US 85 Corridor This section generally describes existing land use along the US 85 corridor, 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) tracks that closely parallel 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. • 17 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3: North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use 4111 LEGEND 't Study Corridorshc: / ' •----- /�/ HighwaysvpUington '�/�/ Arterial Roads185'� ' Regional Study Area0 Cities & Towns ` Re'ce ` \•.kit Existing Land Use in 2000 4' 4lurt cams Residential '�" aEmployment Area � 257 - ,�Open Space/Parks 1i'� r.meth Eaton 1 Agriculture isimer Lucerne tSurface Water +vl!,a '287 Vacant or Unknown _-, ' �. Greeley' ri 1 O %Gw6cn Gill. � , • Loveland y - • % I i Gnngon 1 85 ' tluut . .u,ten .Ber1 • tiki t / / i 1 ... L A NkWA I Pfh is Uev,lle �.. 66 I 1 3.� l!ingrl;rtt 1 / f _ . lone 4,',�. v , ;ry t» '0 4:!estmr- I • v edam i s t .t -_��- t alb .. To �� 52 �rrlv� ^ a e 0 '�'r ? �• Wattenberp - . &xdilet ' .. 14. , iiFi , .''I --- r , icorNo 7 1 , f ; .44:rt .y Eastlak sikM wet' !I 1_[ \ 36 -a i ,� ..r- ■ • t ' tray I < , h.., . : wive l • . _. • 7-Ci^ v . '` --E - - ter''. 0 2 4 6 8 10 ` \ ��, itttttt ' Miles North 1 41 .......•.. ..........................., sa.-sva 18 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation 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. US 85 from Greeley to Evans Beginning just north of downtown Greeley, land uses along US 85 are - _ - `:_ mostly employment-related , interspersed - 4":447, - -• =" __ with residential blocks on the west side _ of US 85 . There are a number of �r ��' - ` = • industrial uses on the east side of US 85 - , -" . a . that take advantage of the UPRR tracksWWI' _ for transporting goods. Moving south :_ .410: into the core of downtown Greeley along e • US 85, a mix of commercial and retail rif - "- `'"`'�"' • "•�' i `' " "_ fir land uses dominate the corridor, with - ' � ' • adjacent municipal and county government uses to the west along 9th• Looking north at US 85 corridor through r, k and 10t Streets. A few blocs south the downtown Greeley core downtown transitions to the University of Northern Colorado campus and residential areas. Commercial and employment land uses reemerge south of 22nd Street and continue through the US 85 and US 34 interchange south through the Town of Evans. Evans has a commercial core concentrated along the US 85 and UPRR corridor with residential uses to the east and west. US 85 from Evans to Platteville South of Evans, the corridor transitions to agricultural land uses and small towns . US 85 forms the main street for the Town of La Salle, which has mostly commercial and business uses on the east side of US 85 and a mix of residential and commercial on the west. From La Salle southwest to the Town of Gilcrest, the US 85 corridor passes though a 5-mile stretch of agricultural lands with a few homesteads and agricultural-related businesses . In Gilcrest, there is a strip of commercial and retail land uses on both sides of US 85, with the residential core of the Town to the west. On the east side of US 85, there is a narrow strip of commercial properties located between the UPRR tracks and US 85. East of the UPRR tracks are agricultural lands. South of Gilcrest, there is another 5-mile stretch of undeveloped agricultural lands with a few homesteads and agricultural businesses . Platteville, located 5- miles south of Gilcrest, has very similar land use characteristics to Gilcrest, with a commercial strip on both sides of US 85 , a narrow strip of commercial uses east of US 85 (between US 85 and the UPRR tracks), and the bulk of the residential core to the west of US 85 . In this • area , the South Platte River is located less than 1 mile to the west of US 85 and constrains development of the Town to the west. At the south end of Platteville, US 85 becomes one- way couplets to surround the historic Fort Vasquez Museum , located in the US 85 median . 19 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. US 85 from Platteville to Brighton I _r_ _ _ . _ _ After Platteville , there is an 8-mile long -__,. . ... , . __ - _ ' stretch of agricultural lands with __ ___ ___.= scattered homesteads and agricultural e.-- -A businesses until the Town of Fort Lupton . US 85 bypasses around the "t - - . . edge of .4e 1% • , . ,f'�a %westernFort Lupton with • ; - �,? _ '� ' = : �=�,; ''" ' ': access to the Town from the SH 52 and . • * : = • US 85 interchange . The South Platte : `-' g;'"' � e. . L River parallels US 85 immediately to the `•• -t ---;;;-.."' ' ' '� r C t; ' r west in this vicinity. With limited access i -i_ `'-'� , ' =..( • to US 85 and development constraints _ ' to the west along the South Platte River, - - .. 1 commercial strip development is not as Looking north at US 85 corridor through Fort Lupton predominant along US 85 through Fort Lupton . Rather, residential and agricultural properties, and Lone Pine Park are the main land uses adjacent to the east side of US 85 through Fort Lupton . Between Fort Lupton and the City of Brighton , the US 85 corridor passes through another 5-mile stretch of agricultural lands interspersed with a few businesses and homesteads on the east side of the road . To the west of US 85, the South Platte River closely parallels the roadway only leaving enough land for smaller agricultural properties and a gravel mining operation . As US 85 enters the Brighton area , commercial and business uses along the corridor increase . Through the core of Brighton along the roadway, residential uses are concentrated to the west of US 85, while commercial uses are located to the east between the _ 1111 roadway and the UPRR tracks . . • ---t; �. . {� - T - . - . j ..- a» : r- 'met.' z r':"t ` q _ 4.4 . US 85 from Brighton to Downtown ,w -lIvr,---"e-. .� 7'7 .. - : w• - Denver _. : - - jj4 _,`-�. ---t - ..0W, \,..--Itt e„ Agricultural uses dominate the corridor .__�.._ . ,_,�� 'I f,.0, - . . � j ... . �,� south of Brighton , but become --� r� interspersed with a patchwork of ponds - f ; '`- ` from former gravel mining operations /lc along the South Platte River to the west --\ , ' .1 • - - . k ‘ , \ ; of US 85 . Through this area there is an r -., ' ' increase in conversion of agricultural r`�� •�� lands to residential uses as Looking northeast from Denver Union Station toward Commerce City development in the Commerce City area expands northward . As US 85 makes its way into central Commerce City, industrial and commercial uses that the City is known for increase substantially. From this point on into the central Denver area and along the combined corridors of US 85 , I-76, US 6, and SH 2 , land uses are mostly industrial and commercial with only a few small pockets of residential properties . I 20 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation • 3.1 .2 I-25 Corridor This section generally describes existing land use along the 1-25 corridor, beginning at the Town of Wellington in the north to downtown Denver in the south . 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 being converted to commercial and residential uses rapidly. Land uses 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 . Furthermore , the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of SH 119, has a number of oil and gas developments that include access roads, pipelines, wells, or other related facilities . 1-25 from Wellington to Harmony Road Near the Town of Wellington , land surrounding the 1-25 and SH 1 interchange has not been commercially developed . Land use is mostly agricultural surrounded by residential . To the east of the interchange, the area is characterized by rural residential and to the west is the Town center and higher density residential . Traveling south from Wellington , land use is mostly --- _ agricultural for approximately 7 miles •c �-` . ��! '� .r_,• with a couple of larger residential • . • • developments interspersed adjacent to _ . • 1-25 . Approximately 3 miles north of the - _ � 94 4pl- ar.� 1-25 and Mulberry Street (SH 14) • interchange is a large employment center where the Anheuser-Busch Brewery is located . South along 1-25 at „:„1/ the 1-25 and Mulberry (SH 14) X interchange in Fort Collins, land use is Looking north along the 1-25 corridor through comprised of commercial properties, Wellington surrounded by residential development. Traveling south from this interchange, land uses are primarily agricultural with a few commercial properties . Just north of the 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange, the corridor is bisected by the Cache La Poudre River and numerous ponds remain from former gravel mining operations. The 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange includes a mix of commercial and agricultural uses . • 21 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information coorera:ion transportation. 1-25 from Harmony Road to US 34 1 Current and former gravel mining operations and agricultural lands continue to dominate = �- south along 1-25 from Harmony Road until just t‘. north of the 1-25 and SH 392 interchange, i`'` where the Fossil Creek Reservoir is located on the west side of 1-25. At this interchange, there - - `' " a is a mix of hotels and retail development, surrounded by mostly residential land uses to - - _ , the southeast. Farther south of this location - a. along 1-25, more commercial and employment _ r uses appear with the Fort Collins-Loveland - PP -. Municipal Airport just west of 1-25 and the Looking south from the I-25 and US 34 interchange Budweiser Event Center to the east. There are (recent development has already changed the area a number of airport-related and other businesses mixed among agricultural uses through this part of the corridor. As 1-25 nears Loveland and the interchange with US 34 , commercial and business land uses increase. This interchange is developing into an important center for these types of uses . 1-25 from US 34 to SH 119 Just south of the 1-25 and US 34 .... . interchange, land uses revert back to agricultural until 1-25 crosses over the Big .�� Thompson River. This area contains a number of ponds from former gravel mining operations to the east and west of 1-25 . To - • the west, directly adjacent to 1-25 is the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area . Agricultural lands dominate south of the Big •- -°'°'. ,k- Thompson River for approximately 2 miles to the 1-25 and SH 402 interchange . There are Looking north along the 1-25 corridor just north of a few commercial uses on the east side of 1- SH 119 (St. Vrain State Park to left) 25 at this location , including the well-known Johnson's Corner truck stop . Just south of this area agricultural lands are interspersed with a few commercial properties and a campground , before returning to larger tracts of agricultural property farther south along 1-25. Agricultural lands dominate for the next 7 miles to the south , with only a few homesteads, interchanges, and a motocross course in between . Higher density residential developments appear south of CR 38 to the west of 1-25, with lower density residential properties to the east. Farther south at the 1-25 and CR 34 interchange, there is an auto race track in the northeast quadrant. As 1-25 approaches the interchange with SH 66 , low density residential properties are located west of 1-25 and a business park occupies the northeast quadrant of the interchange . The 1-25 corridor passes through another 2-mile stretch of agricultural lands south of SH 66 until it crosses the St. Vrain River drainage and the Town of Firestone . To the northeast of this crossing a large scale residential community is being developed . There are numerous ponds from former gravel mining operations to the east and west of 1-25 through the drainage, and on the west directly adjacent to 1-25 is the St. Vrain State Park. About a 1/2 mile south of the St. Vrain River is the 1-25 and SH 119 interchange that includes a collection of commercial uses in all four quadrants, as well as residential properties in the southwest quadrant. There is also an active gravel mining operation to the northeast of the interchange . 22 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooreration transportation. S 1-25 from SH 119 to Northwest Parkway/E-470 South from SH 119, commercial properties are adjacent to 1-25 on the east side for about 2 miles, with mainly ssc- agricultural uses to the west. There is ._ another strip of commercial properties � � �� " k-t < - about 1 mile farther south on the west - - 4 ,4 side of 1-25 just north of CR 18, with low density residential properties adjacent _ `' _ _ further to the west. To the southeast of :' ' &: 1-25 and CR 18 is another area of - : ' '-' • commercial properties adjacent to 1-25 ' `" ' ` extending about a 1/4 mile south . From /.� this location south to SH 52 , land use is Looking north along the 1-25 corridor just north of mostly agricultural . Recent SH 52 (note recent site development on right) development has transformed the 1-25 and SH 52 interchange area in to an employment center with commercial development in the southwest and southeast quadrants . Farther south is a large auto salvage yard located on the southeast corner of 1-25 and CR 12 . On the same side of 1-25 just past the salvage yard is the Colorado National Speedway, which is surrounded by agricultural properties . Agricultural land uses again dominate south of CR 10 for the next 4 miles to the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange where another large employment center is being developed with commercial uses . Commercial uses extend south from SH 7 to the 1-25 and Northwest • Parkway/E-470 interchange where more commercial uses are currently being developed . • 23 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. 1-25 from Northwest Parkway/E-470 to Downtown Denver I Land use south from Northwest Parkway/E- 470 to just north of the 1-25 and 120 Avenue • - - interchange has been changing rapidly. A , '_`. i'�. • ..' mix of commercial , retail , and residential �' , A. L. . ,• -- - ; -._ - - t go*properties are being developed parallel to I- r � ' -�`""" '� ~'` . n . d- -.--4-4„„-;-c--;--.:: - a�• 25 on both sides of the highway. Just south ` � �'= "s- of 136th Avenue on the east side of 1-25 is a _ . _ -� golf course and large residential area . `- - 4 - � Farther south is the 1-25 and 120th Avenue .21 , ,' �' .4 interchange where hotels are located in the _�.,�/ northwest quadrant, municipal facilities ands -- r hotels in the northeast, a large RTD park-n- Looking north at the 1-25 and 104 Avenue Ride facility in the southwest, and a medical interchange complex in the southeast. South of 120th Avenue and to downtown Denver the land is almost entirely built out with commercial , . 1+.tr. .�: r.., retail , and residential properties, with only a ....:1:-.e--- -----•'Y •�.: few undeveloped parcels remaining . - - -et C es� ,, -r- •ille:.:1"1"?' - _ Residential properties back directly onto 1-25 _ . i ---u . , A tar_ .____ _ on both sides of the highway south of 120th • Avenue interspersed with a few commercial - properties until the 1-25 and 104th Avenue - II ... , • interchange . At this location , large _ = .� , .,. commercial and business properties1; 1.4 , , .'N, dominate the western side of the Looking south from 1-25 and 1-70 interchange interchange, residential uses are to the toward downtown Denver northeast, and a large cemetery is to the southeast. .. 1r..- .4yr•-.:; r .r X.flea. - S .,. .- ,':- _ South of 104th Avenue residential properties • _ _ again abut to 1-25 on the west side of the s kf; highway and commercial properties are on __›.,,..c..----- .,_ ` �X - -- the east side . Farther south , there is a larger I ~` ._ area of undeveloped lands in the southwest kk. _ 4 , 1 . _ - quadrant of the 1-25 and Thornton Parkway : , - . , 4 e . - interchange . There are a few residential .j ` properties spaced around this vacant land until the 1-25 and 84th Avenue interchange Looking north at the 1-25 and E-470 interchange where commercial properties dominate all (commercial development has occurred since this four quadrants of the interchange. photo was taken) Residential properties dominate south of this interchange on both sides of the highway until the 1-25 and US 36 interchange. From this location south to downtown Denver, development along the 1-25 corridor is mostly related to large interchanges (US 36, 1-76, and I-70), railroad yards and service facilities, and larger commercial and industrial properties. I 24 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation • 3.1 .3 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor This section generally describes existing land use along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor, beginning north of downtown Fort Collins, south to Longmont, east toward Firestone , and south to 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 can be more prevalent in this area with an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and existing residential and urban centers . The northern part of the corridor is more developed than the northern portion of either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors . Land use is characterized by urban centers surrounded by suburban residential and neighborhood centers with undeveloped lands separating towns and cities . BNSF from Fort Collins to Loveland Beginning northwest of downtown Fort Collins and one block west of College Avenue (US 287), the BNSF corridor follows Mason Street, a multi-modal - — - transportation corridor. Because of its - =. �„ _ - - . . proximity to downtown , land uses along = ,� 1 � `Mason Street are mostly commercial and businesses with a few residential es/ • properties interspersed along the street. - • . . � , � _ Local government facilities are ' �, ' , , , r •` �' • concentrated at the north end of the .- • -a•nalq ,, � ' , _r 1 Mason Street corridor. Farther south on "" � • ` ` Mason Street, just past Laurel Street, •• '� " . Looking north at BNSF (Mason Street) corridor on left the corridor traverses through the and US 287 in center through Fort Collins eastern edge of Colorado State University (CSU ). For approximately % mile, land uses through this area are generally associated with the CSU campus with offices, classrooms, parking , and recreational facilities . South of the campus area , the corridor transitions to some undeveloped properties and larger commercial uses . South of Drake Road until Harmony Road , residential uses dominate to the west of the BNSF corridor, with commercial uses to the east. Mason Street ends at Harmony Road , where the BNSF corridor begins to move away from the urban area of Fort Collins and toward residential and open space lands . Just south of Harmony Road , the BNSF corridor crosses over Fossil Creek and its associated system of open space and trails . At this location , the BNSF corridor veers slightly to the southwest away from US 287 to parallel Taft Avenue/Shields Street. Land uses through this section are mostly associated with large tracts of open space and agricultural lands which separate • 25 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation the communities of Fort Collins and , Loveland . As the BNSF corridor 4�- approaches West 57th Street, it veers back to the southeast toward the US =;- - _ `� r 287 corridor. Here residential land uses * - r ' increase as the corridor approaches , * Loveland . Residential uses dominate on both sides of the BNSF corridor .r r " `+t � '' '' through this area , with Lake Loveland to =` ,- I • •- the west. Similar to downtown Fort • T . Collins, the BNSF corridor is located one block west of the core Loveland • : Il . downtown area , paralleling the one-way Looking north at BNSF corridor through Loveland with couplets of Cleveland Avenue and Lake Loveland on left. Lincoln Avenue (US 287). Here, land uses along the BNSF corridor to the west are primarily residential , with a few commercial uses interspersed . East of the BNSF corridor is primarily commercial uses . Around 1St Street, the BNSF corridor again curves to the southwest where it crosses the Big Thompson River and passes by ponds from former gravel mining operations and recreational facilities . BNSF from Loveland to Longmont South of Loveland , the BNSF corridor passes though undeveloped and commercial areas . South of SH 402 , residential uses appear to the west of the corridor, with undeveloped and commercial uses to the east. Agricultural land uses increase as the corridor continues , south past 28th Street and SH 60, just north of Berthoud . There are a few small and mid- sized subdivisions interspersed among agricultural properties in this area . Residential uses increase as the corridor approaches Berthoud , where the BNSF corridor bisects the Town core . Land uses to the west of the BNSF corridor through the downtown are mostly residential and to the east are commercial . South of the Berthoud main street, Mountain Avenue, mostly residential uses line both sides of the BNSF corridor. As the BNSF corridor heads south from Berthoud , there is a stretch of primarily agricultural land that extends for approximately 6 1/2 miles to SH 66, just north of Longmont. This stretch has some low- density residential uses spread throughout, but is mostly agricultural land . As the BNSF corridor crosses SH 66 and the northern boundary of Longmont, land uses abruptly change to residential on both sides of the tracks and continue on into Longmont. There are a few churches, recreation facilities, and vacant properties, adjacent to the corridor, but residential uses dominate . Just north of East 9th Avenue, there is a large commercial property, near where the tracks veer to the southwest. The corridor continues to pass through residential neighborhoods, passing by Collyer Park, located on the west side of the tracks. Residential uses continue until 3rd Avenue where the land uses change to industrial , commercial , and undeveloped lands. This area , just north of Ken Pratt Boulevard (SH 119), is a core industrial area along the St. Vrain River. There are ponds from former gravel mining operations, as well as Longmont's primary sewage treatment facility located here. The BNSF tracks split at this location into east and southwest branches. 26 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Longmont North Metro Connection The Longmont North Metro Connection provides a connection from Longmont . southeast toward Thornton , where the �t See corridor would connect to the proposed - . ; e. . - FasTracks North Metro rail line near SH 7, east of 1-25. East from the Sugar Mill T property, land uses along SH 119 are _ '"� primarily agricultural with subdivisions • '• `^~and commercial interspersed . There is a recreation property with baseball fields south of SH 119 and east of County Line Road . Farther east along SH 119, -'s. there are residential uses to the north Looking northeast from the US 287 and Ken Pratt and commercial uses to the south . SH Boulevard intersection toward where the BNSF tracks branch 119 crosses the St. Vrain River west of WCR 7, where there are a number of ponds from former gravel mining operations. The corridor turns south at WCR 7 where there are additional ponds from gravel mining as well as current gravel mining operations. Land uses along WCRoad 7 are primarily agricultural with a few farmsteads located adjacent to the road . East of the road and north of CR 16 is a large lot subdivision . South to WCR 10, agricultural lands are interspersed with a few large lot residences . At WCR 10 the corridor veers away from WCR 7 to the southeast along the Union Pacific Railroad's former Dent Line, the proposed FasTracks North Metro. • The UPRR crosses 1-25 north of WCR 8 with agricultural land uses dominating to the end of the corridor at SH 7 . 3.1.4 Connector Corridors This section generally describes land use along eight connector corridors which generally are perpendicular to the three primary corridors in the study area (US 85, 1-25, and the BNSF ). Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 West from SH 257 to 1-25, land uses are mostly agricultural with a few farmsteads adjacent to the road . On the northwest corner of SH 257 and County Line Road , a large residential development being constructed . West from the 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange, there is a mix of undeveloped agricultural lands and commercial uses adjacent to Harmony Road . Agricultural lands diminish as the road leaves the interchange area and is replaced with developed lands . There are a number of large subdivisions set back from Harmony Road interspersed among the commercial properties. There are also a few retail centers along this stretch . • 27 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts E IS information. cooperation transportation. SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 , South from WCR 74, there is a mix of agricultural lands and large lot subdivisions . These land uses continue until just north of SH 392 , where the road crosses Windsor Lake on a narrow causeway. South of the lake , residential and commercial uses dominate associated with the Town of Windsor. The corridor jogs to the east along SH 392 through _ Windsor's downtown commercial _ - e `': ` ="'° ;ssimarnmesTn district. East of the downtown , = 4 commercial uses give way to residential uses . There is a cemetery on the f, southwest corner of SH 392 and SH 257 "i` - fir- A. where the corridor again jogs to the south along SH 257 . South of SH 392 , there are mostly commercial uses to the east of SH 257 and residential uses to ! ` , F.; the west. SH 257 A{ F • 5 crosses over the ,; , � , �.t `; er Cache La Poudre River drainage which .4 has a number of ponds from former Looking west along US 34 just east of I-25. gravel mining , as well as residential uses . South of the river, SH 257 veers to the southeast following a drainage through rolling terrain until it intersects with US 34 . Land uses through this stretch are agricultural and oil and gas development. US 34 from Greeley to Loveland West from Greeley, land use along the business loop portion of US 34 is primarily , residential near the core downtown area . As 10th Street continues west past 231 Avenue, land uses become more typical of commercial/retail strip development. This continues west until a number of large subdivisions begin to dominate the corridor around 50th Avenue . Development gives way to primarily agricultural lands interspersed with only a few subdivisions and commercial properties until the interchange with 1-25. At the interchange, large regional commercial centers are being developed in the northwest and northeast quadrants . Commercial uses dominate on the north side of US 34 west of the 1-25 interchange, but quickly revert to agricultural lands interspersed with a few commercial and residential uses . As the corridor approaches Loveland , agricultural lands diminish and are replaced with a solid mix of commercial and residential uses . Commercial uses dominate as the corridor approaches US 287 and the downtown Loveland area . SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 This corridor is characterized by primarily long stretches of agricultural lands between US 85 and the small rural Towns of Milliken and Johnstown . SH 60 crosses the South Platte River drainage east of Milliken and has a few subdivisions interspersed among agricultural lands . The roadway serves as a central commercial corridor through Milliken and Johnstown . West of Johnstown , land use is again primarily agricultural with a few residential parcels . 28 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation • SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud Land use along this stretch of road is almost entirely agricultural with a few homesteads adjacent to the roadway. Commercial and more dense residential development begins as SH 56 enters Berthoud , where it forms the main street for the Town . SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont At the 1-25 interchange, SH 119 contains mostly strip commercial development, but quickly changes to agricultural uses, as well as undeveloped lands associated with former gravel mining operations . Here the roadway crosses the St. Vrain River drainage and then passes several subdivisions setback from the roadway. Farther west there are a few recreational and commercial uses adjacent to the road before it again crosses the St. Vrain River. Near this crossing , there are several large former industrial properties on the outskirts of Longmont. SH 119 parallels the St. Vrain River until the intersection with US 287 where more typical strip retail development dominates . SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot West from Fort Lupton , the corridor crosses the South Platte River drainage and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. There are a number of homesteads interspersed among the agricultural lands adjacent -� • to the roadway. West of CR 17, the corridor passes through Dacono and -,;: , , tip . Frederick. Through this area , Ail '' agricultural lands are quickly being converted mostly to residential uses . �' sy, kz. Commercial uses are interspersed • , < `- among subdivisions near the Towns Looking west along SH 52 just east of 1-25. and then dominate at the interchange with 1-25 . Open space separates subdivisions west of 1-25 as SH 52 enters Boulder County to Niwot. E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport Land uses are rapidly changing along this corridor from agriculture to large subdivisions and employment and commercial centers. East from 1-25 , there are a number of newer large subdivisions between interchanges. New commercial development is occurring at the interchanges with York Street and Colorado Boulevard and a few locations in between . E- 470 crosses over the South Platte River further east and then crosses the US 85 and 1-76 corridors. Land uses in these areas are also rapidly changing from agriculture to residential and commercial centers . From 1-76 south to Pena Boulevard and Denver International Airport, there are still long stretches of agricultural lands. S 29 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation 3.1 .5 Corridor Zoning i Because zoning varies by municipal or county within the jurisdictions , there are more than 100 distinct zoning classifications in the 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 . Table 3: 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 Residential types 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. Mobile Home Residential Generally intended to allow for developments where spaces are either sold or 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. Planned Unit Development Generally a versatile zoning mechanism allowing for land development of any nature (residential, commercial, industrial, etc. ) either as a single use or in combination, through total integrated pro*ect planning. Agricultural Generally includes farming, ranching, and other agricultural related uses. Residential development where compatible is often allowed. Open Space/Conservation Generally established as a conservation district to preserve the environment 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 . I 30 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1.5 Corridor Zoning i Because zoning varies by municipal or county within the jurisdictions, there are more than 100 distinct zoning classifications in the 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. Table 3: 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 Residential types 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. Mobile Home Residential Generally intended to allow for developments where spaces are either sold or 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. Planned Unit Development Generally a versatile zoning mechanism allowing for land development of any 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/Conservation Generally established as a conservation district to preserve the environment 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. • 30 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 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/North Longmont 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. Commercial zoning is usually adjacent to transportation corridors or urban centers and surrounded by residential zoning. 3.2 FACILITIES This section summarizes detailed existing land use and zoning for the commuter bus stations, bus rapid transit stations, commuter rail stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations. Existing land use information was obtained from municipal and county land use maps, 2002 to 2004 aerial photographs, and comprehensive plans. It is important to note that development and conversion of agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses is occurring rapidly in the regional study area, particularly along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions contained in this section should be considered in a general context as specific land uses may have changed. Similarly, zoning is based on 2004 to 2006 municipal and county information, which also has been changing rapidly, and should be considered in a general context. Appendices B through F contain land use and zoning maps for the stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange • upgrade locations. 3.2.1 Commuter Bus Stations A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed commuter bus station area is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix B. Greeley Commuter Bus Station The proposed commuter bus station site is on the northwest corner of US 85 and D Street and is currently occupied by an auto salvage yard, mobile home park, and rural residences. The area east of US 85 is undeveloped but is occupied by a large colony of prairie dogs. Surrounding land use to the west is aggregate mining adjacent to the South Platte River. To the southwest land uses are a mix of residential, light industrial, and commercial. To the northeast and southeast land use is industrial. To the east land uses are agricultural and open space. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, the City of Greeley and Weld County. The City of Greeley zoning for the proposed station site is conservation district and medium intensity industrial. Surrounding zoning includes both the above, as well as, medium and high intensity industrial, low and high intensity commercial, high density residential and PUD. Weld County zoning for the surrounding area includes low density residential, industrial, business commercial, and agriculture. • 31 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. South Greeley Commuter Bus Station • The proposed station site is northwest of the US 85 and US 34 interchange on the southwest corner of 261h Street and 9th Avenue, and occupies a parking lot between commercial uses. Businesses surround the station site in all directions except to the north and northwest. To the northwest and west, land uses are dominated by residential areas and about 2000 feet northwest is a school. Near the intersection of US 85 and US 34 to the southeast is a small residential development. Large tracts of commercial businesses extend east and northeast. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, the City of Greeley and Garden City. The City of Greeley zoning of the proposed station site is commercial high intensity and surrounding zoning includes commercial high intensity, medium intensity industrial, low and medium density residential, and mobile home residential. Garden City has jurisdiction over a small tract to the south of the proposed station but this area is not zoned. Evans Commuter Bus Station The proposed station site on the southeast corner of US 85 and 42nd Street is on a vacant lot. The site is flanked on the east by a subdivision and storage lot and on the west by US 85. Commercial land uses dominate to the west and north and the South Platte River is to the south. To the east are single family residences with some multi and two family units, small industrial buildings adjacent to the railroad tracks, and commercial establishments, likely industrial/farming supply stores. • City of Evans zoning of the proposed station site includes residential commercial and single family residential. Surrounding zoning includes commercial high intensity, low industrial intensity, and single family residential. Platteville Commuter Bus Station The proposed station site is located on the northwest corner of US 85 and SH 66 on a vacant lot. Development is concentrated along the western side of US 85. Adjacent uses to the lots consist of three small warehouses on the north, two commercial businesses on the south, and a school to the west. Uses to the south of the sites are low and high density residential. Farther to the north are public parks and high and low intensity residential. West of the site is the South Platte River and undeveloped open land with adjacent agricultural uses. All uses to the east beyond US 85 are agricultural land. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Platteville and Weld County. Platteville does not have zoning but they have adopted a comprehensive plan for their jurisdiction. Future land use designations include commercial, low, medium, and high density residential, vacant/undeveloped, public/semi-public, park/recreations. Weld County zoning for the area west of the South Platte River is agriculture. • 32 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Fort Lupton Commuter Bus Station The land uses within the proposed station site on the southeast corner of US 85 and 14th Street (CR 14.5) are an industrial truck yard and a gas station with a convenience store. The site is adjacent to the eastern right-of-way of US 85. Beyond US 85 to the northwest and southwest land uses consist of industrial, agricultural land, and the South Platte River. Land uses immediately surrounding the site in all directions to the east consist of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Fort Lupton and Weld County. Fort Lupton zoning of the proposed station site is light industrial, and surrounding zoning includes heavy industrial, heavy and general commercial, low and medium density residential and mobile home, and parks and open space. Isolated parcels to the northwest and northeast are zoned as agricultural by Weld County. 3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Stations A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) station area is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix C. South Fort Collins Transit Center BRT Station The proposed station site is located southwest of US 287 and Harmony Road, adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks, northwest of US 287 and West Fairway Lane. The site is on an undeveloped parcel owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed station site is • surrounded by a mix of uses including commercial, isolated small open areas, large lot residential and single family residential units. To the east is US 287. To the west, land uses are mostly single family and estate/rural residences and some smaller parcels with undeveloped agricultural land. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Fort Collins and Larimer County. The City of Fort Collins has zoned the proposed station area as a commercial district and the surrounding area as commercial, Harmony Corridor, low density residential, and public open lands districts. Larimer County zoning for the surrounding area includes farming and residential. Harmony Road and Timberline BRT Station The proposed site is on the southwest corner of Harmony Road and Timberline. The site includes a commercial building and its parking lot east of Timberline. The western portion includes a parking lot in front of a movie theater. The station would share parking with the movie theater. Surrounding land uses in all directions include a mix of residential uses including large lot and high density, commercial, public open lands, and small parcels of undeveloped land. Fort Collins zoning for the station site is within the Harmony Corridor District, and zoning for the surrounding area includes low density mixed use neighborhood, low density residential, urban estate, employment district, and public open lands. • 33 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. 1-25 and Harmony Road BRT Station • The proposed station is located on the northwest corner of 1-25 and Harmony Road at the site of a park and ride lot and open space designated for the future expansion of the park and ride. The majority of the surrounding area is undeveloped land. To the northwest is open space land with lakes and ponds. Adjacent to the southwest is Harmony Road beyond which is agricultural land. Directly to the south is a gas station and convenience store, nursery with a lake and pond, and a small developing subdivision. To the east is 1-25, graded areas, and agricultural land. A small group of houses within the Town of Timnath are located to the northeast across 1-25. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under three jurisdictions, Fort Collins, Larimer County, and Timnath. City of Fort Collins zoning of the proposed station area is public open land. Fort Collins zoning for the surrounding area consists of urban estate district, public open lands, and the Harmony Corridor District. Larimer County zoning includes commercial and farming, and Town of Timnath zoning surrounding the proposed station site includes old town residential, two family-multi family residential, and commercial. Windsor BRT Station The proposed station site is located just southeast of the 1-25 and SH 392 interchange, between 1-25 and a subdivision. The site is within an undeveloped parcel adjacent to 1-25. East of the site is a residential area and to the west is 1-25, agriculture land, and the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. To the south is agricultural land. The Town of Windsor zoning for the proposed station area is light industrial. Surrounding • zoning is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Windsor and Larimer County. Windsor zoning includes general commercial, general commercial PUD, residential mixed use and limited industrial. Larimer County zoning includes residential, estate, multifamily, commercial, airport, tourist and farming. Crossroads BRT Station There are two sites proposed for the station, referred to as the northeast and southeast sites. Northeast Site (Site O). The proposed station site is northeast of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard in the area occupied by the Budweiser Events Center. The station would share parking with the Events Center. Surrounding land uses include a mix of agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. To the south is Crossroads Boulevard with a small commercial area. 1-25 is adjacent to the west next to agricultural property and the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. A developing commercial center is located to the northwest, immediately north is agricultural land, and to the northeast is a developing residential area and golf course. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Loveland and Windsor. The City of Loveland zones the proposed station area as Larimer County Fairgrounds and the surrounding area as developing industrial, business, and resource. Surrounding zoning by Larimer County includes agriculture and airport, and Town of Windsor includes general commercial and limited industrial. • 34 NORTH I--25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Southwest Site (Site M). The proposed station site is southwest of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard on agricultural land, south of the Great Western railroad. To the north of the proposed station site is agriculture and open land but commercial/business sites are developing. 1-25 is immediately adjacent to the east beyond which is a new commercial center. The south and southwest are developing with new office buildings, a small commercial center, and residential tracts. To the west are Equalizer Lake and Houts Reservoir. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Loveland and Larimer County. Zoning for the proposed station area is Larimer County Airport. City of Loveland zoning for the surrounding area includes gateway, developing industrial, business, and resource, and Millennium and Twin Peaks additions. Larimer County zoning includes airport. US 34 and SH 257 BRT Station The proposed station site contains an existing RTD parking lot on the northwest corner of US 34 and SH 257, at the junction of the US 34 business loop and bypass. The station would share parking with the existing parking lot. Agricultural lands surround the site in all directions. Zoning in the areas surround the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Greeley and Weld County. Zoning for the site and lands to the northwest and southwest is Greeley industrial medium intensity. Lands to the east are Greeley PUD and to the southeast are industrial low and medium intensity. Two parcels north of the site are zoned Weld County agricultural. • West Greeley BRT Station The proposed station site is located on the southeast corner of US 34 (Business Loop) and 83rd Avenue and is largely surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land. Immediately to the west is 83rd Avenue and agricultural land. To the northwest is the intersection of US 34 Business Loop and 83rd Avenue is also agricultural land. To the north is agricultural land and to the east is a subdivision. To the southeast are agricultural land and a residential area to the east. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, the City of Greeley and Weld County. The City of Greeley zoning for the proposed station site is commercial low and high intensity. Surrounding zoning includes low and high density residential, low intensity commercial, and PUD. Weld County zoning in the surrounding area includes agriculture. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center BRT Station The proposed station site is located in downtown Greeley between 9th Avenue and 8th Avenue on 7th Street in a commercial area that includes a motel and associated parking lot. The proposed station site is an existing transit center and would be used as a bus stop only. Adjacent to the east is US 85 and to the west is 9th Avenue. To the north the site is bound by 6th Street and on the south by 10th Street. The site is surrounded by urban development with the exception of a park to the west. Beyond this park are commercial and residential areas. To the north uses are typically mixed with commercial and residential. To the northeast, east, and southeast the site is bordered by commercial uses, the railroad tracks, and beyond that are • industrial uses. To the south and southwest land uses are typically commercial with residential units becoming more prominent approximately 4 blocks away. 35 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. Greeley zoning for the proposed site and surrounding blocks is commercial high density. • Land to the east of US 85 is zoned industrial light and medium density. Surrounding zoning includes PUD and residential medium density to the north and residential high density to the southwest and northwest. Berthoud BRT Station The proposed station is located on the northwest corner of 1-25 and SH 56. The surrounding area is occupied by agricultural land with a few isolated residences. 1-25 borders the proposed station to the east and Highway 56 borders the station to the north. The proposed station is located within the City of Berthoud. The area is not zoned but the City has adopted the 1-25 Sub-Area Land Use Plan which designates a number of land uses for the area. These land use designations include: mixed use, employment, high density residential, open space, flex/office residential, general commercial, medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, and a potential park site. Firestone BRT Station The proposed station site is located on the east side of 1-25 approximately .5 mile south of SH 119. The site is occupied by commercial and agricultural lands. The majority of the surrounding area is agricultural. However, areas to the north, northeast, and east are developing rapidly with residential and commercial uses. To the south is a commercial site and additional agricultural land. Immediately adjacent to the west is 1-25 and further west is mostly agricultural land with single family residential neighborhoods and commercial uses to • the northwest. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Weld County and Firestone. Weld County zoning for the west portion of the proposed station site is business commercial and PUD. Firestone zoning for the east portion of the proposed station site is employment center. Zoning for the surrounding area includes business commercial, PUD, and mobile home residential. Town of Firestone zoning for the surrounding areas includes regional commercial and employment center. Frederick/Dacono BRT Station The proposed station site on the west side of 1-25, .5 mile north of SH 52, is entirely within agricultural land and the surrounding land uses are mostly agricultural. To the west are a few rural/estate residential units but to the north and south is agricultural property. Adjacent to the east is 1-25 and beyond that to the northeast, east and southeast is agricultural land. The Town of Frederick zones the proposed station area as single family residential and neighborhood commercial. The Towns of Frederick, Erie, and Dacono and Weld County maintain zoning for the surrounding area. Town of Frederick zoning includes single family residential, neighborhood commercial, business light industrial, industrial, PUD, business district, and public established district. Town of Erie zoning includes, regional commercial. Town of Dacono zoning includes commercial residential, light industrial, and residential. Weld County zoning includes agriculture. • 36 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station There are two sites being proposed for the station; referred to as the northeast and southwest sites. Northeast Site (Site E). The proposed station site east of 1-25 and .5 mile north of SH 7 consists of agricultural land and the surrounding area contains almost all agricultural land. Adjacent to the west is 1-25 and agricultural land with a rural/estate neighborhood. Development in this area is occurring rapidly and a large residential development is being built in this vicinity. The City of Broomfield zoning of the proposed station site and all surrounding areas is PUD. Southwest Site (Site C). The proposed station site located on the southwest corner of the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange is located on agricultural land in Broomfield. The surrounding area consists almost entirely of agricultural land. A small mobile home park with about 50 units is located farther east. Adjacent to the north is SH 7 beyond which is a stock yard and agricultural land. To the south is agricultural land and to the west are agricultural land and a rural/estate residential neighborhood. The City of Broomfield zoning for the proposed station site and all surrounding areas is PUD. 3.2.3 Commuter Rail Stations • A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed commuter rail station area is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix D. Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Commuter Rail Station The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center station is proposed for two different parcels, each located near the intersection of Mason Street and Cherry Street, just west of US 287. The parcels are located at the north end of the Mason Street transportation corridor where the BNSF railroad tracks lie along the middle of the street. The northern site (Site A) is a vacant lot. The southern site (Site C) contains a parking lot. Land uses surrounding the two station sites to the south, southeast, and east are typically commercial downtown and light industrial. To the west, land uses consist of low to high density residential. To the north is a recreational area with ball fields, open space, and trails. To the northeast is a mix of commercial, industrial, and open space. Both sites are zoned in the Fort Collins downtown district. Fort Collins zoning of the surrounding area includes the following districts: downtown, transition, community commercial, community commercial Poudre River, commercial north college, community commercial north college, neighborhood conservation buffer, neighborhood conservation medium density, river downtown redevelopment, low density mixed use neighborhood, employment, industrial, limited commercial, and public open lands. Colorado State University (CSU) Commuter Rail Station The proposed station platform would be located adjacent to South Mason Street between • University Avenue on the north and West Pitkin Street on the south. Immediately surrounding the platform are school facilities and businesses. All surrounding areas to the south and west are developed with uses related to CSU including buildings, parking lots, 37 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. and manicured fields. To the north, northeast, east, and southeast are large areas of single • family residences. Fort Collins zoning for the proposed site is the same as all of the CSU campus: CSU zoning. To the north and along US 287 (North College Avenue) parcels are zoned community commercial. Not far from the site to the northwest and east blocks are zoned neighborhood conservation. South Fort Collins Transit Center Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site is located southwest of US 287 and Harmony Road, adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks, northwest of US 287 and West Fairway Lane. The site is on an undeveloped parcel owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed station site is surrounded by a mix of uses including commercial, isolated small open areas, estate residential and single family residences. To the east is US 287. To the west, land uses are mostly single family and estate/rural residences and some smaller parcels with undeveloped agricultural land. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Fort Collins and Larimer County. The City of Fort Collins zones the proposed station area as a commercial district and the surrounding area as commercial, Harmony Corridor, low density residential, and public open lands districts. Larimer County zoning for the surrounding area includes farming and residential. North Loveland Commuter Rail Station • The proposed station would occupy an area developed with commercial establishments and parking lots to the southwest of the intersection of 29th Street and US 287. Land uses surrounding the proposed station include single family residential adjacent to the west and Lake Loveland to the southwest. To the east and northeast is mostly commercial development and to the south is single family residential development. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Loveland and Larimer County. The City of Loveland zones the proposed station site as business and Orchard Town Homes PUD. Surrounding zoning includes high density residential, established low density residential, developing business, Fox Point Estates PUD, 25th Street office, Evergreen Meadows North addition, and established low density residential. Larimer County zoning is farming. Downtown Loveland Commuter Rail Station The proposed station is located northwest of North 4th Street and Cleveland Avenue (US 287) adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks and is surrounded by industrial and commercial downtown uses. Other surrounding uses are residential to the west, north, and east and commercial along US 287. Industrial uses continue to the south for a short distance followed by commercial and residential areas. City of Loveland zones the proposed station area as heavy industrial and zones the surrounding area as heavy industrial, developing and established business districts, low density residential, developing industrial, developing resource areas. • 38 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. iBerthoud Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site is located within an existing industrial area on the northwest corner of US 287 and Mountain Avenue (SH 56), between the BNSF railroad tracks and US 287. Adjacent uses to US 287 include multiple family residential, commercial business, and open and undeveloped Larimer County land. Surrounding land uses to the southwest and northwest are mostly mixed density residential with limited commercial and industrial downtown uses. To the northeast land uses consist of industrial and commercial businesses. Adjacent to the southeast of the SH 56 and North 3r° Street intersection also is industrial and commercial, but beyond this approximate one block area is a concentration of residential development with single family and mobile homes. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Berthoud and Larimer County. The City of Berthoud zoning for the northwest proposed station area is industrial and remaining is single-family residential. City of Berthoud zoning for the surrounding area includes limited industrial and industrial, commercial, unit development, and one family, multiple family, limited multiple family, and mobile home. Larimer County zoning in the area includes farming. North Longmont Commuter Rail Station The proposed station occupies agricultural land north of SH 66, between US 287 and North 115th Street adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks, and includes a rural residence and a number of associated buildings, silo, an unnamed ditch, and trees. To the northeast and • northwest is undeveloped agricultural land and rural residences. To the southwest is a single family subdivision and to the southeast are developing single family homes. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Boulder County and Longmont. Boulder County zoning of a small area of the proposed station area is agriculture, while the larger City of Longmont portion is PUD commercial. Boulder County zoning to the north of Highway 66 is agriculture. Longmont zoning to the south consists of PUD residential and commercial, estate residential and low and medium density residential. Longmont at Sugar Mill Commuter Rail Station There are two sites being proposed for the station site. One is on a parcel south of Sugar Mill Road, north of Ken Pratt Boulevard, and west of North 119th Street. The second site is just north of the first, on the north side of Sugar Mill Road. South of Sugar Mill Road (Site A). The proposed station site south of Sugar Mill Road occupies a vacant area of an industrial site with industrial buildings and grain silos. Land uses to the northwest and northeast consists of industrial uses, extensive residential development, and the Fox Hills Golf Course. Immediately southwest of the proposed station location is a wastewater treatment plant. Other uses to the southwest and southeast consist of undeveloped land, the St. Vrain River, and agricultural land. Both the County of Boulder and the City of Longmont have zoning designations in and around the proposed station location. The County of Boulder zones the proposed station area as general industrial. Boulder County zoning for the surrounding area is general industrial. City of Longmont zoning includes residential low, medium, and high density, estate residential, residential PUD, commercial, and public. 39 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. North of Sugar Mill Road (Site G). The proposed station site north of Sugar Mill Road • occupies an industrial site with vacant land. Land uses to the northwest and northeast consists of industrial uses, extensive residential development, and the Fox Hills Golf Course. Immediately southwest of the proposed station location is a wastewater treatment plant. Other uses to the southwest and southeast consist of undeveloped land, the St. Vrain River, and agricultural land. To the south is industrial land and the sugar mill. Both the County of Boulder and the City of Longmont have zoning designations in and around the proposed station location. The County of Boulder zones the proposed station area as general industrial. Boulder County zoning for the surrounding area is general industrial. City of Longmont zoning includes residential low, medium, and high density, estate residential, residential PUD, commercial, and public. I-25 and Weld County Road 8 Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site is located on the northwest corner of 1-25 and WCR 8 on agricultural land. The proposed station is surrounded by agricultural land in all westward directions and is bound by the BNSF railroad line on the north. Immediately east is 1-25 and agricultural land. Weld County zoning for the station area and surrounding areas is agriculture. The Cities of Dacono and Erie zone the surrounding area as commercial district and planned development, respectively. 3.2.4 Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance Facilities • There are two locations proposed for a commuter rail maintenance facility; one in Fort Collins and the other in Berthoud. There are also two options for a BRT or commuter bus maintenance facility; one in Fort Collins and the other in Greeley. Only one maintenance facility for each commuter rail and BRT/commuter bus would be required. A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed maintenance facility site is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix E. Fort Collins Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of Vine Drive and Timberline Road on agricultural land. The site area is largely surrounded by agricultural land. Immediately to the south, southwest, and east is agricultural land. A small construction yard also is located to the south. Immediately to the north is Vine drive, beyond which is agricultural land with single rural residences. A small developing residential area is being built to the northeast. To the northwest across Vine Dr. and Timberline Road is an established apartment complex and developing residential area with agricultural land beyond. To the west and southwest is a mobile home park, industrial, commercial, and vacant land. Zoning is under the jurisdiction of Fort Collins and is low density mixed use and industrial. Land surrounding the proposed site is Larimer County industrial to the south and west, Larimer County farming to the north and industrial and Fort Collins low density mixed use to the east. • 40 NORTH I--25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Berthoud Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility The proposed commuter rail maintenance site at the southwest corner of CR 46 and US 287 is located on an active agricultural field. Surrounding land use to the northeast, east, and southeast is mostly agricultural. To the south is a manufacturing/industrial area that extends to SH 56. Immediately adjacent to the site to the west are the BNSF tracks beyond which to the west and southwest are single and multi-family residences. To the northwest is agricultural fields and rural residences. Zoning of the proposed site is Town of Berthoud industrial. Land to the east and north is zoned Larimer County farming and to the south are more industrial parcels. Land to the west is zoned Berthoud single family. Fort Collins BRT Maintenance Facility The proposed BRT maintenance site would be located at the north end of Portner Road, just north of Trilby Road on a site with commercial and undeveloped land. The site is surrounded by a mostly urbanized area. The built environment surrounding the site is dominated by residential development with agriculture. To the northeast, east, and southeast, residential areas range from low to medium density. To the northwest, west, and southwest, most of the land is developed with single family and rural residences, but tracts of undeveloped land are located to the southwest. The proposed maintenance facility site is zoned Fort Collins employment. Property to the north is zoned public open lands, to the east and south is low density residential, and to the west is Larimer County farming. Greeley BRT Maintenance Facility The proposed BRT maintenance site is located west of the intersection of 31st Street and 1St Avenue on an undeveloped parcel. The alternate site is occupied by a small commercial building and a vacant parcel. All uses to the north and east consist of undeveloped land and industrial buildings. To the northeast are developing commercial and residential sites. To the west is a commercial area and to the northwest is the SH 85/US 34 interchange. To the southwest and south land uses are primarily residential with scattered commercial areas and agricultural parcels. To the southeast land uses include agriculture and an auto salvage yard. Zoning of the proposed maintenance facility site on the north side of 31s` Street is City of Greeley industrial medium intensity. The site located on the south side of 3151 Street is City of Evans two family residential. Land to the north and northeast is zoned by Greeley as industrial while land to the southeast and southwest is zoned by Evans as residential. 3.2.5 I-25 Interchange Upgrade Locations A description of the existing land use and zoning at interchange upgrade locations is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix F. SH 1 • Dense residential development interspersed with commercial development within the Town of Wellington is located to the west of the 1-25 and SH 1 interchange. To the east development is sparse and consists of rural residential units adjacent to the freeway and agricultural land further east. 41 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. The Town of Wellington does not maintain zoning for Town areas but it does have • performance districts in the general vicinity of the interchange. To the east of the interchange in Larimer County, the area is zoned as open space. Mountain Vista Drive The 1-25 and Mountain Vista Drive interchange is largely surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land. A small nursery is located to the northeast with agricultural land beyond. To the immediate southeast and southwest is agricultural land and a subdivision with approximately 350 homes is located farther to the southwest. To the northwest are agricultural land and the Anheuser Busch brewing facility. Fort Collins zoning for the area surrounding the interchange is industrial, employment, and low density mixed use neighborhood districts. Weld County maintains jurisdiction over areas zoned farming and open space. SH 14 The northeast quadrant contains remnant undeveloped agricultural land with industrial, commercial, and multifamily uses. Immediately adjacent to the intersection in the southeast quadrant are commercial uses with undeveloped agricultural land beyond. The southwest quadrant contains a large commercial complex immediately adjacent to the intersection with currently undeveloped agricultural land beyond. Farther west along SH 14 is a subdivision. The northwest quadrant contains a small commercial area with agricultural land adjacent to the freeway. . Zoning of areas surrounding the interchange within Fort Collins includes industrial, employment, and urban estate and low density mixed-use residential. Areas in Larimer County jurisdiction are zoned industrial, commercial, multifamily, and office. Prospect Road The majority of areas surrounding this interchange are agriculture. The northeast quadrant contains a small subdivision and agricultural land. The southeast quadrant contains a rural residential tract and a small commercial center adjacent to the freeway. Agricultural land and the South Platte River are located within the southwest quadrant. Immediately adjacent to the interchange in the northwest quadrant is agricultural land with a subdivision and a commercial center located to the north. Zoning surrounding the interchange is under the jurisdiction of Fort Collins and includes low density mixed-use neighborhood, employment, industrial, commercial, and public open lands districts. Larimer County zoning includes commercial and farming. Harmony Road In the northeast quadrant is an open aggregate mine, a small canal, and residences within the Town of Timnath. To the northwest immediately adjacent to the interchange is a small commercial area, beyond which is agricultural land and a few small lakes. To the southwest there is a nursery next to a small lake. The yard of the nursery appears to contain a large number of machines and a few out buildings. Within the southeast quadrant along Harmony Road is agricultural land with a few rural residences, and south along 1-25 is an • aggregate mine. 42 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under three jurisdictions, City of Fort Collins, Town of Timnath, and Larimer County. City of Fort Collins zoning is public open lands district. Town of Timnath zoning includes commercial and old town residential. Larimer County zoning includes farming, tourist, and open space. SH 392 The majority of the land surrounding the interchange is agriculture. To the southeast is mostly vacant land but east along SH 392 there are recently developed residential tracts. To the northeast most of the area is still in agricultural production. Southwest is agricultural land adjacent to the 1-25 and SH 392 interchange with two residential tracts having been developed and the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport is located farther southwest. To the northwest is Fossil Creek Reservoir, vacant land, and a residential tract. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange is under two jurisdictions, the Town of Windsor and Larimer County. Areas zoned by Windsor include limited industrial, general commercial, general commercial PUD, and residential mixed use. Larimer County zoning includes residential, multi-family, commercial, estate, airport, tourist, and farming. Crossroads Boulevard This interchange is located north of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. Most of the area around the interchange is in agricultural use or vacant. To the northeast of the interchange is the Larimer County Fairgrounds, a subdivision with a golf course, and agricultural land. • In the southeast quadrant there is mostly agricultural land with a commercial center, church, and a large distribution center. To the southwest there is mostly agricultural land, Houts Reservoir, Equalizer Lake, and a small subdivision. To the northwest is Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal airport and undeveloped areas. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the City of Loveland and Larimer County. City of Loveland zoning includes developing industrial and developing resource, the Larimer County Fairgrounds PUD, and the Millennium Addition. Larimer County zoning is airport zone. US 34 The quadrants to the southwest and southeast of the interchange are largely agriculture. Within the southeast quadrant are a few scattered rural residences and a mobile home park. To the northwest immediately adjacent to the intersection is a strip retail center and beyond this lay vacant land, Equalizer Lake, and Houts Reservoir. Immediately adjacent to the interchange on the northeast is an area undergoing development, railroad tracks, and vacant land. Zoning of the area surrounding the interchange are under three jurisdictions, the City of Loveland, Town of Johnstown, and Larimer County. Zoning for Loveland consists of business, developing resource, Millennium Addition, and Gateway. Zoning under Larimer County is farming, commercial, and tourist. Johnstown zoning in this area is designated PUD Commercial District. • 43 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. SH 402 • The areas surrounding the interchange are mostly in agricultural production. The eastern quadrants contain a number of rural residential units, and a small commercial site is located to the east along Valley Block Lane. The western quadrants are also largely in agricultural production. Within the southwest quadrant there is a feed yard and farther from the interchange in the northwest quadrant is a small subdivision. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Johnstown and Larimer County. Zoning for Johnstown consists of PUD for commercial, residential, and mixed use districts, and Larimer County zoning consists of farming. County Road 52 Land uses surrounding the interchange are largely agricultural and vacant land to the west and southwest. A number of rural residential units associated with the agricultural land are located in all quadrants. Within the southeast quadrant there is an industrial property with a truck yard, a hotel, and campground. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Johnstown and Larimer County. Zoning for Johnstown consists of PUD for Business, and Larimer County zoning in this area includes business, commercial, and farming. SH 60 The majority of the area surrounding the interchange is in agricultural production. The only • uses in the southwest and southeast quadrants are rural residential homes. Within the northwest quadrant there is a small industrial/manufacturing area and a distribution center. To the northeast is agricultural land but east along US 60 is Johnstown Reservoir, which is surrounded by a residential development. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Johnstown and Weld County. Zoning for Johnstown in this area consists of PUD, PUD for mixed-use, and gateway district and Weld County maintains jurisdiction over agricultural zones. SH 56 The interchange is completely surrounded by agricultural property interspersed with rural residences. A ditch splits the southwest and southeast quadrant and a dirt bike track is located within the southwest quadrant. The City of Berthoud does not have zoning in the area surrounding the interchange location but has adopted a land use plan for the 1-25 Sub-Area. Land uses designated by the plan include: mixed use, employment, high density residential, open space, flex/office residential, general commercial, medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, and potential park site. • 44 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • County Road 34 Immediately adjacent to the interchange in the northeast quadrant is an auto race track. Agricultural land and scattered rural residences and Holt Reservoir are located in the southwest quadrant. The area surrounding the interchange is under the jurisdiction of Mead. Mead does not have specific zoning for the area but defines specific areas to be annexed and uses for those areas. Annexation areas include the Donaldson Annexation (high density residential), C.J.K Annexation (open space, general commercial, medium density residential and medium high density residential), Raterink Annexation (open space, business park, general commercial), Denver Canadian Inc. Annexation (very low density residential), and Annexation 1-25 #1 and #2 (commercial). SH 66 Within the northeast quadrant adjacent to the interchange is a large commercial/industrial complex. The southeast quadrant contains mostly agricultural land. The southwest quadrant contains agricultural land and Foster Reservoir. Adjacent to the intersection in the northwest quadrant is agricultural land and Highland Reservoir Number 1. Beyond the reservoir is a low density residential development. The area surrounding the interchange is under the jurisdiction of Weld County and Mead. Weld County zoning within the area includes: agriculture, PUD, and commercial. Mead does • not have specific zoning for the area but defines specific areas to be annexed and uses for those areas. Annexation areas include: Hilgers-Schmidt-Rademacher Annexation (business park), Fosters Ridge Annexation (business park), Sekich park Bus Filling 5 (general commercial), Rademacher Annexation (business park), and Sanborn Annexation (business park and medium high density residential). SH 119 The southeast quadrant contains agricultural land, two residential developments, and a commercial site. The southwest quadrant immediately adjacent to the interchange contains a strip retail center and a light industrial/manufacturing area, a mobile home park, a new subdivision, and vacant and agricultural land. The northwest quadrant contains a truck stop nearest the intersection, an aggregate mine, and farther northeast is the St. Vrain State Park. Northeast of the interchange is an office complex, truck stop, and aggregate mine. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Firestone and Weld County. Firestone has zoned the area Del Camino Junction Business Park, Del Camino Central, commercial; and Weld County zoning is agriculture, business commercial, mobile home park, and PUD. • 45 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. County Road 20 • The area surrounding the interchange is mostly agriculture with a few scattered rural residential units. The northeast quadrant contains a distribution center. There is no access from 1-25 to CR 20 at this location. Proposed improvements include re-aligning the frontage roads and underpass for CR 20. Zoning designations for the Town of Frederick consist of PUD, PUD for business light industrial, industrial, and residential, residential and estate district, and industrial district. SH 52 Most of the area surrounding the interchange is in either agricultural production or is being developed for commercial uses. Two looping frontage roads are on both the east and west side of 1-25. The northeast quadrant contains all agricultural land. The southeast quadrant contains mostly agricultural land but has a small office building. Adjacent to the interchange to the southwest is a truck stop, beyond which are a series of commercial/light industrial sites and agricultural land with a few rural residences. The northwest quadrant between the frontage road and 1-25 is a park and ride and a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintenance yard. Beyond the frontage road are vacant agricultural land and some rural residential units. Zoning of the area surrounding the interchange is under three jurisdictions, Town of Dacono, Town of Frederick, and Town of Erie. Zones in Dacono include: commercial residential, light industrial, and residential. The Town of Frederick has zoning for PUD, • residential, commercial, and employment. Town of Erie zoning designations within this area include regional commercial. County Road 8 The area surrounding the interchange is mostly in agricultural production. Within the southeast quadrant is a construction yard with equipment and parked vehicles and agricultural land. The northeast quadrant contains either vacant or agricultural land. The northwest quadrant next to the interchange contains an aggregate mine operation beyond which is vacant agricultural land. The southwest quadrant contains vacant and agricultural land adjacent to the interchange and further to the west is an auto salvage yard, a stock/feed yard, and in the southern portion of the quadrant is a smaller stock/feed yard, and rural residences. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under three jurisdictions, Town of Dacono, Town of Erie, and Weld County. The land under the jurisdiction of Dacono includes residential and commercial districts. Zoning designations in the area managed by the Town of Erie include planned development. Weld County zoning in the area includes agriculture and town. • 46 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 4.0 FUTURE LAND USE This section generally summarizes the future land use for the US 85 corridor, 1-25 corridor, and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor based on municipal and Table 4: Future Land Use Categories county comprehensive plans and other and Acreage planning documents (as described in Section 2.2). Also, it is important to note that Land Use Category Approximate development is growing and rapidly changing Acres Aland use in the regional study area, Residential eal 2 ,200 articular) along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, m 288,200 particularly Commercial 136,800 descriptions contained in this section should Open Space/Parks 111,300 be considered in a general context about Surface Water Areas 28,000 future land use visions. For simplification, Vacant/Unknown 200 land uses have been generally categorized Total 776,100 into agricultural, residential, commercial Note: Acres are approximate based on GIS estimates (including retail, industrial, office, etc), and from Figure 4. open space/parks. Figure 4 depicts the North 1-25 regional study area generalized future land use based on this information. Table 4 summarizes the estimated future acreages in each land use category for the regional study area. 4.1 US 85 CORRIDOR Review of future land use designations 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, BNSF corridors, or east-west corridors. The UPRR and South Platte River that parallel US 85 through this corridor will continue to have a major influence on how land will be developed. Heavier industries and commercial uses will continue to concentrate adjacent to the UPRR tracks, and the downtown areas of rural municipalities such as Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, and Platteville will continue to be concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the South Platte River. The South Platte River will generally constrain the westward spread of these towns. Downtown Greeley will 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 Evans, 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 will be 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 will add residents by allowing smaller or medium sized subdivisions to be built on agricultural lands surrounding the core downtowns or along the outer edges 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. • 47 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Figure 4: North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use 411 i'EGEND Al Study Corridors .. r••'-•�''~••-.., /\/ Highways ` V tItington 'N /\./ Arterial Roads A ' . . 85- La j Regional Study Area �� a* ♦'\, • a Cities & Towns 4 Race �•, - ' . N. New Development in 2030 1 Frirt Co11i s w • ;• Employment Area ! • 1 Atilt 14 Residential . • ' • ' • _ fir ;257 - • Open Space/Parks • • - ;Scrod/cc Eaton Existing Land Use in 2000 I V • ' Residential I yr. Windsor r Employment Area ! f ;, ' 1, 1 ' ' • Open Space/Parks h • . . \ Greeley t Agriculture 34 ! .� 3 !. .: ;��, 1 I • n : 1 • l ovelend . ' i� .;vY� ae ', ,� '. ri 34 Surface Water i r .a 1/410;46,,,:::- .y ,JI:' �, Future residential and employment land �M / area requirements are based on 2030 •' i it ' •+s••Ia Sstt+, %r household and employment forecasts !! W"'p'al Join 't"w",. /; from the Denver Regional Council of tl '6qP - 85 Goverrnents (DRCOG) and North Front !Bent - , !n0.Mdteten / Range Metropolitan Planning Organization L - ' I f,, % (NFRMPO),allocated to locations based j 1 i' 111 on municipal and county comprehensive ' plan maps I ' P , t e � Mad ,. I r Rana„'ti ..------ , • • V i t ,- _ ungmont /? ' _• 'i•- Irnr I / : • I / r 1/r ' -Nwei t r • .�, f 1,9!,•1 :i - / .` 1 v ter ' � ._ ;s≥: _ O, i . . Boulder • 7 ' : �•. l c l , ` 1 • ti.� • J '�.._ .. a Nnrfl+7:Nnn t� Trwn!cve \ • �' �l• r :it is Y, ..,. fi ,• A, Ili. some Denver NIL 0 2 4 6 8 10 { ' 1 ' 7 l Miles North �1 II u.e a.,+.,+ WI Jima .w FREE , )1)700' 48 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . As the US 85 corridor approaches Brighton and the Denver metropolitan area, density of residential and commercial uses will continue to increase with infill projects and eventually there will 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/l-76 interchange area and south toward Denver where there is easy access to the Denver International Airport and downtown Denver. 4.2 1-25 CORRIDOR Based on future land use designations, land uses have been and will continue to change rapidly along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of Harmony Road where agricultural lands are being converted to commercial and residential uses on a regular basis. Land uses will continue to 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 will encourage commercial development along 1-25 to take advantage of the highway system, visibility, and easy access. Residential uses will be generally set back farther from 1-25, although there will likely remain stretches of residential and agricultural lands adjacent to 1-25. At the north end of the study area in Wellington, moderate growth is anticipated and the area will 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 will 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 will likely remain 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 will eventually grow toward each other so that there are no unincorporated lands separating them. As with towns along the US 85 corridor, these towns desire to maintain agricultural lands and open space between each town, but 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 metropolitan area, most all agricultural land uses adjacent to 1-25 will likely be converted to commercial and residential uses, with some land set aside for open space or recreation. 4.3 BNSF/LoNGMONT NORTH METRO CONNECTION CORRIDOR The BNSF railroad 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 will 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 will not likely see large scale conversion of lands to new uses. Much of the currently 49 NORTH 1-23 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. undeveloped land between Fort Collins and Loveland is dedicated public lands such as • natural areas and open space and 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 Loveland, 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 though Longmont, most of the lands are already developed and likely will not change substantially, with the exception of the Sugar Mill property along Ken Pratt Boulevard. In this former industrial property, Longmont proposed 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 Longmont North Metro Connection joins with the Union Pacific corridor and traverses southeast toward Thornton, much of the existing agricultural lands will likely be developed into residential uses. Only at major cross streets will there be a densification of commercial uses that require access and other infrastructure. • • 50 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation • 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following section provides a summary of potential direct and indirect land use impacts from the No-Action Alternative and the two build packages. 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 either of the two build packages since the Preferred Alternative resulting from this study has not yet been identified. Detailed information related to compatibility with a specific community's comprehensive plan is included in the Technical Memorandum. The methodology was used to determine compatibility with existing land use, existing zoning, and comprehensive plans. Indirect land use impacts, in particular 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 part of the panel were representatives from two large developers who have projects in the area, and agency representatives from NFRMPO, DRCOG, the Federal Highway Administration (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 three alternatives. Conclusions regarding induced growth in this analysis were primarily based on the input provided by the expert panel. The complete indirect impacts • evaluation is provided in Appendix A. 5.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the 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 would likely 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, and SH 402) in the 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 study area's environmental resources. The continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the 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. 51 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 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 study area where transit enhancements and highway improvements are already in place (FasTracks/I-25 widening). Potential induced growth impacts for the No-Action alternative are illustrated in Figure 5. 5.2 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. 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. Component A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 60 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 80 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 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 • 52 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. sFigure 5: Induced Growth Impacts — No-Action LEGEND --Growth already constrained by ,_-_-- substandard interchanges. -_,- ^I� Study Corridors --Lack of interchange improvements /\/ Highways - A Well mltm would limit development opportunities and reduce quality of development. N;' Arterial Roads ,y --Private sector may contribute to iJ J Regional Study Area 4.I ' a►~ . - improvements that facilitate 14 development opportunities. J Cities & Towns I ` 41 New Development in 2030 I ; Fort,'. lip s 1 ` Employment Area j a 1.14 ,a. .7 , Residential j 7 e / j Open Space/Parks j ' �`' 1 ti ¢ - si$ea,n►.a t.r-r. Existing Land Use : 00 ' I!� i � ��• ,�ea • `i ° � t Greeley 1 .� Open Space/Parks Agriculture ' - I . •,. `— r •i�,� ►-.�,. i+ GadtmGry' I Loveland 34 Surface Water ! ir..r.S o' -1 - ' . � " bar* •ri f 11 , -� lilt. / I .t ` Jw.iavem • Worsening congestion on 1-25 may trigger : •;`'"''`` • Fo / more development along east-west corridors , !,:r„al a 0, _ K 1 no.,m,Il,t.r, 85, where there is less resistance. • - 56 Ir,�I, r ' ' ;i S I -Current development patterns would j r a likely continue (e.g., dispersed and ! w j --Development would be more P I,,.«,, less centralized.) =-1 I'' ! ' k Rho:di. dispersed due to reduced —Development would likely be more .6s, . . -‘ �_ - . : service levels. . i 1 market driven as opposed to :- ' L'ongniont —May make rural areas more municipal preferred. E•: ,• .I j attractive to growth sooner. —Unlikely to see substantial increase . , / I • In1 . in density of existing centers. i ► • ' , 'fuesti:r s I, _ -•- ft. M Aft1I 1 . _ • [`t •� � . f`` � ; :D�K a„. fRt luClrn • J? , . ,P .J �4 . 1 it i i •r Wr�W �I a AL'it ' pr- ii ils--w 1 16:. • —Qt1 ' ;0 Wattri y , 7 Ski: i A Boi4�der -, Sk � VS , /,�Ii„, v rim, 11P.� _--..+rte - i• oui &ill. 7 gains , -•,,,,... , r` • ; I 13 .� + �r• a I, Development focus may shift toward south - -T where infrastructure and capacity along 1-25 \ 1 has already been improved. `\ ." ♦ 4 . ____i- i . p , , ..tt : .��i I . Uelivey ® 4 V I t / - - �y 0 2 4 6 8 10 \ s ice, s Miles North :---4-- • �� ' ~OS ma) / , 11 7A7 53 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, WCR 52, and SH 60 would be compatible since land uses and • zoning are mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 421 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 233 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 This component also includes improvements under the No-Action Alternative as described in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. 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 4 acres of additional right-of-way Table 5: Component A-T1 Compatibility • converted to a transportation use. Commuter Rail Existing Zoning? Comprehensive Station Land Plan? Component A-T1: Use? Fort Collins Yes Yes Yes Commuter Rail: Fort Collins Downtown to Lonqmont Transit Center A double-tracked commuter rail Csu Yes No Yes line using the existing BNSF South Fort Yes Yes Yes railroad track plus one new Collins Transit track from Fort Collins to Center downtown Longmont would be North Loveland Yes No Yes mostly compatible with existing Downtown Yes No Yes land use, zoning, and Loveland comprehensive plans. Berthoud Yes No No However, there are a number of residential developments that North Longmont Yes No Yes have encroached near the alignment that could create some incompatible uses (e.g., a residential use next to a railroad use). Table 5 depicts the compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this component. The locations are in core urban areas and were selected 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. At the proposed Berthoud Station, it was not envisioned as a transit center in the local comprehensive plan. 54 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 160 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T2: Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A new double-tracked commuter rail line, extending from Longmont along a new alignment 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. Table 6 depicts the compatibility Table 6: Component A-T2 Compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this Commuter Bus Existing Zoning? Comprehensive component. The Longmont Station Land Plan? location is in a core urban area Use? and was originally selected Longmont at Yes No Yes based on local government and Sugar Mill community input and therefore, l-25 and WCR 8 No No No would not likely create 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 153 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T3: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA 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. 55 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 7 depicts the compatibility of Table 7: Component A-T3 Compatibility • the proposed new commuter bus stations associated with this Commuter Existing Zoning? Comprehensive component. The locations are in Bus Station Land Plan? core urban areas and were Use? originally selected based on local Greeley Yes No Yes government and community input South Greeley Yes Yes Yes and therefore, would not likely to Evans Yes No Yes Platteville Yes No No create major land use Fort Lupton Yes Yes No incompatibilities. However, many of these locations are not currently zoned for transportation facilities and some are not specifically referenced in 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 this component would convert approximately 14 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA • 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 two build packages since both include highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges. 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 it were a completely new interchange location, which are not being proposed under either package. Under Package A, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the study 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 study area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban centers. This would particularly be the case 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 56 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 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 study 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 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. • Potential induced growth impacts for Package A are illustrated in Figure 6. 5.3 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. • 57 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6: Induced Growth Impacts — Package A I t l I EGF-ND i 1 Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. ^/ Study Corridors ,..---::01 --..,. / Highways -� i "/ w elfin . an Existing residential uses along Harmony ,�i Arterial Roads ,•44 • 1 Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may .1 f:i : -% be converted to higher intensity uses. i J Regional Study Area • t e. a , i t , r�,t� Ll Cities & Towns I f � � • I ' folt ou�ns4Ir Feeder bus routes may shift Larger Urban Areas Enhanced t by Commuter Rail - --� ? ' number of people who live and work in different New Development in 2030 1 V communities. May also Employment Area I --- S'c1•�..' -,„,,,,mSill , allow for increased development ;se„�� 1 as east/west roadways become Residential ; 14; a more congested. f_ Wlr.}:tY Open Space/Parks T . :, - ‘'k •Existing Land Use in 2000 ' • '� \ m Greeley 1l \ Residential .. Qk 1 263 Employment Area wit-- -ill ua/der!City au l vela- 5/ Open Space/Parks — • 'L '' rYc ' - Agriculture .,w.ct�,\, t to Sane , j" m a Surface Water as' • ' `r iii3 s' tt of 4. •/t i. f14...' Y0.M61Lken • • t, . ) . // ' r yi Commuter rail would facilitate the intensificationii r Non urban stations would help of existing urban centers, supporting municipal realize plans for more urban I plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft,Collins, * . • a development that otherwise Mason Street Corridor. 4th Street/downtown ,,, ,a . , ,,. . wouldn't occur (e.g., Longmont/ Loveland, 29th Street). , I. ' • Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick.) Impact "�•.' . F t would be broader than immediate . lr(]n'. ' li" - �' station area. Commuter rail connections to north and _ _ _ south (FasTracks) and connections to I ' DIA/southern communities would ti reinforce Longmont's role as a major . lIn. hub for the region. An overall increase in , !w„,4- t , •! .. I . development would occur as a result. - , • • + # . ' '' iJacuro• Fort Lupton I . I LL O 6_'� • •'�tOtl • . ,'7� ' watten6crg Boirtder" ' «it ' F Y ' .. IV.yetiell .r s :, N. "Inismalto — ertghiCn 7 I t'f ' n ` , Y I 4 rn,II:a, Err+w.l lead ?, •— N�.k1W o R' It ,. + a y e. ' 13' . Nril IPM '�71 0 , h Il • t rr .. • ' .II.. ; a •6 . A + `-iLr �Ise, f 'i Deriver ea..): I T Th. ler. fga0 2 4 6 8 10 •r • I . i a ;� Miles North i ' �ti VAC C.a..rr Ca .Fu,un.rtJl. Cara, r.^'t ?`3 NV 58 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Component B-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 60 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 a transportation use. Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60 would have a similar affect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A-H2. Additionally, 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 480 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470 would have a similar affect 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 281 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 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 not be incompatible 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, Thornton Parkway, and 84th would be compatible since land uses and zoning are already mostly commercial- related. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 50 acres of mostly commercial and residential land to a transportation use. • 59 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts US information. cooperation transportation. Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver • Bus rapid transit (BRT) 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. Table 8: Component B-T1 Compatibility Table 8 depicts the compatibility of Commuter Existing Zoning? Comprehensive the proposed new BRT stations Rail Station Land Plan? associated with this component. Use? Stations along 1-25 would be South Fort Yes Yes Yes located in the median. Only the Collins Transit stations at Fort Collins and Center Hardowntown Greeley are located in and Timbonyerline Road Yes Yes No e and Timberline core urban areas. The other 1-25 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, Greeley Yes Yes Yes a number of the locations are not Downtown currently zoned for transportation Transfer Center uses, and in one case, not West Greeley No No Yes identified as a transit center in the US 25 and Yes No Yes SH 257 local comprehensive plan. Crossroads Yes Yes Yes The Firestone site is zoned both Berthoud Yes Yes Yes • planned unit development (PUD) Firestone Yes Yes/No Yes and residential. Only PUD allows Frederick/ No No Yes transit facilities. Dacono 1-25 and SH 7 No No Yes The BRT 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 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 requirements for this component would convert approximately 17 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins to DIA BRT service along 1-25 from 120th Avenue to downtown Denver 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. • 60 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts 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 two build packages since both include highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges. 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 it were a completely new interchange location, which are not being proposed under either package. The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent appearing improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result provides less incentive for transit oriented development (TOD). Review of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: BRT- related TOD is much 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, and 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 study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the 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-running versus side-running) 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 SH 52 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. • Potential induced growth impacts for Package B are illustrated in Figure 7. 61 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES • There will be no mitigation measures required by CDOT for the build packages. 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 identified and decision documents finalized, 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. • • 62 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. coorera:ion transportation. • Figure 7: Induced Growth Impacts - Package B I FGFND Interchange improvements remain Al Study Corridors -•- - an important factor. "/ Highways r ' vellington ;, :A/ Arterial Roads t• b�`•` H' Regional Study Areaei 14\ tiii /, ' �~ ,•�,• , u Cities & Towns ' ' - A 14 Hwce \'• I New Development in 2030 11' p r 41 Fort Golli` ` ' 'd - Employment Area l • i a' \ 11444 I ' $ ,1/4 Residential ► "' A I • Open Space/Parks ,�,,�,,, ��. Limn ' eSRvhanee ` �• Existing Land Use in 2000 - ' Residential I r ;t it°, • .. •l . lucerne + ` i Employment Area I t�� r • 1 1 "� 1 • Grcley 1 Open Space,Parks i ! 'a g Ir �o , � o o r T• Agriculture -c- . Loveland ' - �� 34 Surface Water ! HeSS. .. p1. • ..kknsnw ., Northern communities already growing Efforts to intensify existing downtown 1.0. centers would not be supported. "- - - • , 0 . 1 • r / . towards east--would result in more "► i a f. ,' . dispersed development as opposed .• , . ` to a more concentrated pattern. Development more focused j :, `Z 1' on I-25 corridor which serves s A�� ' f as a regional 'main street. �� -044. ' --Feeder bus connection to F13itt.• FasTracks would reinforce +r ; J • '�` tri town area as a series of lon�mtalt /� . , . , , •t I� 1 bedroom communties. Longmont would experience rf�- .. - s ,, --Employment concentration some increase in development . /All` -;- - t ' �kn� i would remain west of I.25. as FasTracks end-of-line as well as an increase in through • . A0 i r't•u,,,.• I / • • , 4 F 4.��,Ck _ t traffic triggered by station •' I ! . ' 1 i locations. !7 I «,o• furl tw1«, 52 " . ' ' - -J.' ilki Al)41__�� Q1fyc: ' w - Hr wtietsg Bmdi1R4 a '' , ', ' )) . S., . SUvlxiur .r 1 •; _ . 1 'mot ' 'E !/ _ Fasl)dw •' ' •�. E.vndrrr . i " 1 'Hlnkr ,. �! �' / --BRT stations may support 936 ' �� . t"; �^ ! slight increase in density. ,w• • O:nK «, /r • --Not likely to attract substantial t ti, 1 r` 5 • i new types of development. er->---,...\ • • \; .�"' 1 1 —Access to stations a challenge •`� .. II "r , with more dispersed pattern ' s�• 1 a,l already established to the east. Mai already FN 1 i 0 2 4 6 8 10 - t. • Miles North D.�, /- / E W Dwane•W Aiwa~we.Orr ,,—at 3112007 63 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Appendix A • Indirect Land Use Impacts Evaluation Appendix A THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information cooperation transportation. Appendix A Indirect Land Use Impacts 1.0 Introduction In accordance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, this chapter provides an overview of indirect land use impacts that could occur as a result of the No-Action, Package A, or Package B Alternatives currently under consideration. As defined by CEQ, indirect impacts are "caused by the action and occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). This appendix contains: • A discussion of population and employment trends; • A discussion of the various forces and constraints that affect land use and how they apply in the regional study area • A discussion of potential land use impacts associated with transit; and • The results of an expert panel convened to discuss likely land use impacts associated with each package of build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative. 2.0 Regional Study Area Population and Employment • The North 1-25 EIS regional study area falls in portions of Larimer County, Weld County, the City and County of Broomfield, the City and County of Denver and incorporated municipalities including, but not limited to: Fort Collins, Loveland, Johnstown, Berthoud, Windsor, Timnath, Erie, Greeley, Longmont, Westminster, Thornton, and Broomfield. The regional study area has been experiencing rapid growth in population and employment in recent years, which is projected to continue. Year 2000 and 2030 population and employment forecasts provided by the NFRMPO and DRCOG reflect the planned growth in the regional study area. Data comparing current and forecasted future population and employment within the regional study area are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. The regional study area is expected to see a 79% increase in population from 2000 to 2030 from approximately 1.1 million to 1.9 million, while employment is expected to increase by over 56% for the same time period. The distribution of projected population and employment growth within the regional study area are illustrated in Figure 1 and 2, respectively. • A-1 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 1: Regional Study Area Current and Projected Future Population Jurisdiction 2000 2030 Change % Change Wellington 2,279 4,057 1,778 78% Fort Collins 139,638 228,763 ' 89,125 64% Windsor 11,580 29,527 17,947 155% Loveland 63,647 126,539 62,892 99% Berthoud 9,925 21,742 11,817 119% Johnstown 4,508 13,793 9,285 206% Longmont 72,932 92,959 20,027 28% Firestone 4,766 26,700 21,934 460% Frederick 1084 27,519 26,435 2,439% Dacono 3,333 14,455 11,122 334% Erie 7,875 46,262 38,387 488% Broomfield 40,309 83,125 42,816 106% Thornton 85,448 137,872 52,424 61% • Northglenn 32,479 38,275 5,796 18% Eaton 2,947 10,776 7,829 266% Greeley 76,712 146,910 70,198 92% Evans 12,996 28,188 15,192 117% Fort Lupton 9,820 19,409 9,589 98% Brighton 21,541 65,047 43,506 202% Commerce City 25,967 70,152 44,185 170% Denver* 217,108 341,888 124,780 58% Larimer County 19,034 42,337 23,303 122% North Weld County* 12,716 33,055 20,339 160% South Weld County* 13,109 79,038 65,929 503% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG Asterisks (*)indicate municipalities whose boundaries extend beyond the limits of the regional study area. Population numbers reflect only those portions of the municipality which fall within the regional study area. • A-2 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2: Regional Study Area Current and Projected Future Employment Jurisdiction 2000 2030 Change % Change Wellington 474 491 17 4% Fort Collins 88,251 139,072 50,821 58% Windsor 3,606 7,173 3,567 99% Loveland 31,617 68,225 36,608 116% Berthoud 2,720 4,002 1,282 47% Johnstown 410 1,823 1,413 345% Longmont 30,417 40,353 9,936 33% Firestone 1,045 6,226 5,181 496% Frederick 528 9,709 9,181 1,739% Dacono 219 6,812 6,593 3,011% Erie 859 4,151 3,292 383% Broomfield 19,577 46,794 27,217 139% • Thornton 18,268 42,600 24,332 133% Northglenn 10,668 12,283 1,615 15% Eaton 1,334 1,671 337 25% Greeley 55,673 94,104 38,431 69% Evans 4,317 6,962 2,645 61% Fort Lupton 3,163 5,005 1,842 58% Brighton 8,047 11,152 3,105 39% Commerce City 27,037 37,096 10,059 37% Denver* 278,606 380,768 102,162 37% Larimer County 2,900 9,612 6,712 232% North Weld County* 2,465 5,185 2,720 110% South Weld County* 3,826 18,750 14,924 390% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG. Asterisks(*) indicate municipalities whose boundaries extend beyond the limits of the regional study area. Employment numbers reflect only those portions of the municipality which fall within the regional study area. • A-3 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Il Figure 1 : Regional Study Area Future Population Growth Distribution I EGEND Wellington 2a79 Nunn /V Study Corridors Lari _ County . .- ---.- 381 "s/ Highways 19034 MI 42337 4. .. 1 85 N Weld County / -, Arterial Roads 11 12716 L. Regional Study Area . .% 33055 tiVii o Cities & Towns '` , . • e 701 Fri Municipal influence areas a . ; , 1• ; : , 668 •Population 2000/2030 = 0 M,,, . Ili ill MIMS 926 I. Numbers are for F 1B Collkis 39638 ,f`t Tt ' . .' s 877 •' I portions of jurisdictions ,. Allis `Eaton 228763 : . - -- t' ._ tti7.Qr, i shown on map , �� ., 207 s1323� E,~,�, , 2947 I 3304 •10776 • *re M . .�, .�... - -- , 1 dot=20 persons in 2000 .Nhn°'°' ?-r- Greeley— 't lI ,, .y F,�t,, -t-- .1 78712 ' I 1 dot=20 added in 2030 ;'_.• an 11850 , 146910 ¶vesnd . ?9527 . ieeley i ' -� In 63647 <r .yr., :.1 a v.:: t;EV •. . mini;f t 126639 t. 4508 .1" - / Eyaes • I 13793 ---L°1 e< if' 128196 • thOud ,/r. J Est• Sall 1 oM !a .x'(9925""°"° — , i' 2052• 2652 1 21742• 1 ,. .'•.. .. 1196 . �7 • - ' J , 1123 . lE i PlattwU } a 1601 I . dith". . S Weld County t' 1' •• Longmont : - 1-. �mint 72932 kit.; ' ,' �t 12991 • di 92959, Firestoni kyle ea 174561 4 Boulder County .' F -126 OQ,1`0m t o r ;.1 !7 ` 43351 • 1 . .:.t1:1. j �— • o• r_cyr1202 • ' t • 31f993 i 1 . ' Fort Wytiw, t �s CiunwrrN a? Fort Lupton a Boulder • � :.,. r O 3333 • 9820 92421 vent s _ 1444 0 .�r•19409- 113621 `y. . I.; a _• 4626 •. Wittenberg . I'' • • 1.:. ti": Y gt ' l �a1avett! slip :` , flat, ttr WkJf ..� I vi it-124695.-124695. �1 :t� L• Ilc OFetpat ';- A• 34833 . •. ' ' I si t; BritlMoq• KJ ilMtc �19299 g 835448 2 ' 5 it _ _ ' "13782'"> fC0mflWCeCttYf5t_ fl . ._ 1 j gn 113491' 45.4- r" : ' i.� 4,cir \7o152 2 125971 'a `� . R , 'r " + "� ,Ie0ert;on County 72 �---.• al .► ,. `,.. . 20718 - t: � 'di . 31991 ' t , "f ci,.-�,' _r ` J? /A14 A1` ,.3:• • - Denver iv - t r - -� t. �n ,. tta\I . - r .. -II Miles North tv mak - 208541 Ya Ooc:R.✓4.C41 �L w,..N..s.•.a...«n ea 33366 I A-4 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information coopera'ion transportation Figure 2 : Regional Study Area Future Employment Growth Distribution 4 / I LGLND I Wellington 474 /V Study Corridors 491 nn Lari r Coun - --- n /\/ Highways 2900 -.r .. A 9612 �•" ' 85 N Well County 7•-•„ Arterial Roads s 2485 •. Regional Study Area 5185 • L .� O Cities & Towns • r 122 t 1] Municipal influence areas i is 122 .•� Jobs 2000/2030 1,"; ' Ag i 4 Numbers are for Fort Collins 1:;?;;. .. 4• t 257, " . 307 — portions of jurisdictions 88251 ': ti u,•r•1', 307 i trance • €x19.9 shown on map 1 r ,`r 177 1330 t • 179 1671 1 dot = 'LO Jobs in 2000 j " 392 a 1 dot = 20 Jobs added 3608 55673 in 2030 i v`•' 7173 :/`, j i1 94104 4, .. l r r• Loveland - - — 134 ' ie31617 s ohnst l A r 68225 4 410 • g _ ym 1823 • 4317 _ mini 6962 - 239 85 LISala ...... 2720 o i 491 491 t 2 - I GActist L _ / 311 Lyons1 i,ftSI Ca Platteville311 • 703 894 365 r 36 365 t x s weld County l •. ..> • 3768 — 30417 r, : .. + Boulder t:ou�ii y 40353"er i�t'� "' Firestone a 17187 ,14984 it _ ,1045 v 7 6226 14574 '' / v Frederick p 586 ! S = --=--; 272 219_Boulder{ • o � 6812 -- 3163 1 189651 - 5005 106717 - ': ` _ 859 a " ` IP 4151 1 t - Lalayette I • . • l'_, • l' Wvl rt.� , � '..-:_�•_— _ — _ 5448 . - - L _ Adams_C cell 7198 • ' • ,_ .i. r:? 4 en hton 9 Louisville 19577. 13586 r 1 . t r 8047 1 36610 superior ■146 84 11152 5 I 76737 . - rR" 041 —1: ; . ..y 22683 . .: t . 9 , I! ! 27037 .'- '' -� .A..0.1..... 111--'93 28177 3. .i. 1 m 37896 • Jefferson Cour111r } • • . 't'? aff12179 i's�' ` ' , k �4 19738 N - t • .M • r , .� p■ 0 2 4 6 8 10 / \ ► t' : &N: fK Aurora Miles North • •r • 271535 II 6970 f 372237 all 81820 :. . ....... . .. . ID A-5 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.0 Corridor-Specific Population and Employment Given the large area included within the regional study area, projected increases in population and employment were estimated within proximity of each of the three primary north-south corridors: US 85, 1-25, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)/Longmont North Metro Connection. Although improvements under consideration within each of the corridors vary, population and employment have been calculated based on a defined distance from each of the proposed transit improvement stations/stops within the corridor. These corridor-level summaries are provided for the purposes of illustrating where the largest concentrations of population and employment are projected to occur within the regional study area. The eight connector corridors described in the previous section are encompassed within the influence area of each of the three primary corridors and are therefore not called out separately. Projected increases in population by corridor are outlined in Table 3. The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor had a significantly higher population base in 2000 than either the 1-25 Corridor or the US 85 Corridor within 1/2-mile, with approximately 18,000 people. In contrast, the 1-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor had approximately 2,000 and 8,000 people within 1/2-mile, respectively. As a result of its more limited 2000 population base, the 1-25 Corridor is projected to experience the most significant rate of population increase, with a nearly 200 percent increase within 1/2-mile by 2030. This contrasts with the more limited rate of increase projected for the BNSF and US 85 Corridors, with an approximately 40 percent and 14 percent increase projected during the same timeframe. • Table 3: Current and Projected Future Population Increase by Corridor 0.5 mile radius 4 mile radius 9 mile radius 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030 Corridor Pop Pop % Inc Pop Pop % Inc Pop Pop % Inc 1-25 2,282 6,818 199% 138,422 341,277 147% 374,818 837,474 123% BNSF/ Longmont 18,467 25,671 39% 286,903 467,419 63% 349,140 665,669 91% North Metro US 85 7,585 8,606 14% 98,959 159,748 61% 157,396 413,551 163% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG;Population and employment have been calculated based on a defined distance from each of the proposed transit improvement stations/stops within the corridor. The BNSF also had a significantly higher population base in 2000 within 4-miles (287,000) than either the 1-25 Corridor or the US 85 Corridor, with approximately 138,000 people and 99,000 people respectively. The 1-25 Corridor continues to see the greatest increase in the rate of population growth of the three alternatives with a projected population increase of 147 percent. The rate of increase for the BNSF and US 85 Corridors remains significantly lower, with increases of 63 percent and 61 percent, respectively. At a 9-mile distance, projected increases are more evenly distributed between the BNSF and 1-25 Corridors, with • A-6 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information cooperation transportation. projected increases of 91 percent and 123 percent, respectively. Increases within the US 85 Corridor are somewhat higher, with a projected increase of 163 percent. Projected increases in jobs by corridor are outlined in Table 4. Consistent with 2000 population figures, jobs within '/-mile of the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor are substantially higher in 2000 (26,000) than in the 1-25 or US 85 Corridors, which had 6,000 and 13,000 jobs, respectively. Consistent with 2030 population projections, the I- 25 Corridor again sees the highest percentage increase in jobs within a 'A-mile (89 percent); however, the total number of jobs is approximately 1/3 of those projected within the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor. The US 85 Corridor is projected to have the slowest percentage increase (12%), although the total number of jobs will be higher than in the 1-25 Corridor, with 15,000 jobs projected versus 12,000 jobs. Table 4: Current and Projected Future Job Increases by Corridor 0.5 mile radius 4 mile radius 9 mile radius 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030 Corridor Jobs Jobs % Inc Jobs Jobs % Inc Jobs Jobs % Inc 1-25 6,277 11,878 89% 67,492 170,065 152% 190,659 384,664 102% BNSF/Long mont North 26,407 31,394 19% 148,979 223,155 50% 180,035 315,479 75% Metro . US 85 13,056 14,555 12% 57,230 76,978 35% 75,696 143,030 89% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG;Population and employment have been calculated based on a defined distance from each of the proposed transit improvement stations/stops within the corridor. Within a 4-mile radius, jobs are projected to increase from between 35 percent (US 85 Corridor) to 152 percent (1-25 Corridor) by 2030. Total jobs in 2030 are projected to be highest along the 1-25 and BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridors, with approximately 170,000 and 223,000 jobs, respectively. Despite a substantial increase over 2000, the US 85 Corridor is projected to have much smaller employment base than either of the other two corridors (77,000). At a 9-mile radius, total jobs are fairly evenly distributed between the 1-25 and BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridors by 2030, at 384,000 and 315,000, respectively. The US 85 corridor remains the lowest with approximately 143,000 jobs projected. • A-7 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 4.0 Factors Affecting Growth The North Front Range has experienced a tremendous amount of growth in recent years and this trend is projected to continue throughout the planning horizon. The magnitude of this projected growth is illustrated by population and employment figures contained in Tables 1 and 2, which indicate that population in fifteen of the twenty-four municipalities located within the regional study area is projected to increase by more than 100 percent by 2030. In addition, jobs in eleven of the twenty-four municipalities are projected to increase by more than 100 percent by 2030. Factors affecting growth vary depending upon the location within the regional study area. Therefore, for the purposes of discussion, an overview of factors is provided for the three primary north-south corridors and east-west connecting corridors. 4.1 1-25 Corridor Of the three corridors, the 1-25 Corridor has the highest potential for change. As previously discussed, this potential for growth translates into a projected population increase within a 1/2—mile radius of nearly 150 percent more than the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor and nearly 186 percent more than the US 85 Corridor. This distinction can be attributed, in large part, to a combination of factors, including: • Large supply of developable land; • • Easy access to 1-25; • Development pressures; and • Pro-growth political climate. Projected change in population and employment is most pronounced in smaller municipalities along the corridor. To the south, this includes Dacono, Frederick, and Erie, which are heavily influenced by their easy access to 1-25 and E-470 and DIA, and their close proximity to the Denver metro area. This proximity allows residents to live the more "rural" lifestyle many desire while still easily commuting to their jobs in surrounding municipalities. Residents are also attracted by the lower home prices and extensive amenities offered by many fringe developments that can be difficult to find in more established metro area communities. As a result, the bulk of recent growth in many of these close-in communities has been focused on single-family residences, reinforcing their role as "bedroom" communities. Despite this trend, many smaller 1-25 communities have placed an emphasis on balancing residential growth with commercial services and employment in their comprehensive plans. The implementation of these plans will likely be influenced somewhat by the recent influx of commercial services along the 1-25 Corridor south of SH 7 in the Westminster and Thornton vicinity which are served by new interchanges at 136th and 144th Avenues. The realization of community plans will also depend on the ability of communities to preserve lands designated for future commercial and employment indefinitely, in spite of potential pressure to convert these lands to residential uses more viable in today's market. • A-8 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information cooperation transportation. Dramatic growth is also projected in south Weld County (500 percent). This projection is influenced, in part, by current county development policies which support the continued urbanization of unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. The realization of these policies will be influenced by residential and commercial market demand, the availability of urban services in unincorporated areas, and on future annexation activities in the region. Further north along the corridor, growth becomes less influenced by the Denver metro area and more influenced by the growth of established urban centers such as Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins. Growth in these communities and in smaller communities such as Windsor, Johnstown, and Timnath has continued to occur along the 1-25 Corridor away from community centers located several miles to the west or east. As in the south, primary influences have been the availability of land and the desire of communities to secure key interchange properties for future commercial development. 4.2 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Potential for change within the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is somewhat more limited than in the 1-25 or US 85 Corridors due to the following influencing factors: • Established development patterns; 41 • Limited availability of vacant lands; • Community separators; and • Limited access to 1-25. Three of the regional study area's major urban centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont) are located along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor. As a result, vacant land is limited and much of the corridor has been built out for many years. Remaining agricultural lands located in unincorporated areas between communities, have in many cases been set aside as open space or under agricultural easements to maintain a visual and physical separation between communities. The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is also located several miles from the 1-25 Corridor and the access that it provides to the rest of the region. Despite these potential limitations, the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is projected to continue to grow over the next thirty years. Population is projected to increase by 39 percent within 1/2 mile and by 63 percent increase within 4 miles, while employment is projected to increase by 19 percent within % mile and 50 percent within 4 miles. Due to the influencing factors described above, much of this future development will occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. This type of development is supported by community policies and regulations—particularly within the downtown core of these communities—and has begun to occur in some locations. However, without a significant catalyst, such as the introduction of a fixed-guideway transit system along the corridor, market demand for this type of development will remain far behind that of easily developable "greenfield" lands along the 1-25 Corridor. • A-9 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation • 43 US 85 Corridor The US 85 Corridor has a more limited potential for change (13.5 percent increase) within 1/2-mile of the corridor than either the 1-25 or BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridors but is fairly consistent with the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor within a 4-mile radius of the corridor (61 percent increase). Factors influencing the US 85 Corridor include: • Availability of land. • Distance to Denver metro area and other major population centers within the regional study area (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont). • Proximity to DIA. • Proximity to Greeley's urban center. Although several of the factors influencing the US 85 Corridor are similar to those influencing the 1-25 Corridor, their level of influence and overall effect is different. For example, although the US 85 Corridor also contains a significant amount of agricultural land surrounding its small towns, current plans do not call for significant growth in these areas. Southern portions of the US 85 Corridor have been influenced by their proximity to Denver International Airport and the Denver metro area. As with the 1-25 Corridor, residential development in areas such as Brighton has increased dramatically due to the ability of • residents to live in a more "rural" setting and commute to jobs in the metro area. Housing prices in these locations have also been a factor, as square footage costs are often significantly lower—allowing families to get a much larger house for their money. As numbers increase, residential development will be followed by an increased demand for commercial services. Greeley anchors the north end of the US 85 Corridor and continues to be influenced by both outward and inward (infill and redevelopment) growth trends. The city has continued to expand its bounds towards the west along US 34 as well as to the south and north. However, the city has also placed an emphasis on the revitalization of its downtown core and has begun to see some infill and redevelopment activity as a result. 4.4 Connector Corridors Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 The Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 Connector Corridor provides an east/west linkage between US 287 in Fort Collins and County Line Road east of the Town of Timnath. West of 1-25, potential for change along the corridor is moderate to low, as it is largely built out. In these locations, redevelopment would be necessary to create substantial change. Potential for change is higher east of 1-25, where the corridor is identified as one of the Town of Timnath's core economic areas within its Comprehensive Plan. • A-10 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS . information. cooperation. transportation. SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 The SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 Connector Corridor provides a north/south connection between County Line Road east of the Town of Timnath and US 34. Outside of the Town of Windsor, the corridor has a relatively limited potential for change. This is due, in part, to its distance from 1-25. US 34 from Greeley to Loveland The US 34 from Greeley to Loveland Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between Downtown Greeley and Downtown Loveland. Potential for change along the corridor is highest east of 1-25. Influencing factors include: • Large supply of developable land; • Presence of major employment centers in Greeley and at the US 34/1-25 interchange; and • Community plans supportive of growth along the corridor. West of 1-25, potential for change is also relatively high, but is limited somewhat by the established pattern of growth along the corridor. In these locations, redevelopment would be necessary to create substantial change. SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 • The SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between the Town of Milliken and 1-25. Between 1-25 and the Town of Johnstown, potential for change along the corridor is fairly high, in large part due to the following factors: • Large supply of developable land; • Easy access to 1-25; • Pro-growth political climate. Further to the east, potential for change is limited by established development patterns in the Towns of Johnstown and Milliken. SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud The SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between 1-25 and US 287. Potential for change along the corridor is highest where it intersects with 1-25, as the Town's plan already calls for intense mixed-use development in this location. The potential for change further west is limited by the Town's plan, which desires a well-defined urban edge that quickly transitions to agricultural lands. SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont The SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between 1-25 and US 287. Potential for change is moderate, as there are a number of environmentally constrained lands along the corridor and a relatively established pattern of development. The highest potential for change lies in the redevelopment of several large former industrial properties located on the outskirts of Longmont. • A-11 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot The SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between the US 85 Corridor and 1-25 and continues west to the FasTracks system. East of 1-25, the corridor is influenced by many of the same factors as the 1-25 Corridor and the US 85 Corridor and its potential for change in this is relatively high. This distinction can be attributed, in large part, to a combination of factors, including: • Large supply of developable land. • Easy access to 1-25. • Pro-growth political climate. • Distance to Denver metro area and other major population centers within the regional study area (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont). • Proximity to DIA. West of 1-25, the corridor's potential for change remains relatively high as it passes through the growth areas of Erie and Frederick for many of the same reasons listed above. However, as the corridor enters Boulder County, potential for change drops dramatically due to the presence of existing open space corridors and agricultural easements designed to limit the potential for future growth. E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport The E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport Connector Corridor is influenced by • many of the same factors as the 1-25 Corridor and the US 85 Corridor. As a result, its potential for change is relatively high. This distinction can be attributed, in large part, to a combination of factors, including: • Large supply of developable land; • Easy access to E-470 and I-25; • Pro-growth political climate; • Distance to Denver metro area and other major population centers within the regional study area (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont); and • Proximity to DIA. i A-12 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information coopera:ion transportation. 5.0 Indirect Land Use Impact Research Each of the alternative packages currently under consideration as part of the DEIS have the potential for indirect land use impacts . In February of 2004, the Project Team conducted informal research regarding the indirect land use impacts of transportation projects . This research involved a Pte" , �,�. review of case studies and literature that , ;;i�'�.'"'` ° "'`� ; • addressed the relationship between land use and --4`2Pa Ss transportation projects . The impacts of several _ 1 pi 6 -, P„ rarildrall types of transportation projects were considered in this research including rail improvements, bus I ; : , rapid transit (BRT) improvements, commuter bus ` 'Tsnes;taugae;paw improvements, and non-transit transportationT- -- I� improvements . - - 5. 1 Rail Improvements Transit-oriented development in downtown Potential indirect land use impacts are generally Plano, Texas along the DART light rail line which connects the community to Dallas. most significant for rail transit. This is largely due to the fixed nature of rail stations and the higher • level of certainty this provides for municipalities and the development community in planning for higher-intensity development. Rail transit station locations are most supportive of transit-oriented development, which is commonly referred to as "TOD" . A TOD can be defined as: A higher-density, pedestrian-friendly form of development that is focused around a major transit access point. Elements usually include compact, mixed-use development (e. g. , several stories of residential or employment over first floor retail), and facilities and design that enhance the environment for pedestrians and encourage transit ridership. Much of the available literature on transit-oriented development indicates that TODs are most likely to occur within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of a light rail or commuter rail station , as this is the distance most people are willing to walk to reach a rail station . Densities are typically highest within 1/4 mile of a transit station , decrease slightly between '/4 and 1/2 mile from the station , and drop off significantly in surrounding areas . Rail stations can also help strengthen existing urban cores by attracting new residents and supporting an overall increase in density which in turn supports existing businesses and attracts new businesses . Another effect of transit improvements on land use that has been documented is the role that the end of line station plays . Increases in population growth have been observed up to seven miles away from an end of line station . Aside from the impact of the transit mode , several other factors play into potential land use • impacts . These include the: availability of vacant or underutilized land , surrounding land A- 13 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation. transportation- . use context, environmental constraints, and circulation and access, among others. While rail transit is conducive to higher density and mixed-use land use patterns, a dramatic shift in land use patterns surrounding a rail station often requires a proactive approach on the part of local municipalities that goes far beyond simply deciding where to locate a proposed station. In many cases, these efforts are underway long before the transit line is actually in place. Communities that have been most successful in implementing TOD have employed one or more of the following tools: • Station area planning—this typically includes site-specific land use plans coupled with supporting polices and regulations designed to facilitate transit-oriented development; • Interagency cooperation—this may include ongoing conversations and agreements between local jurisdictions, regional planning agencies, transportation departments, and transit authorities; • Public investment—TOD development in "greenfield" locations as well as on infill parcels may be dependent upon the provision of utilities and other infrastructure enhancements to support higher intensity development, in other cases sidewalks, structured parking and other investments may be necessary; • Neighborhood outreach—the introduction of TOD's within an established neighborhood can be controversial due to fear that increased density will bring increased traffic and crime. As a result, neighborhood outreach can be a critical • component of any station area plan effort, helping to convey the facts and dispel any unfounded concerns; • Public/private partnerships—in addition to the above efforts, public/private partnerships are often used to implement transit-oriented developments near rail stations. Partnerships can include land swaps, tax abatement, and other incentives that reduce the gap between the cost of construction and the ultimate sales price of finished the units. Such incentives are often necessitated due to higher construction costs associated with intense development (e.g., structured parking, steel construction vs. wood frame). A-14 pil NORTH 1-25 gh, e Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EN • information. cooperation transportation ., ,, 5. 2 Bus Rapid Transit Improvements , . r. Studies are inconclusive on the impact of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on land use and economic ' �' 7 development, although if BRT has dedicated a :.' ` �� ' lanes, it may be more likely to stimulate , ‘ , . . r ti L (sue development. Also a factor in the ability of BRT systems to stimulate TOD at station M'trois `'" a locations; for example, if a BRT route travels 41 . i H A - 1 t. along a surface street that is visible from and r7 easily accessed from surrounding development parcels, opportunities for TOD are likely to be significantly higher than if the BRT route is a center-running system that travels in a dedicated lane within the median of a divided 11.1 highway. In the center-running scenario, the sofa BRT is separated from surrounding , . development parcels by several lanes of high- : i ;: w ,: ; �' speed traffic. This configuration reduces the r 1 ,: : : . . - %IT physical and visual connection between the - s w -- = ~� transit station and any surrounding i - . -"'u ;-7(11-.7. gIII• i K ' ' c. development, reducing the marketability andc . . htut!• , . appeal of TOD . x As with rail transit, efforts to attract a more .,..,....a. transit-oriented pattern of development along a BRT alignment will be enhanced by the Transit-oriented development along the proactive efforts of local municipalities , Orange Line (BRT) in Los Angeles, California. The Orange Line, which opened regardless of the BRT's location . in O05, provides express service between North Hollywood and the Warner Center. 5. 3 Commuter Bus Improvements Commuter bus stations are also fixed , in that they are typically associated with a park and ride facility; however, routes have more flexibility to respond to potential changes in ridership patterns over time . This potential route flexibility provides less certainty to municipalities and the development community regarding the longevity of a particular route. As a result, commuter bus stations are less likely to attract significant TOD . However, they may attract transit-adjacent development, which is likely to be lower in density than traditional TOD and may include a horizontal mix of uses (side-by-side) as opposed to a vertical mix of uses (multi-story). 5.4 Non- Transit Improvements Non-transit improvements include new highways, highway widening , and interchanges . Research revealed that though there is general agreement that there is a correlation between transportation and land use, there are major discrepancies about exactly what that 0 correlation is . Some of the factors, other than transportation , that are found to influence A-15 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • land use change and economic development include distance to a major city, distance to another interchange, accessibility to other regional markets, interchange design, traffic volume, parcel location, timing and completion of construction, economy, public attitude, zoning, previous land use, land availability, and infrastructure. The impacts of highway interchanges are highly localized. Very little relationship was found between highway widening and land use changes, unless new interchanges were included. The extent of these impacts can vary greatly and are dependent upon a number of additional factors (such as those listed above) making it difficult to predict. While it is generally agreed that transportation investments and economic activity are positively linked, the nature of the relationship remains uncertain. The timing of land use impacts seems largely dependent on general economic conditions. Where capital is available and there is demand for new development in a city, greater impacts are likely to take place. 6.0 Expert Panel An induced growth Expert Panel was convened on October 31, 2006 to assist the Project Team in verifying existing projections and forecasting conceptual land use in the regional study area. The purpose of the Expert Panel was to get input on where future housing and employment growth could most likely occur based on the alternatives identified for the DEIS. Twenty-one participants attended the meeting, including representatives from: the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont; the towns of Windsor, Dacono, Firestone, Frederick, and Mead; the NFRMPO, DRCOG, FHWA, CDOT, and several private development companies. Prior to the meeting a package was sent to invitees with information on the DEIS Alternatives, the role of the expert panel, and future population and employment data. In preparation for the meeting, expert panel members were asked to consider the following issues when considering where future housing and employment growth could most likely occur based on the alternatives identified for the DEIS: • What are the political or physical restrictions to growth (Community boundaries/planning areas, environmental features)? • What areas will allow new job growth? • What types of employment or housing will develop? • Is rezoning to more transit-supportive densities being considered? • Is redevelopment anticipated within established areas of the corridor? • What restrictions do the provision of services (sewer, water, utilities) present? • What will the future land use be in the area with the No-Action Alternative? • What role will future transportation facility improvements (e.g., interchange upgrades, express lanes) play in the distribution of land use? • What, if any, are the potential changes to land use or the location of employment and housing associated with completion of either of the transit alternatives (BRT vs. Commuter Rail)? • A-16 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. At the meeting, a brief overview of the DEIS alternatives and the background material was provided to orient participants. A brief discussion of research on induced growth associated with transportation improvements was also provided. Facilitators then led the group through a discussion on each alternative and solicited feedback on potential changes in future land use patterns that could result under each of the three alternatives. Due to the large scale of the regional study area, feedback was broad in nature. Feedback on each alternative is summarized below. 6.1 No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the expert panel believed 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. 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 may 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. Decreasing service levels along major roadway corridors, such as 1-25, may also result in the more rapid absorption of land in rural areas, 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. Due to the limited availability of transit, development intensities are unlikely to increase substantially over those which exist today. However, more focused development may occur towards the southern end of the regional study area where transit enhancements and highway improvements are already in place (FasTracks/l-25 widening). Induced growth impacts for the No-Action Alternative as estimated by the expert panel are illustrated in Figure 3. S A-17 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation4 Figure 3 : Expert Panel Induced Growth Impacts—No-Action I.FGFND --Growth already constrained by -----_ substandard interchanges. All Study Corridors te,-e.' --Lack of interchange improvements "/ Highways 1 , 1 /ilk ' v'elington would limit development opportunities • and reduce quality of development. /\,/ Arterial Roads !1" 1 - / --Private sector may contribute to r-' '• Regional Study Area , '' ak , • improvements that facilitate O Cities & Towns i ' ' > • development opportunities. New Development in 2030 t Fort:Comns _ ii - Employment Area ! • �! t 1 r� Residential i Open Space/Parks j _ r„�. ' i r A j T ',',Severance 1E ! Existing Land Use in 2000 I r - '� Residential I • . • i, Fir' •_ 1 nit 1 Lame t Employment Area i `‘\' ° • 1- • ?r' 1 Open Space/Parks - Greeley 1, .� , Agriculture F_, j --.- . •• - . v=.lrr�i "i'tk_ si•1� GA;co, 1 • i 34 l upland �� \ Surface Water ! • � • r F..rrr �. i Worsening congestion on I.25 may trigger �`�"r"""' J�nrtW.n ' . co i more development along east-west corridors ma,d . v, • 4- /YO.,M,,,,Le 85/ where there is less resistance. H 2.5 gi --Current development patterns would j - ./ / likely continue (e.g.. dispersed and a - a - - - j --Development would be more p tiis.l, • less centralized.) ! Aniline dispersed due to reduced —Development would likely be more ss--rt----- ; - m. - :• 4 Ph '' service levels. market driven as opposed to I, - J rongrtiont —May make rural areas more municipal preferred. i C:. ' = T , i attractive to growth sooner. —Unlikely to see substantial increase ,,u / y - in density of existing centers. •. .. A a 11, �Fuestun¢ iI = P ' 2r il lkr 00at Fat Lupton . I 52 az """milliMI . .• di a rigv f .rG all <J Iv" I : "dr fit . Bnilitc/ C.-.V 7 glia -.lc- • 7 II 411 V .. •a: 'Q fLavlptCri l FJv nut�,.W _ .::/. 4 // l•Development focus may shift toward south .- \ 36 -. r . �' " C -,„,IO::Y, , r l' where infrastructure and capacity along I-25 r' �, s - . ..4.r ,4 has already been improved. r �. • ' : t _�, - -- L...r •�� 1 4 ~:i �•� _ ;`` T • Denver'd i 1 • % 7 1�__ ' / I 0 2 4 6 8 10 ,7- _, ____,_,_-, Miles North :11\_, Mai Dlcv'* •CL I•\AAlll' M. CIMM it MI 01 3 N, ? 1 A-18 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 6.2 Package A Under Package A, commuter rail would facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study 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. Longmont becomes a focus within the regional study area due to its central location, its direct connection the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its proximity to Denver International Airport. The combination of these factors would result in an overall increase in the intensity and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail would 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, may see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These • impacts will 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 will also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underutilized lands along these corridors will begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers. Induced growth impacts for Package A as estimated by the expert panel are illustrated in Figure 4. 6.3 Package B 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. 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, Longmont, Loveland, Greeley) would be hampered. • A-19 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS liel information. cooperation. transportation. 111 Figure 4: Expert Panel Induced Growth Impacts—Package A I FGEND Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. w Study Corridors ,� ..--'� -..-- \ / /\/ Highways i' �Meilm' on Existing residential uses along Harmony /\..„/ Arterial Roads .4' . . V Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may la -, � / 1 • -S be converted to higher intensity uses. Regional Study Area / `1 t • e 4 Cities & Towns 1 A Am, ., Larger Urban Areas Enhanced* ,4 Feeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail ! ' . number of people who live A A', : and work in different • New Development in 2030 1k, - '257 communities. May also •+.- at' ITrnnath .. vs allow for increased development Employment Area sap ,SuvHJfec as east/west roadways become Residential 8;' p more congested. Open Space/Parks ' .1 Existing Land Use in 2000 -• i •. Greeley ' 1 . _Residential i i^ �Irli� i . iiiiii ,:.cEmployment Area 'g-- 44 G.uYa i c,t, i ED __i rvelarxljOpen Space/Parks — = .;.'f j —�A riculture k asolle1 / Surface Water r I �r• • /}Q-,Mdblen 56 • Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification 1 it , • •' ` Non-urban stations would help of existing urban centers. supporting municipal I 25 realize plans for more urban Ill plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins. I a development that otherwise Mason Street Corridor, 4th Street/downtown I Mead., �, wouldn't occur (e.g.1 Longmont/Loveland. 29th Street). j; 4 ;. ler • " ' Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick.) Impact i i k , • j would be broader than immediate Commuter rail connections to north and =. station area. -south (FasTracks) and connections to I - Ir. DIA/southern communities would ac I ci;In r • ' reinforce Longmont's role as a major • t� �`'ra'ore I hub for the region. An overall increase in Nnrot► . ' la fie:t development would occur as a result. �' al•. - %Sart Forttrgtm • ..4_.t — (?' Wattretn9 `. otmette I -' nia - . I, , _ rm, r . Suul.Y to •,• l - .fir. .r.i� ' a r '�:f ' ,r M 4 . ,\," al . '' ��Fasll k, • - Rnxadu:.f Hcr,knt Itt b. y ri;ry ; • ...re: Kill Mi , -->"*--,..\ .. Q .b 1 /i .Tlinffl!B4 � \ �72-- ill' :-inin � i . `t ' 1.,___/ I r / Iii: ' P^ i" 0 2 4 6 8 10 l" . - I- 1 IFi lc Miles North *.,„N Ilk _ wo DOLIO•rie•CAB ‘F,L....avardUr_Climor....vip I 31)7Ar A-20 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information. cooperation. transportation The location of the BRT stations (e.g., center-running vs. side running) 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 may occur in the surrounding station areas. Feeder bus service along SH 52 would connect Tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to 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 would experience some intensification in development within its urban center, but not as much as under Package A. Induced growth impacts for Package B as determined by the expert panel are illustrated in Figure 5. 7.0 Potential Indirect Land Use Impacts to Environmental Resources A variety of environmental resources could potentially be affected by induced growth within the regional study area. These resources include wildlife, threatened and endangered species, wetlands, farmlands, water resources, floodplains, and parks and recreation • properties. A brief overview of potential impacts by package is provided below. 7.1 No-Action Under the 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. 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 non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 will 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. • A-21 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. 111 Figure 5: Expert Panel Induced Growth Impacts—Package B LEGEND _ Interchange improvements remain /% Study Corridors ,.0- -- and important factor. ^/ Highways fi' ' Wallington N ;1 ^N/ Arterial Roads ./�' e �J J Regional Study Area .4 :f i►4i • ,•�• ' 4 4 RlKcr `•, 0 Cities & Towns . - New Development in 2030 I Forl�Gpnrns ` 'e� 4 \�, Mill Employment Area ! , ' i ��,� ,;_ Residential ; , ;11 ' Pinath 57 `, s Open Space/Parks i f • •Senh xnx Fn'i Existing Land Use in 200O r ig , - 1 Residential !a a' OP. E. ;wad)a �„�,,,,� i', Employment Area ! :,` 0 1 $ l • ,," t I ,,,,r, , , r.; R Open Space/Parks 1 ;� , • Greeley 11.. ::=c3 Agriculture l'----14-51— I, m i �_�t ' • '1 Dnrdrr, , 1 • Loveland; ' �— .=--v.— • J ---0 34 Surface Water 1 —1 I w 1' Jijv"t f" Northern communities already growing ~,.1 t Efforts to intensify existing downtown i m " _ $ so • >r towards east would result in more centers would not be supported. , 'h` • e•= L ; • dispersed development as opposed I i. ` e r to a more concentrated pattern. Development more focused ria O I on 1-25 corridor which serves 1 • v as a regional "main street." ! Mead A e • -Feeder bus connection to _ Pau.,' FasTracks would reinforce 66 - r ." 7 tri-town area as a series of • l• . 'Longnion' • 4 ! ! bedroom communties. Longmont would experience fl ' . ' '-- '� �' � �• �# • , --Employment concentration some increase in development ,. iii I I would remain west of I-25. as FasTracks end-of-line as �% . s ii. 1 well as an increase in through i *., ; ' - r• t traffic triggered by station / •�� .t I a \locations. i • _ F . r ' • Fat lWton I l / • ' .;. ' Cw.wnJ a ,' . r ph, E ;. • t Ilio 1 .� �IQIr 1 ( r WarlMMrp Gt[3niiliiet - - �! - ;•:' ..t 'N, '' ., ,ei 1 , `�' o tat « rt - 1 I '4.b. x :,,n,. _ r B"gntnr T 7 r. - s. A'T FJ1ihk° �f - Et a;tctir 1 - • _ t, ^ I Nr,doru_ / \ � ` ! -BRT stations may support • 7."4 ....Noinaljoir _a ?`eli! slight increase in density. 36 . --Not likely to attract substantial 0 lh7.tor, �et / \ 'r t .r' new types of development. ima w; --Access to stations a challenge N . : ` g with more dispersed pattern ^;� t 7. t ,fii yi already established to the east. g Clernel 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ r.....-\.._ 1 . ter. r_ Miles North / 1 jn r , fly etas.us IF,*san,Ir C.~ tw,nl0,1 , 1)7007 A-22 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 7.2 Package A—BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Under Package A, commuter rail along BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor would facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont.) As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the regional study area would be slowed. This would particularly be the case along the 1-25 Corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor would likely have a limited impact upon environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would need to occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. 7.3 Package B-1-25 Corridor Under Package B, growth would continue to be market driven and occur in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. Growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 Corridor, with continued expansion to the east. Some concentration of growth would occur near BRT stations along the 1-25 Corridor. The more dispersed development pattern that would 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 will 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. 7.4 Packages A and B—Connector Corridors Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 Due to the largely built out nature of this corridor, potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth would be relatively limited, as most growth would need to occur in the form of infill and redevelopment and some areas have been set aside for open space. SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 Due to the less intense pattern of development anticipated along this corridor, potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth would be relatively limited. However, they would be least under Package A, due to larger concentrations of growth along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor to the west. US 34 from Greeley to Loveland Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor would be highest east of the 1-25, where land is more readily available for development and the largest concentration is anticipated to occur. Potential impacts would be least under • Package A, due to larger concentrations of growth along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro A-23 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Land Use Conditions and Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. r• Connection Corridor to the west. West of 1-25 potential impacts are reduced by the more established pattern of growth. SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor are relatively high due to the availability of developable agricultural land and the potential for dispersed growth. SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor are relatively low due to a strong desire by the Town (as expressed in the Town's Comprehensive Plan) to maintain a distinct urban edge that transitions to agricultural lands. Potential impacts would be concentrated at the l-25/SH 56 interchange where a major mixed-use activity center is planned. SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor are relatively low due to existing protections on environmental resources north of SH 119 and the relatively established pattern of development in other areas of the corridor. SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot East of 1-25, potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively high due to the availability of agricultural lands and the potential for additional dispersed growth. West of I- • 25, potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively high as the corridor passes through the growth areas of Erie and Frederick. However, as the corridor enters Boulder County, the presence of existing open space corridors and agricultural easements provide substantial protections to existing resources. E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport Potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively high in this location due to a large supply of developable agricultural land and a high demand for growth. A-24 Appendix B Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Bus Stations Appendix B • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • US 85 Commuter Bus - DEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 Generalized Land Use and Zonin EIS g information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 - Greeley iCtiI LEGEND 7.-al i 85 0 : - ___ GREELEY ZONING , Stril DOS Proposed Station Area CD - Conservation District ,' "e CH - Commercial High Intensity Existing Land Use `w _.- , _ __ CL - Commercial Low Intensity - Agriculture l .C i$ 61as IL Industrial Low Intensity w �`� IM Industrial Medium Intensity Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area e J - t ` , IIII Open Space/Parks �� Sy --V IH - Industrial High Intensity �_ RH Residential High Density Residential . ›f ' ji, • •' PUD - Planned Unit Development �.� • >6. / .'�. '� ,- 1 __ ' ` •_ r WELD COUNTY ZONING ,i, - d ,,, A - Agriculture . . "� ' I q R1 Low Density Residential r_ . . EZ =w- '. Ire ill') 13 - Industrial t.i3` L ► _ - .T... W • „ f ST i.,; .: - --...,-, „ i z �' ..„,10„.,..;;‘,_ 13 W Z r ` �41 •• • • m --4 .41( '' 7 I. 1 '. . , -. . ... . it C. r 1 l, .4% t A ♦ r - ' . s.. • s a. , Oati. �`, ( '; 9-.. mot IT I: , 1.- -.�_ f • n i th 5. ,r • • . - •` , • . .-I1014 - 4 er I I 7.i .1 1:. c gif irivroi , -Itrt' . ri:tit - " I. . " ' I - " Ill ly F_. .. ,„. . " .; . , I _C I te. - ; 6,1/4470 -a2tS I a t . MU i ' 4 :le; n4404 CLIININD .:!_,%10-- IM . ; ;, •r �r .::: .1 EI tat 4- - 4 elt is .-. ,-"te, / i L 4. .....„ li,, 4, y �rrn':. it' NI 17 .j %� 3RD ST c . - ' . � ST at a RML ' . : t • _ av North i' ST uY '� 7 . • _ . • 4TH ST' J w ' , • i I s r• LA .. J. - r a` 4 €f'f August 14, 2007 %ode•ol Highway Mm n ska.on US 85 Commuter Bus - DEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 Generalized Land Use and Zoning EIS information cooperation. transportation. 2 - South Greeley III _ :.k .., re T Sj-r y S * 4? pits.y . 7r. U ... i was ',at, , aka.- ;% V -LT Fig ' '• 1 E ��!;r ! I., 3412 : - . lc - , _ t. , LEGEND ' 'J` (, GREELEY ZONING li ore ; ''•q �. id '0, DEIS Proposed Station Area ; T- �! C H Commercial High Intensity in ` �; '= ,�;,s rea x R-M - Residential Medium Density . Existing Land Use - , . - 1�, fir .,- ;ue - - ! • • ti f ,-. ....ii :.. i. • ti`• f. �.+ , A. ' R-L - Residential Low Density y Agriculture i" as I. 1 • ' i awe :a° ' '♦ RMH Residental Mobile Home 01;e Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area Y.1 . s a• I-M - Industrial Medium Intensity Open Space/Parks ►'. • �,, �._...•te- Ili .:`," ;1�. a _r • -" ' '-� 14tH sT GARDEN CITY ZONING 0 Residential t,l_ . Al;,� �.e • mow• W �`k IS»r�Wit M• ,� No zoning a. ;ice • ry •'e'!4: ""'. r...'! �"- .- ,'ar r at Ira' y :city •. t 1".• . _ ' 44.-- +� y. n..14•-• .. • d r �,t' _ :lairs '' ' 1 PC 04 .4411.r._•. 11 . • --I.; - t.t- es e " _ '1f�11lI�IC � ` + I'1' ,R''H r ;I •. y.. r L1!• :, ._! , +' .r i �� s s1 ,grr2ITHST 71 c. I- . i "(Oka? _ !F �± 1 ^° . ,T*i i ce,,+ t tM•z ' r'..�J a �.: • wz I L.... �/ as t 'tt '.M i <' •r'r • • ti•_a�Tt: '•'• •• r .i 1 ,t►i.1�I�•1. .;.' i Y- 1 lime. 1‘ ' I_ . ': '1 '�+ '•I i. I 1 .mot �'�� in Z . lie b 11 14_1 ube-All- �f ` •11 - . `', flIS r - — -- 1 t • (A natal. ' i. •-4/'y• 4.�• w a, ~ F lY-- 1 IC de . • v._�`� a 2 I ST ST .. e_%A ^11„ '4 • L• ! 1 -!r • !. w -R.-*:. •_-_ a-' ^• • ' • h _ — ■73.. -Oakall Wir ' - �• 85 di "1 . .Vial[t -. ri S als Ar ' -fit 1.„,-,1-4--,- . RINI HI 1 . ( .11 pr . / if4 ��, aro Q r a :C _ +l �rc�lrsr.l�t ar,r. t a. _ r S` _ `� llr - ' .i {''`='la s r0 =is tom . , • 1. ► a. ,•,,�, 1 . n II° •h .• - "may�.II . _ 4 ft, 23RD ST 3 . 4 rn lid -1 • i? ' '• • 11 .4 LL -. -sr:- tit g 1 , , ... . . . ,, -lb.& I 3 • -.a i• -• ' -.‘ --I t ; 1 E._ • 23RDSTf t •� a R I ,.; ' , t., 'Is 1 L 24TH ST . ' �' w Y1 at.-• '1 • M. _ 24TH ,, I -MI Y Await r = 4 d ._.► ,8 Y° Sidi t::l rat.,. F v'_ _' • ' ! gi j ' w Njl�r^. Pa is > 170`'r y.�ta "es •,A' 3, H ;1 ( :E t M 1 %>< . IMOro 1:13 r i sj rNl1s V • iI i aI > r 4 ill nIl > a '. / ��.. .ZiINU♦71 .� .e.1..:�..�-: • 1 -4E . fr. • fit. a .-rt. nat7it • 13 i 4 r tfc , •��•wit!ii - ''a' us _ s5.Ssyl •a,,, ' tate a 11 rJ ...- . -11 o 7►. f■fi t •.— r , -,"},' , t i Rt-Ii-; l �,, �t•, ,ur:ar 7: _ Io 9* ,' _ ,L�'. ' . •,� '•� S' - , - • •*'ice b * n 26TH It, Ir , in, r. 26TH ST , rf1�• t *EL �.' • _ l j t 4411 Atse , 7, 'T/. :a _�•I ir 7 , i' g " � Jam . P -IS• s f'll a aN t i � I - " alit it r - � �il g 1GlA D calTy r L . - � � :IMealli „� . R' . ��EN aa. _ - - -- Sj - " ' .{- In ilk, 34 ' I D r I North 9 �t<• a � •V Jim I>-.. -'cc�.��J-i,t�i ..�.�r _ _ —a �-= August 14, 2007 9,F:d o Hgt Admen US 85 Commuter Bus- DEIS Package A NORTHI-25 Generalized Land Use and Zoning EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3 - Evans 2 bets �rr • ' 7r .--! r _ __ _ .. _� _ • or iL •�:1�'^ �' � r�e' w' SOUTHGATE � • , EVANS ZONING I LEGEND '� �� o •4 0 ._ z W _ C-3 - Commercial High Intensity 4 eil61 DEIS Proposed Station Area -1' {' 0 _ y I ,< Q . C-1 - Commercial Low Intensity District Existing Land Use DR < _ ' g1 ; o ';+ R-1 - Single Family Residential District 03 Agriculture 'I ._ - R-2 - Two family residential district - Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area '� , 31ST ST R-C - Residential Commercial District Open Space/Parks 7�, 4 •I ' S- ' ' 1-2 - Medium Industrial District p p 1-3 - Heavy Industrial District ri , Residential w. I1 . {_ - -1 il Rh,1H - Residential Mobile Home District iii• t 2 , ,,, Titani.re- -?r A—' . -n- 7.0mw.�.-•'- iC:-3 ' PUD - Planned Unit Develo•ment IIIrM f ;i1 ti, K '9..1 =is , .ter ` e Q — .iii.,_ er c.•� 33RD, T Q r t` .f it, r`� rill 0. Z * • • �:1,1^ P— C -3 Y" _ - f' . , I. vrJ' '';`: Trictalf ...... t!' , VC is • grit ' .a , • 1D D • - o4 .c ' ' � �j J �- :I( a ---t . T _ RMFH` 'ice 7 , In,■ \� . 'grit ; c� '9 �_ �` O . , lr� ! /z fa i - Lit' � � i, •CIS-' -i •_ I - I .� 0 .-t, N ••• • * , ' • s*t Y •ii,'fl « n . ss ! , - 35TH ST �•r �yy��7�y�� 17�� -<r, ft .,� y,G `.,a r` y, �f .. .. J •: ., `an_ ' r- IcNUYVY. ex ii ^T . `✓ atagii ��lllJJl • , •w.j •��R • .� /` �♦ I. .y '�" . , tt Fes. .. u 1 w �'. ► IT s ,�. •�.- 36 H , ° 36TH> P . . ; �- `�. M ail n a R` is:, R -1' stl �: � Vii. .y I l . - 111 ,rz U r h as1t:• a . 4 , ' jam. i RRR e i r ifi • i .. J ci iss s El °C. i • I It 4, • trt z kk 1 3, `li 38TH ar si O `' H c j .l ;T ' • - - sST ' . ^x•t Ollt Z ��., < , r 38TH ST RD 1 Z ' o > RC -1r!� 39TH ` ,, SST i c .3 4 w t s-�� tear• q-Ary A priatiILI a_ LILID -�, 143Aff • •THEE • i oT &(j o r � .r L I • 4 a. -,%sisahra u- R- 1 ie— FriNo ,74;ve,..s..!%to:__ .1 new _ • t'ST�ST � LI1tI Ilt C _3 _4. �s ' :- � .. .. i�R ' a'. 4 a ' ' ' r �%�,• #�• •)9J d% r RC I jjLI . :i�► s: Fs t` ca • " ' 43• lST S i of ter.. `' / '1, - ecCi: ... ./ o4 . • c.•t 77 Q � '• 1 ar �a 700 .tfi . a North ia(.yti{ �.. - _ , • ■ ritrai)U? C.i.f.:- -- _ -- August 14, 2007 e,FAeli M9h..y v A�mmak0fgn US 85 Commuter Bus- DEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 Generalized Land Use and Zoning EIS information cooperation. transportation. 4 - Platteville I =nit ati. art ...t... .. ...,- , - LEGEND ` . to Ir �•. Y TOWN OF PLATTEVILLE ZONING �, DEIS Proposed Station Area �, u; :fr� ' ; , N There is no zoning. 'BETHVAV WELD COUNTY ZONING Existing Land Use - 13, i" ,4;, o Agriculture A Farming Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area MARION 's.), .# it � L. Open Space/Parks — _ �, .,--7----4 - Residential si ' f �� -r �. GOODR -H AV SOY 11 a•r ig A A a . , , , „ „ . .. ... _ li a„ . . e . i, tit Z i .s O R _ jaawwws :a„ - jFd , PIERCE AV ' co p. ., . .. ►7 ;` 'ri t _ • = � ti . 10r ° s t �$t �i - i BYERS AV t �11;t ! • • . , ' yti ,..ate -J ..... S. filitc. �'' 85 z . .\ Ate«- r� �►- *j nlik i term• SALSBUR.Y AV - s° yr ' , 41"fa.. s l r 01,44,4e .9 *,; , i W AA' lei.alri • - - . . . RATT ST t FM1161ii •. L° w ' U ta Al i _Age, gi -4.«dial,. S"'D o �� Z 1w- • i `'i as • r I W. I trietoyAir ipr, t , Yr. '�lbti, . rotit r 2r _ _ ' _ ! , - .---1 _ r : ‘. L. 4 , .:., 1 I .'s eso / 1.1Fij i z North '°' :!i1 C.`.de i„; August 14, 2007 US 85 Commuter Bus- DEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 Generalized Land Use and Zonin EIS g information cooperation. transportation111 . 5 - Fort Lupton NI -t1 - - •- mrw ' - - • _- - w ‘A.:\ _ why, =-� '+ . i•';, y�`ia�ti.�. - c.y' �� 4-Ilk _ .a - 1. LEGEND ti FORT LUPTON ZONING f DEIS Proposed Station Area Va C-1 - General Commercial District Existing Land Use C 2 - Heavy Commercial District I-1 - Light Industrial District Agriculture ! 1-2 - Heavy Industrial District Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area 1 PUD - Planned Unit Development • Open Space/Parks . ._ ._ . R-1 - Residential Low Density District Residential 1 R-1A - Residential Low Density District R-2 - Residential Medium Density District r It ,• P - Parks and Open Space ,. . z r R-0 - Residential . • ,+„t M-H Mobile Home Park i ry s �, i e ;► , - . WELD COUNTY ZONING i co A Agriculture � © 17 C-3 - Commercial PU .r."f A C -3 i .. is �I ta, . . ..!,:: S - i . C1 • 1 , , _ I , , . . ... , , ge I 1 °/fJ 1 1 P"' 1Ntaitistest ! // /!!I 1v. , Ili , ' I / i"/ / orii o k;, N PI ipet,,,itwifiesa -a ' 1 Laitunitirir ' rir7r. r �► O Q r io 8 ti .+f' Circe Ci TRAPPER DR '� t f'1Xtifibo' d ' kt a . ./0 %Irif lilt pi.. +Ilia easy _ - ,�r7s /c: ,s�..w _ , w i !Pr?"' �� ! *�� n ..- 7 �' r-\` - i j •785 At : 1 _ ti 1r*J.- J • _/j', - � �' tatilt t Lr ekait • } • EiuTHa? �, �f� M - H • Ilime. � �• rr :R 14:et14 -.Taro r, < LOTH ST _ �L �,. >~ ,a� ' , -. • J i .Dal . • r -v Q � �-. --� a ' " " .",l Ir rm.. trier.. i -Al li ct2 tylir •THE :tH _ :, 'merit tra;r . a p � 41 �.I . * ` 1 # - ack-is. , . tsit.,. . ,...„ . ., . . „ a 4 r co im 1 IA Ir. '',- - ailaill,1 7TWI'STP 1/21 la bi • 44 A !-- , k. ;�ALP.11. '.1 ' ,� Sig si�, ST U • 17.71 I i 4 lin �JMII42e1 IZI'll:' ' P -. 4 A t t-^*' R t� 5TH �� 2r /!► yl, 1 ,.I North $ '^I o I ` Z. _ - A31 w ►,mow amorna:rap I n 1 i:&> — August 14, 2007 Fede rl N.9hkvay Mr, a s1rol.On • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • • Appendix C Land Use and Zoning Maps Bus Rapid Transit Stations al Ill Appendix C • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1- 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatia II 1 - South Fort Collins Transit Center (New) ,-s'a .. a,...�....r•• f .--al a s_-.—a.Strl i,err - _ ��S' ' .+ Infa tiligrib 17, LEGEND ; - +r ) rF CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING `' '�! ft C Commercial District .« DEIS Proposed Station Area H •N* r I . POL Public Open Lands District Existing Land Use . HC - Harmony Corridor District Agriculture a RL - Low Denstiy Residential District Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area LMN - Low Density Mixed Use • ; I, MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use 1 Open Space/Parks i CC - Community Commercial District Residential C LARIMER COUNTY ZONING _ FA1 - Farming BSI :.;',° Q ' _ If -. (0 , FA - Farming • ` �z rR = � �'�. ," � I El - Residential Lr,i,:,, ; a .4 T • • J K NNStN ToNLo ' o ps O to s'4•f , , t f a,.. 7 TOWHEt . E xsrs.�iAl'M'1�.I€ - !r ;_ HARMONY RD �'' 1 � o • - N• :-BENTLEY PL _ .o: . , j ye146. re� I HARMONY jotPE • __ •• ••.,....„k, -----• , ma, .. =t. k0-4baii- 44041-40,• 1A = : 4,IVIN HC Cit t FA 41 t \ s. 144, f c- . • - c ..,..„. - - - , . ,. ,...„.„......., , ,_,_, .. 9. - Iti,\, rt- r ... .a. - . r. i J • • $çf:. +ti Lae" SAND f�E, i- FA 1 '► r ., a FAIRWAY 71,---• .� • a c, '\ .1 pa__ . --a- wsZ.J . - ' - R MO MI- - ,,4 ,- * air a s 1y RL f ' 'IF. t., . , w F gf ' _ Rit Nss. at. gib givilligaii tlY' bi'1/4 fir, :EL. ,--k7, ll 4i ,,_ . _ ta_ ort,Ola 71: -14 �. . P s �a AI 411,(1.1b . - . , .etilt,N. I i _ ‘74:::`1,1' II I- LMN • tilL , . :), I North tC C�� Illh. i•al August 2007 �ederoi H ghway 14, Adm�nn•ra a� Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 .-411111 1- 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 2 - Harmony Road and Timberline II .... , ..,, - Asa 41, Al"il• .44:4 4' _, * 151 � ,:d CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING., i , . .._ i- - ,,r, r 4 4 N : --)-e s-----trCir.69-`;--)ten nr: -- LEGEND ft - . - .tai` Pt _ . 0 .nri P0L - Public Open Lands District .%% DEIS Proposed Station Area ,. �. 1 ST — ,�', a°WF sr - '=� I i o tii E - Employment District a Existing Land Use ' '�,,, ' l 'i'e �;� LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District �: 0oe Q " 4 : . RL - Low Density Residential District 4 Agriculture ik. r; o0 : c�. . IW tY CI i " e '" 1 ' HC - Harmony Corridor District ` Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area i :. ':�_1 , ` a V_ .' ; •uo x, '41 r UE - Urban Estate District x Open Space/Parks -.;•'' - _ r rP 9 Residential . . _tv ... °zap *_,s , '•:? � ;, ' � '��4 S . .i. Nil i, 41 -: 4- - 1 -ve.ifitit‘ce", 4: 1011V r• al ".. ••• • tir ti -CI k.T.,*4 0' I: * ` i� 4• /1r [sue : �..`�r ,,,...„.,,,, . .- , u‘uwilt • Er;, , ,.. _ .. ,,,.., • be iy„,,,,, 44 ___. ......_____. ..,,. - • li -. ..:my 5 W - A ail" . O9 : ' r 1 I II . `, �� C�`,.� S�� r is r •� *' i illie - • l 1 ' : •�- .. ".r `' - ' 1, ",'�' 14 11 �� , 4ralti:141. LI\ lif.4v:'� 'r ` ►;r�� ri 4st 4: •0'f :,_�—. Pic c , l .y.~, w1 = 1' ��'.1 y +t1' ii i n ..),:f 7.,rk.,:-.-90:-\../..:. c- r 4 it i ea . ‘4iti___ ww..--................seve"'iv.. i ..,CE.,t' f.\•.17,1* • . , t ,r, it kriti Neat ri �anx I ' _ ' qt +� _.. „a. • , _, ' TIMBERLIN-mptE �N . :•„ III 4,r— ., a-- HARMONY RD 68 I. ii. t , ., - . _ , Let ,r.c.......____Th---..„,-a...-. , Taw . —,_ 0AKRIE GE R { • _` , h C - s u �! 1 �i r • , Y •` 1 } .. _ - F �' is '``�"� 'r.� .y� .- ,44- - i k,:<-1 - *ars\• ile le 4 i/ k 1.,11SAIIS ".. .. 39agte" I- - I i . 1 lit, >) iiF I. 1 - .. _ l.t _- - mg ��; TIMBERWOOC i . - ifriasilitau it t_ . .. . - ---aite, e . _ 7 ::).:LN...____ et---- — isinin • ;Cf; I. 1 ' :E'er ? • MISO'�N'D Q 1 -• -- , . �� '5 '( �T C `, ► o , ti11Qf _7 lY i n..,;( ,ii y 04; ti, .; f .2 'r < ,, I• it ill . '.• {�{ ••it , .. J. ,RR/'�C`� .. I • •O L. ^'r'1\ i,�JO T.T`\1 - �iT'• - PloGt. C �--� a.` 1 . !.N f -� 1.- ..'r-- CT �•- �` I r 'f ."= ... !"F p,/,F ,�.- _ • . i.,� R_E cep �` * s r• f * � 0 \t '`� _ , . . � I\NT}E.RoCT %_ .� -1-1p4.• o •�,� � `Q�, /-t ,� • ,� 1 - r` : ' ! 'fir 1f ,cep ;; ' �� a ,�V• % y^+' oy ' .'� •1 '� .r ANGELG DR {J a'�'� 1 P I Qw•1, ' 2,,, . ! 1 �II�' • .p• �. J �Jll i t � t . ` �\ I ii �' � / 1 1 U.. s`� �• y ' ,, xis to It THYME # l • . %,► . F P -{�V (o i� !a �t'� ' i - .n.r— E"'KrpR . .• • ♦ —y ( / 11� I +al ilrlEUUIaI' ' /i_ ►t•�t� ,`' tea' r J -----++ �� - _ .. fa. l _� -G+REEKQR STETSON•CREEK• DR ��, �A • �,,.F-%•' 41/trbfill _ _ 4 istiulwATERAWIca n, Atli litkcji a, <c'e,er; . 1 Nor._ th ' . A.*: - vat-3m Oi , i - ., . ._ i.,.. . �� August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH I--25MI 1- 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatioi • 3 - 1-25 and Harmony Road r LEGEND ' • �-• CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING :7, DEIS Proposed Station Area • '., elk .,, C - Commercial f • POL - Public Open Lands District Existing Land Use - �,�_ " . S t , , I ' HC - Harmony Corridor District Agriculture J , s UE - Urban Estate District s nil Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area �` " • ' LARIMER COUNTY ZONING ' � t ~~ r C - Commercial I Open Space/Parks 0 t s — FA1 - Farming • A Residential i 0 - Open 4 _ T - Tourist ! • CITY OF TIMNATH ZONING I' ...--00.1 R-1 - Old Town Residential w: R-3 - Two-family and Multi-family residential �_ 1 B - Business 41 ,> - ; P © L A COMM - Commercial *is _ , A- Agriculture bt „ C-2 - Community Commercial r I . ll f -. - I Its..., II.r • t • y_ _ _ 1^i - a . , __ �. _ _ 1 . . 'S i \ '41Alilat . . , C Si 4' . (242 /Li . IIII , • ' iiko , i a. .... kExistinciP6ril- .,,, ‘ h flz 1" T• . 68 - .v._ - __...„, ... __ii M 1 t •" ° r • y k •\\}^ • . tillil ':1 /'�!. , ., . 4 • + " _ _ HC � . , .. . ... . . , . t L_ _ en, 7 ,a . l• a - ' , • i, 4 ill III • ` _ �_ y • ry I 4. 'ifi . , 1 p e �' , ., „5„, 8..., • tit,. A4 . i 4 . _ „iv-. ...a. ,i i .. l n , V .• S "_ c Ail i d ' - -vx_. %. ' 1 . ki . ) , I7C1 c' aus_ _____ Da I . I North 1 tit ♦i ' - I \ , ",z.. I • i 1: l k i ' ‘ ' fir Ad-�; August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 4 - Windsor I LEGEND --ill--- TOWN OF WINDSOR ZONING - GC - General Commercial Chi DEIS Proposed Station Area - RMU Residential Mixed Use Existing Land Use t .6 GC PUD General Commercial RIVI4U Agriculture I L Limited Industrial is Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area M 25 LARIMER COUNTY ZONING r. Open Space/Parks C Commercial ■ Residential VCP. El - Estate ,} FM - Farming ucV - .* r i AP - Airport I� • - ' M - Multi-family Im T - Tourist i WATER R - Residential I rit- ih , . , L..i 4 i • rm.,-,- , Ne.- ,,, se, , is43 ii. I -IL 2.)- .3 $ Jam' a al , ,.•._ . i T •. ., : = G, If , ,C .0 Dataascritill - i_r 392 = . % Iii ,tp .. <Pt 4 •etc •11 '•\ li: . ,! „al Il 4 1 . at 'GatteLPU D A - . ' -- •r-•- :� :IP f-, sere r•- ti's. , {,. j. - �, J ` , 3, 4,, . TES 1 T - , �1 fiT I f /�a .tom. , t r T 'r sea- -,1 -IL - , - El a fr .°AR - e., II • i -6 4 — /..\: A, ,.. et IC* 11, • -r .. 12 , eassimv . , pea e., , n l • w _ 1 1 . ' _ . .1. . ip: 'a gitatelair - 1 7 4 it d. r GC 1 North CI. rtiib -' -`-y ` �� r A11M S o r .. _ __. �k n;°,'Cr;1 August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH I--25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatior • 5 - Crossroads - Part A ' CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING LEGEND .i. P-74 - Larimer County Fairgrounds ;1 -11. I - Developing Industrial ?fir~ .Do Existing Land Use EARHART DR B - Developing Business I DR - Developing Resources Agriculture " ' ' ' J at.4r � �� TOWN OF WINDSOR ZONING Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area 'med. Open Space/Parks ! r-�r.l7 rs-ri GC-PUD - General Commercial GoIDCO (9 - - - > I-L - Limited Industrial Residential . r ' r , t' .. LARIMER COUNTY ZONING ninerio . ., e- .0 4, P _ rJ r, AP - Airport _ ' ' 1;,� - FA1 - Farming . t r. - - - - - - .,,>.. . 1 I ' • s if /l 25 : _ , . fr✓. - f , - - .. r t r 4 a b. e r • -a ✓ _ - . 4. .. - - --i 41 Are r e Jr r. • J; .! a` r/ ' - - - - - - - - _ _,� f_sJJrr� _ - - .. ` . . . . it i.-ir _• 4 .F s - i✓ ry 1« I i ' I/ / - - - - - - - - _ _- - - - - - - - /f /r , - c-_ - rrr • • - 4734 - Ifffff .or / , f / I � rl/_ ✓J•tJrlf / a - .- rt - - -- - - - - !! f/ /// - - - _I • r .r -_ - rrrryrrrrrrrrrrf . .. __ __ • - . vi . Frrif /fffI' Af 1 - - - i - 1s . - .- .)rf✓1.!% If r.. - - • a I / .. '. _ ' V. ^ I • w . 3.. . - 1 is CROSSROADS BLVD rPIIIIIIIII . . ,, .1 t ii 010F , 10 12\01 ., ecsfo • _ - . j -- tle \. i r• i i r 1 North '' Mill )OT August 2007 edcrc! H ahway14, ad- •. ••rChon Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 6 - Crossroads - Part. B I Iry MI ,. F lea .. LEGEND CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING iZrail DEIS Proposed Station Area G - gateway Existing Land Use AP ......-- CROSSROADS BLVD P-59 - Millennium edition 1 P-83 - Twin Peaks Addition PUD Agriculture I B - Developing Business Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area I Developing Industrial . Open Space/Parks DR • Developing Resources LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Residential AP Air. N - ' ' •'R ii D 0 :. ' : :. 3 ttj' ' a • . • Fret . - 1 .Y / .. /, or I / /: it , , , . . ►- ! a' O ` i. Y _ _ 25 - 4.. .r / 1 .. 5 - - .r // s r oc _ __, - - - raerr ., r __,,, 9 !w - r / `• - - - . O 1 / - PC'o = -ai/ . r .i.t .t - - ._ - • / r dd �. . . . .t .� s• / y - - ArIt_ _ -or /r . r - .r / .. •' y► r i/ s . A • — _ - - - . - - - - -iii " _ _ = iif'- - - F _. - - - / r / / - 1 i/ • r L tT. •- • r i s is AP ef. , � AP . i 's - . - .m. .: -5' o c f For • N . Z\ 411 = Zblea- —_ 1 odo• robo-: y August 14, 2007 Station Alterna tives NORTH I--25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information cooperation. transportation 7 - Berthoud LEGEND •. 1 ;I '' CITY OF BERTHOUD ZONING iii DEIS Proposed Station Area ...Ill • • t• No zoning � •. 1 CITY OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING Existing Land Use r - ---'- ,• .z Agriculture f. SF-1 - Single Family Residential , ..'._. ,Y WELD COUNTY ZONING Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area . • % c. A - Agriculture Open Space/Parks }} r. Residential , •• . • : `I . ip _ t A - • � .-R S'S'T`rte 1 � � yi - .,. '„ ' • it i °r.� i ' SP, 4 �1�' ' r - . • . i. 5 ,, , . ':_ ,_.... •N • �Zo n0niNoZonno ii L, , „rik,-, ,,,•• r, y • F iw , 1 i . * in" • 4., -,..,,,-.: • • •- : _ • t .. .,'/J///! i"fir - - f /1/' /J// .4 ' ; I „ •r/ J .i' /✓ // ." i { .r .ff.r /r .rr4 - / 'r sr/I'lr-e-t . , I r r e _ 't• r - M i it _• _ _le r A- ; a It , I i t - 1 - ti 6 7 �F =1 .. 1.,: 0 o � a � / 7 j t r 1' 4 4. • .1-: 1 { 1.. North . ` • . .. •" . ,;-? 41k.- ler.da{oi r� August 14, 2007 Adm nii 9 Station Alternatives NORTH I--25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio ii ,8 - Firestone I L EGEND S r _ , $ '' • • $ WELD COUNTY ZONING "` C-3 - Business Commercial 0. DEIS Proposed Station Area -a: ' A Agriculture Existing Land Useilr PUD - Planned Unit Development Agriculture R-5 - Mobile Home Residential Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area SS TOWN OF FIRESTONE ZONING S . [ Open Space/Parks , • t n fr 40 C - Commercial Residential . 4 R - Residential V - _ .:: • ,,- —S. lk.li • 4 ;. a.. + • O I. C3 s . . ., rn .,fir? A. . _ 119 a4 rt f - r- w, .} • iiiii • . - alliti Ja .c . it i II 2., r. i r,f Ulpi ilar ',' Ill ' imam "--- ,,It I . . rt.—, • , err' 1, - `. - -. bm5 tJ • - jtlki,,• t E. C • ,; -�� !W& . R rion .,5. ..�al a p —. '1 I .... tmo ,1 la . . ' Is=mo Are Pee s�IIIImIt �4- r r , h r I. it Ls „r Tr a i . , . . . f S - - . - . l f / -f . F. . - # r /1 - l r . - - -.r/lff- _di / . . •! Jr - c /. • 1 , . . _ it i Cl. / / / • de /J.I!/ 'J / r d ! aide : :MI ::: •- 1 . ,t.m, p to u , 1. .. Y.IF .' __ _ : ! / / r ,- / r - -ft, ' (ii.7 I irPU !) . re.: "� Q .. . 0 i I North 4 ;.edmns'roic August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatior • 9 - Frederick-Dacono , 1 : : - „ f ' '` .oc ' f '` t `' TOWN OF FREDRICK ZONING _ _ _ .F./ ft�t., ._ _ f j,c .�-: •• R-1 - Residential District - Single Family �,�,. -- err / / f r .' • • s 1+ rrr" f f r r 1 i CH52 - Mixed Use Hwy 52 District t, v s • t/ F..'r� r !•r`..' I.IJ ! .r • . - . - 1rr� rorrrrfr: r � I Industrial 'r r l t l l A l' r /r r r t t J f ri rr f r r : r•', I C E Employment . - irirrrr The rr if ¢ ✓ . - - - - f � dries;.��;;-',`.. `. ' `, TOWN OF ERIE ZONING . ✓ �r ✓i is ref fir f✓ r� rrrf�r f RC - Regional Commercial a _ - orirsirirs, . . r g ''` �" " '' '" ` • TOWN OF DACONO ZONING ( CR - Commercial Residential District . r l 1-1 Light Industrial District 5 R-2 - Residential District • r ii — ROI .. . ra'sP--,---- --.11-4.--"selliP" • _ CtE. ,. _ ,.;N .. �•• Y @Mg2 .. ',L • ilk_ - . etsimmjg 1 r t�-. .�- . '�. sue' } W .I Dvzgoo U Ille ' LI J@ LAURA Ceti) o 0nT - ^ � ST - ---1______ ._. : I Iltra �� iassis04000 illii { -$ _ •ail lT , [r- , • - _ .ICI .. S. . . . `110111_ - Uci LEGEND L R J [ t" i1 IA DEIS Proposed Station Area • f Existing Land Use , , ... k, Agriculture iRC - L Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area Re 0 I Open Space/Parks ° as IMO '_I° North Residential : or - w August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information- cooperation. transportatio 10 - 1-25 and State Highway 7 II 13 St LEGEND I III ,. ? � t ,i i) CITY OF BROOMFIELD ZONING - f"' DEIS Proposed Station Area 1 1 . 1 PUD - Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use : ., Agriculture .- • - Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area y ' ' r �` Open Space/Parks 4 • Residential - - - - - - y;, la I l , r 1 _ • L lit 4. • ` _ 1 t •, •it .v 1 1 • _ _ - - - • 1{•'aii 11 1 _ . 1• • • i {.: t •• - A • ` ' b.• : tie . . �,- 1 71. ,' r - • Y 11 • • i 1 . I. .i: ••sue. .r \ r}� • % - 4 ti. i 444- . _ ,_7 . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , ____ ..' - - - - - . - fir? ti 41 IS PlAnille i • • .., . _ _ _ _ _ p ,. 7 1 i 1 � I ,1/4 4 / �' i �Lt�f�t ---r:::;;;,';04-?._;',7;-_:- // 1 ti's• '^,i}Kl°>h� ht. \ j I ' ell +• - 1 r- ••• 4'" r •' jilt ?+�.. 1� tik 1 1 1 North l ' ) . or w- • elk+�m/lilt p9 byway August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 I - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio • It - US 34 and SH 257 LEGEND CITY OF GREELEY ZONING iii DEIS Proposed Station Area - - IM - Industrial Medium Intensity A IL - Industrial Low Intensity Existing Land Use "t, CH - Commercial High Intensity Agriculture qYY PUD - Planned Unit Development S Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area H-A - Holding Agriculture _.� i Open Space/Parks A WELD COUNTY ZONING Residential A - Agriculture j - , :, , pid A _ PU te , . .. - .-. J r - PUo 0 __ - . / . ,,,....,_:._,._.,....,_ . _ . . . . . ce , . .. • • I - M H A C - H A 4. a • r 1 North ,ii- r )rl_/ �J rba cie o oy August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH I--25 1- 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 12 - _ w. . West Greeley_ _ II LEGEND CITY OF GREELEY ZONING C-H - Commercial High Intensity it,, DEIS Proposed Station Area - - C-L Commercial Low Intensity Existing Land Use ` ,: PUD - Planned Unit Development • Agriculture v R-L - Residental Low Density Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area «. . -- R-H Residental High Density kiiiiOpen Space/Parks - - __ C-D Conservation District ' WELD COUNTY ZONING Residential • - • A - Agriculture K L A raw • I / f 1 a LL.... R - H - _ - __ _ .._ I I RTIII , , I pu—0 fr . , . . • '4 ''I - am I W - --- - .. lop '. _ • _ . .. - 587U R=L #: 11 .e . 1.,f k ii , z . a F t.1 13 ir Gm 0 • , i . , . / 1 , .:,,, , . .. • . ft . R- H Lm..........nsmwa. .:Laglr4.- t - g - x'11 -r.i _ -so - - - - - r _ .,.6 awnT �t .,;:; August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH I-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- DEIS Package B EIS information cooperation. transportatio • 13 - Greeley Downtown Transfer Center IIPLEGEND ��J��®� - ., ,\ . . alz" 1 „ CITY OF GREELEY ZONING - :ii DEIS Proposed Station Area — CH - Commercial High Intensity illlli- Existing Land Use I I • a $ ' . ! CL - Commercial Low Intensity Agriculture ' ST . j } r. , RH - Residential High Density _ r . ,,•_. j RM - Residential Medium Density Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area PUD Planned Unit Development 3 Open Space/Parks �I "" _ IL Industrial Low Intensity y Residential .�.or 2N° ;; . IM - Industrial Medium Intensity I 1 H lisin Li " ' co 2 In 144: Mit ti ..i.s.: , Pi• OH 3RD Si v 4 . I )@lie H : act ' .gin_ ir4 4.rim• - -rOts� t.�.• , aid w, M1 .. • 1 ? � '1�', �T1'>! 7w� 4TH ST :TEL 1•.� 41> 41 is i• i kr‘e '7 .10 . . I' ate- , ' ",• J 4, 11 i ti•--k. iti�i Is 4 L•aa litg'40 ii In 1 ., 4 ,i i Siiiirii ....._6" ,..l • •tI " sit" ' PU: .-___, ,�: y u,� Q . , _ � ,t . ,NJ.�] 41t . 7 %- ri,.. r •��. a,S. 6TH ST I Am 1 _,„ _ II�,14iu. s+ 1itLL,r I. 4 1 1it '' '+y - » �i _; -ter ,,— � ._lir igwori=le I i,,,,i • 4 a * ed f _- j[) >�i � f *•iT fST so �, . or...r = 7TH ST 1 .W; i- it lor 'tii :,� Lilt �: �. M - a• ! 1.!Talc =PI IF L 14 • A 4 Set like • milll:- , •-i . „ . glyair . h-. • � 263 - • �� ` , lit 1cTyuIt7sm5T > toot [ iiiTHSt � }s 4-Q' I 4. 4 lit..7 . Ce oir:p-4 pi10171.11*Ii'iltlilli'T t. 1.14W 7),rlr(( .-__IMO • r�` itr V '-_, r �r r. > I 91 a pill n r t • is At h rli '� : - :� 4 ;Rj r1 ICI -. . C -H ,. ► • t , • n� - '�+h•,: , . _ „D.V • . lilt 'p�s� 1 1 TH *Mr1�ts , g zi 3�.: 'nla - ( -•�.-•A1v4.k,. 1 . • -« •.t .. _. ILL- Mel J, i Q 1 ra_,2 I ( 141SE •a .C' 1Y1�.7J L •4E {tir } Vs�'J', • ' 17,r mi ►ice � r haste* :r • -• w -r-• , 1.2TH W ri J .LIl •• nits..�„*'!�•fr F .p„. ►w ,�, !r 1 .' -r : :r ' .� -1 ( F I L • t T;' x r r: sw �� ice' t1We i - i � `, }! $ • _ _ 1Ull t I°=` qs_� X �e A• t . 3 urai . tt •1rJlk,7.1. - , 1:� Ili ( I assile, « , • • g ?14TH ST ' l� z� t ..-1-4Th 1 yEli .. ca It . a I" lit_ ` Litz Mail W " i;:•,_. ,, !r P y a. r ,rat , 'asa t« a by III— • 43 i j. I North wow . . T „ „C15THST sci„e1(/T "' c1•oder �� •l -;h, r August 14, 2007 . THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. . • Appendix D Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Rail Stations Ill Appendix D . THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. . Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 lnmuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS US 287 Co g information. cooperation. transportatioi • 1 - Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center - 7 -- -_ - __ ..-_- -+y _ . 1 it W_- 7: 1R5 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING LEGEND i PINON ST teat DEIS Proposed Station Area l L D - Downtown POL - Public Open Space Lands District r Existing Land Use I E - Employment District INS r t. C N •• as Agriculture I - Industrial ,� Employment/Commercial/Retail Area I 1 NI 4.- T - Transition District Open Space/Parks CON CC - Community Commercial District Residential CCR - Community Commercial Poudre River District (, • • CN - Community North College District l —. CCN - Community Commercial North College District t. I' NCB Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District '• _ RDR - River Downtown Redevelopment District E = IV __ rT' .3 r, t = NCM - Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District '' --:'mil • , ,, . : LAM - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District ` c •t ` Imo" , 1 r lPIi► P � � ! ..__ .... , P e LC.CR s - sr-* .. . r„. -- _ -P O L �•, . . , ,,J .- . .4, .. ,;�` . ,;� .� ELM*N,. ' __ _ ,E , „dee u o thil. Ge T. r ? SY€AM'ORETST ka SO 'ISMNr tar: s.�qt , _ - . apt-. i. _ •4,,4 4s .-. .-t F'!�.,„ ,'}. •.7- tom.`. • �'— .� r -rows, :T,'t"' ° '" IL le%ItB I BUCKINGHAM ST_ fisoe P. 0 - am [. - 1r.� � ..� �ii " : r - ,•� , .mo o _ �„ u • �Ic'•�1.J --A r'-v 73%, CR nasal . . .i l ►1�,•. •�' P�.� $T— qb� - - - Vii. -. - ��0� 4.4b '- '� -" t r'r.rya,.er-ta I I lli�3 -.r • 1 � 1 �.j.T{ • - I's , ,.._-____.,•\,_ _:.:....„... --t . t4.:� �• p � ID D , ,,, . , , , , s • • . �s �. '� , it ... ifI. I,. r� °9�t r » tL ,1, - r (-7--- •"Si iac.n,s= t ler � _ St"MIA I f - _. . w 7I<'tir' *I j_`� l:aaIi p. 4 - ' i � •' _. - l_ .. I g `� B P1 It• . ili‘relitil. ni . !), will "(4-1 ifr ' , ! Al ;.* se - . •.-- Sidt ' - I reer4 - ' ' II I ' I 'Mil . \ttidi .4-e' 0 , v.) , i ,,. ,,,,,, 0,„,.., , Zit I r. Iii-t a-a j- . - laiLa 4. _" - 1 . - ' ' . , b." j . to, -Et, "am: a ---.:c-'" • ' p.v• .11 1 ,.. er it 7-.OW . 4— - 1 • '5D441. lir Alt . 41111441$1 ;sal-L-- k . .,-4..Nis. . 912s. 'A 1 •so . , I -I We' t L ' ' ItI14141. le' , i 1. •Mil �d'r" > I. �T"�j — ;PIO K ST .' �i�� ; 3` �'!'�7 �� ' •r Ni a r.r•� � lea m r .• �• 1 31 situ ' r Nov s: . 0 - . p- sr IA iir.,4▪44444- .t. O a 0UVE ST 4 ie. t P a` �►:, —� 3 r '.. I t. w xi �4� kTmi - r Tin Irv.. ✓lett dot : •'t a1 ar. :. —tr. .Wei A ant 1. l .. y :.,�, f ran. �:! :7 #ic v> i _ t rra+ in .F-E '�►./iR • -� . - _ ��. _ sir . I ri.' a (n ♦ J• Y'r: :,; Sr • Sil ill „...„ „.„ . . . • iii1 North ,,,, ,_r _ .,_ .. I c mealaV �� r lat -..S q •ec • - • rn.a 1 I i it AN wLl Ila nrnl•H hn ' August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH I25 "*.All US 287 Commuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 2 - Colorado State Uni gr....,versity I Ir v ' ` to r 1 , `rq'�' 1i� . LEGENDbe Wit„ ': =r�� >. N;.........„ _ i .,, C M c. DEIS Proposed Station Area ti. ,:''''J lain= 4-r , - ! : ''J .: &S .�. • ii: - -', Existing Land Use F ut s. r. ..y �, CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING -s Agriculture S. - ' i ' ;�: l'i -- -T CSU - Colorado State University � ' Employment/Commercial/Retail Area a mYRTLIE•sTPo y W,, d C„it.- . GC Community Commercial District 4 Open Space/Parks .1-• Ia . �.` t !� HMN High Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District Residential ,A pit_ , 7ret_ NCB - Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District IF, , �•� ' ' - ' 'na NCL - Neighborhood Conservation. Low Density District 1- �� + O T-i � :4 6. "I L• ' - * C - Commercial District IC `1^ ill i,"h, a ` �.. _ s LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District au . . '- , '� '* *! rPtrr ` • b: mfr �.+� 'f� ' r• L� . ' • `tins,., -4: .41 , 4. gr- *- et . r-r - se �. P4.. ° PLIUM ST' . - NORIH DR ' - NORTH`DR' ae d' ` f stalti Ifirefir."4."- i �`, Vier , 1 ,, i ,il s + .,�!"• , ,,: , ty. c..• e ve _yelt _ 1 7., . a II .1111.6,411“-4..ab e. gi•-; ?ill ::‘—s, ‘ime. ..14.-. sir X.11...-at. rISCY gut LOCUST ST a• o \ 5 t _ .. w . .lam �: ! �` � � �i ► I .. . ° ,/ '\ 1 - I . . [ ...,- i- , .0 r ,� r +, . , ,� O. 1 I Ir.,.- l •,t - , � f . . ,. o - e� 4 GARFIELD ST' : - - SOUTH ClitSS Up- !� t� `' _�_ _ �I � _ � z +}_r� F- • r-1 ; -' .,_ i y a s I s r t,: EDWARD ST, ` .,g,,,,,„.„, „ ,_• . _ • iz wrti 1.- ---... 1� •ITKIN ST 1 - i . ';• . . . - _ a.. &-, t n;_ r'" '� NI C, " - 1=21+ 11;w411111ffi ,„„,„. a -:-‘ , a , , r-,,,,-.., ....., sip 1/44.7.., "WrtaZ1b '• '. 'fit .. •1 Ati it-la 4+P . tail? o .. • j " 'IL �f, hl.` u,f'o� �; Mt lit: , -- - '. _ ill • , ElliSir g'F .. 4 tr: ' ill, II.1. lit ll,H MN ii__ H M N ��a: _ �. 314 is. � ,ill �, .... :14,0_ 10t _ W , LL B$ .,f . yr • -- a .t. , a li.e."Y ��"` A •,b ., a zar _ 1.-! . - • - ILA 4Fipe, SWISHf.• ::: �iISb r� fir. x g . ` - Pelr • BAY DRS i.*rt t Cfgrpinpillileasba4”444agjeq.: it R�L F C ' , !! .L-WiII . ci i—Vw, t. ''w�5w_Iw.^ i .st•a1�Sr: �� r 1 ^r: .� ; � I .��T .!IMAM,, .r.,c , • h2.1 g le rl r , ar ,t. • • , . iw 0 ilit sk.E sk. .' 4.4.' 1111 __ -''.F-N Anne 4 a let. faikellp . `♦" Q % i' r) I ' 1 North • •s '1 . S i ; - th IRL �"��. .__, .. - -- _s , .r. _Ai •• ,. �itit.J gas" 1zda;;F A hx�y August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 lnmuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS US 287 Co g information cooperation. transportatior II 3 - South Fort Collins Transit Center T ti} y ► rs. i/i -v.H .-ThiU. .4.Tf t • in, -. . � ;y +jotM ,„,, ' - � — i��:�� rI� LEGEND li�h# - ;,) - • `, • 11 `.r; - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING �tONT ST '� �� DEIS Proposed Station Area o,. i 'M aII ` C - Commercial District - - Use 'D" m - h ° ' '� ‘ad ; ' POL Public Open Lands District Existing Land UsgTW '� m t o , Agriculture .. Sit, t HC Harmony Corridor District Vi e•'` Q ' A? RL - Low Denstiy Residential District to .Employment/Commercial/Retail Area -sEYEipR 7 2 Open Space/Parks _S. LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Residential ar : s !,r Y FA1 - Larimer County - Farming r �,� FA - Farming A� �,�b `y .• ^IV -- n f '�S �C { '. _ `� El - Residential �y3 '1 f.� � wrN ° '* •I R ,� • I� }'y it I -� i 15AV LION IN \. \• i. .,� • .! a ter la D Pia M M�N ) '� r, `s -fitt t.� P*,> • ,�r '1e' es TOWHEEST .t? ' M $ 2 q11 Q. - - 3. 68 41;it -vatiir—Ate it 1:4•411 4 Kafir . 10: NI roil. iliji 1 , :1: T {G. v c1? +�1}/}' • ]/•� .--(�-(mow 1. t rlb ''h 1, IAA►. tAVVUV C'.tlS i.]i1 tali.:i ;' � •� � r� i ' _ _ � L � 0 dr � `,' _ w ' i ...CC El . ii ,.. x-or-,,gt-i , P4 y - _ ilfIIbj jry 'r i - _ - A tO 1 lorerivar— FA 1 • 'i,9 $ f 21 FAIRWAY [lA si priiii itiji it Are .4' ;-.4 . i ..? . . it-40,;., nip ri . 4.- A.! -ar"z • 1 -- • F ( ....,„,_Li.,,,... A �. �M� _ d, .1 "a _ t 4 4 1 CORONADO CT RL _ k 4 . aCt ,-.'tABBEY RD * _ ,w ili .• it � — `ire 4�r. , ' . r'J., ,_ . 1 - .: IIIM F....- Isil ft , ,, 4a, 4!4,4 yr- _ :� - i' _ 4.0!4.,#1? i r, �,; �. . , ,c __ �:it 71p :L ,. ` i,y' •� +-' •;� 1 ' pe O', � .I`► tea~'° . Y.frj!X,,14 .L Z i 'it , F-� et 4.. i • •'ef r' t y - r" f r 4:5`. I ` e . North I. GC LMN . . _- , 7 0zine a Him August 14, 2007 aam,nnrro Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS information cooperation. transportatio 4 - North Loveland I ____�m._►'.a,'�L.Q•.' ,.- x t .. a ... . .,� -rt,a ast -rat/ - , , --iLEGEND • _ate,a. : _ j CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING ii. t ' ` - B - Developing Business District DEIS Proposed Station Area .� i • ` � � _�� P_t3 - Planned P Unit Development - Orchards Townhomes Existing Land Use p P-75 - Planned Unit Development- Fox Pointe Estates PUD Agriculture P-27 -25th Street Office Complex Employment/Commercial/Retail Area iG le l %. t' P-37 -Evergreen Meadows North Addition Open Space/Parks , Rte -Established Low Density Residential R3 -Developing High Density Residential District Residential I r� s P 9 9 1 4 R3e -Established High Density Residential District Ike:- -. .. -••,C,� _ - 1. �• 1i• '► �l• * ,,tall at"' a LARIMER COUNTY ZONING • % ••• . ) nie •b•• %a• { -: , 'ir_ ., :ar: Rir 'e f 8 A Farming ,4. . ....,, ,r 4. re-* a Ilic In :•reN' �` • �. Q _�r E ,� ;� r -- - ilk el err: W �.:. 4 ikeit•" ,R" i a� =i ti J.... E 33RD ST , I s f o ice, o e s�►iR ' . �r .r CY 4 - —J- 4 0 UJ i t• ' . S "S w ) Il � *.' •�1l �' I lr�I„2 �1 r. ,p - reti. (toml • eV'. q '� a'"�" , B Q 32ND - .k ► - • C' '. r. L� � '�_ O i 4' #TAY LIMBERpL f '1,1" � = o MAHONIA( ki ` U 30TH ST �•t :::::it- 9i,... • _ . . B • if --Ill . t . p. , . _ _ .. .:, ..../., rie - rir: . It : SU a . � F ;.p -,dir 131 i1 c ,„„s _ . ' @ 27TH ST R --3 .� �i , . , 4,... ,* �1 ��''? i Wit., Ai I pons licstc..- t. . - Vii* - # �-= .. y fr rdbRi1 �_� E "' "fie72e w iir,,,,,_ ,. , tea, d 44 34 {' • . � AD NJ:Lijan. g :1747t _itt'N 110 • er. . " t- s-T-711 .5 Billamm•Li if pS --)-- . "I 1% - ' -..fite.N 1 ifrRirek94 ' 4i . R3 • \ 4 ' fir : r,rt3tass - -o 1 rl _ f'i _�.'- c 4, dam' �t ti �, • _ t, 7 C ' - ± E 20TH 77 ii r *fete .... .,1. ,. .. - . _ ri t CITY OF LOVELAND I I North 13 i. _- Cr I Be - Established Busines ' .. '4_° . : R3e - Established High De , O_T _-- iraieralH "..; '�'" °T ^ S'^°�p^ August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 Rail- DEIS Packa EIS US 2S7 Commutere A g information cooperation. transportatioi S5 - Downtown Loveland LEGEND CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING 1!Z DEIS Proposed Station Area Be - Established Business District A Existing Land Use F R s R3e - Established High Density Residential District Agriculture ! ,,, lam. I B Developing Business District »o ,r, . - ; DAC - Downtown Activity Center Employment/Commercial/Retail Area • 11� �p�':��_ , '4 Rte - Established Low Density Residential District 0 Open Space/Parks ail ' R3e P-57 - Finley's 2nd Edition t; Residential 1� P* ^ �' I - Developing Industrial `� ..a It ti. DR - Developing Resource .44 <4.-0. ARTHUR[oQ ' ' LARIMER COUNTY ZONING -..._ 4 Ti , „�ir�._ E 15TH f LjFarmin9 al ter' „*, • e .- 4.• . 1 !;? : j = t y ' = B 34 •= y r. et Q -1.4' R ` _ a Unit - - a a _ > let ite • �• ` W 13TH ST � � _ � �` �. ST iI as fr._ �'"" o • '' �3 y_ �. - T 6�, A".,a r'�' S i Wl2TH ST `t'' PipR3e' .. tj, -M-- ` ��jj_l�l ' >a�•'\salt IQ'• : W 1Dr' -It .2TH•ST W 12TH ST [�QST r ,., X44 4!bra i t 0 IA. : ,1 .- -•f • PP.loe► Ai . E 1,1iTH ST HIGH • N o Lb --' ��.S� m i Fill IUTH►ST H 'i11NNE ,w. •., W9 , \ i!r 'as1% . is + 4 g a a • `- . .il .1r + 7 > �s,t' fy BARNES •r�� s+� fn� . r *� C .. ;,r Alslat ©0 gd . . Q ,• it:41 - , . R3e �r �. . o - ' lilt 4:4; $ Q #K :. 1" lei ' ^. Y ► iv 'Ir11 > a •S . i 04 E10THST � '�� •.fit Z •� �. Z< f tr �� W I 0TH ST - ,Q �i f > IAt v I, ti,SAL C- 1 ,�r . 'b � , �� I . ► N4 Z "' ;--„, ,rnrtiI� . °° � WiITEIL E10TH` ] �u�'�` gr >ir. ' U •., ill Q :. lit saw, „sans Vea , } 0. Cr- a g . a .. E9THST'. scar! 'j e.C� ai[' k • ll' c�i - e3ea, • — • w. a. :-r qt. (491444',' _C. a1 • a.&r..0 r11 R . t1S �+ :rla ►. ! 241/' h ja . Y �r ��'�TT 1k. -.;. = Anl '� t 1: LA try ► • � ' E 8TH ST ,r-, Iilr ,_; e�l ,1—'-J i E BTH ST •�` _ .3 .11 ii. 11 ['�i 111 i_ , '' � � !' "}}': 1 4 ." it .e '� '�`` l it 4 , 111 Q w., ,. >- . ur 1 - ' - �.,� /el , u---J-- - w to E. W _Q _�'tire _ 4 v.iT - �y --' ;4 rs• INS On? re Z- '✓Y- H Sii C c W11t C W L c - t . fl • ' ' ,��+h•,R'ih► .� Rite': . 7tr` it Mai. 1 '�- On 2r� O; --Z11,-,00 (. I .. t I �F '!R''i `' •7 • ?` liFii tail A� �..ra I ce . ,,�S%. C i 7-i 17 ,. • n r -,. .“16.—.4w A �4 -G2 .z• - "rr•((��`` ,y11,,,. Z n, yi 1a , , , cs _ "�s, o , ' :{ � �r�J�■ ► tw, �� Q — u,.wc if M. Q W 6TH ST _ m an ll,� "' W lee o.` _d WK u� ' ` ~ Y° . E,6TH ST T 2 a } w -; i ii .�l ' We ca. + T ,�I "ii11V. �= J w �l tN4 �� I; } 't t ir'�j v=i . ' - - r t` _ e 11411'� +w.' ''',...5711, ST 1 I, 1; , I^_fas� .1W S,,• ti':� i � . Q;I z •,Ili LJ -... �.. M •er' des ' > C >, . , �.-. -- r - Ls ' es '�'1` 1? IT' .p rot ' SAM .�� - f t I I :.a . / ' , :. la* ':. .1: f: Y • Y if Illi‘S thl ii AL 4TH ST- - o .,O .cam` - _ . ., ,Q � .. - cl iii• Cac • sir - ''� s T <: - - :1 C. 4 i its._ G sl k 7 =f .qp,,p�j w �fit !A l i ii ? i' t . . : E 1 i ED 1.i t / , 1 7 f R w.a ♦ INyJ r' 31r ''� �,,, ,.. ' 4; yr- f 1T l i t; ._ _: r I I, , E 2ND'�ST _ W,2ND ST •t! Foot a• • 1, if 1.1 - L - o azs S850 ,�o j �.� t North 11 f . h- *�,f. e,.i" Ja Jti, #•• y --Vels'alls-- - --a. - It in•91.AElfr -Ff nr-in , OT - - w August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH I--25 US 287 Commuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 6 - Berthoud I , ...,..„.....„ : . c.5 f ,i ktii--1 ,E1 , LEGEND 01 CITY OF BERTHOUD ZONING DEIS Proposed Station Area KAv M-1 - Limited industrial Existing Land Use i M-2 - Industrial Agriculture R-1 - One family R-2 - Limited Multiple Employment/Commercial/Retail Area -. R-3 - Multiple family Open Space/Parks _ R-5 - Mobile Home Residential lit t R-3UD - Unit Development 41 '• « i f{,=+1 _maltCT C-2 - Commercial 1 al Po [�v ,U�JST•CT At M - 1 LARIMER COUNTY ZONING sot w. kd - H i° . ,y FA1 - Farming ex iiIIMAM -----R11-1 _. ANKLINQb " t�• FRAie NKLIN AV - = mai tI s� r f is we 1{ = rT o V� It=s. . � � Pat- R 1 Rs2 atabL.� ' '� w• � YJ . �. - !• to eal TURNER AV y 'No ` ~��t .,, 3 ` -- TURNER AV,, , _ _ _4TURNER "�. 1 ■ :0 lir 141 • I IN all ft - tali e sr•iliLim SSAC- USETTS G " SSA snit, .r ,� se r r• .r .• i _ i �.. v is. a 1 • . . ; .t: -_,- .�R .fit, �It __-___al. 7. Jt A !l: aAirel i. "'— CZ) a • 7 i� .1442.if , 1 at wr. �. d�' R - 1 ��IR w11 fni '!'�•st ; I_._i I _:_t _ it 1-1110104VII, ‘ ... 1 Re 4 e lE.t I mil, R - �, Bi .,sore Av:4{ ,�I TI. R.`3 . - R- 1 , m j . .. .. �+, r---• •,<, , vnia..fiC 7' 14! ,,. rt. - - R-2U D ,, ___ _ i iik‘c' 4t- P U1 ID . a, . *It " it - _ — _ R-5 _ R2 _ e 5FA Q ' Se \ ' n-14 Ni..„ it 41 4 x , MA,YOC r at .:4. i. ! sgt ¢ aM f :r 4 , « = ' SKA CV (4 OWA ..w aN sti, erlir • t - ad ,-.A� ¶,- m E NEBRASK�AA•AV oue V {^\\ *..' G.•, / I . t North SW Ulti OW Rte: +•r:• fii • ii",4110-- f��'OdOrp' Fi�hriQy et•A-0 '.'°''°^ August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 6 7 - North Longmont LEGEND 1 t LONGMONT ZONING :1.74 DEIS Proposed Station Area I PUD-C - Commercial Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use PUD-R - Residential Planning Unit Development Agriculture R-1 - Residential Low Density Employment/Commercial/Retail Area � R-2 - Residential Medium Density R-3 Residential High Density Open Space/Parks E-2 - Estate Residential '_ Residential CR - Commercial Residential BOULDER COUNTY ZONING Ag - Agricultural I - 4117 , _ . •. . _ . . . . , . . • . .. se- ...- a i • t i- _ C I , I ( Lonomont) ° . • , _.._ V "Ili I ' �'__�' s sii i i/iiiiiii d'a ii ;Hi / / // / // ///t / // / / / . Zv. . - Ri. . .gip i/ .i /// ////// / // / / / / 45;— !. .� r...� / ////// / / / / / .� .- •• ! // / // / / / / /1/ / I / / r ! / I /// f / / / // / // / / . '• ,r it- i• .�' / ///// / // // /1/ /I .4 , jr / / / / / / / //// 1I //./. • '� r / / ///// // ////// // i 4 / " .r /// // /////// /1/. IL I- • x .,g�, tar tr // iv ////i / ie/ / 'Fie* • I / / f / / // / /// s/ • s/ f / ;- i / / / / » / /iri ra,-1 ., � Un'n " _ --- - - R - corporaed Boulder �.' - _ .'-: - r - _a 1 , i .- - r ` . 'yYl . . 6YT•-�= r . r V _ S • 1 .. �. , e R i , o ,, � xx �� Longmont , ' 7 1 Vim _ .�� R .2 `t BECK;WITHfljWWF , °a :til _ _ ,,,I• r f , +•O o , ® o ,� BIRDSILLG� ;, — _R�] 1 7! � I •i •'-k ,, , ts� _i.,_ ,� a 'tN -MI IiR1�11. 1..11t/ - 1 _ fk- iir f I }}= EVER•Y PL �I F 1 i t il 23RD Av, '4' n:- Iva 1 is \, . r *-- ` -ii- ktiet;51, 1, . .., .., .._ :� tCh i• ; •;_ • 1�' 1 • r '` �XR �,' pu ID Rld• i in e • f&3 ce lt P•U. .1*al 1.1% lb I ' P 1 S‘ • 1-1-1.1 t Pit w - . ,. -pi- I s:, @ CI -R,ttt� ips Clip1-14? tl '�, iii I. J S .1 • - �_-- • is- ,t ri Y■ .1 1 "r ;lid:. � fUr ►` �� •-J t '� p':Y - • r �� _r_. • _. r,. W tll • _ . „......._ ._.... ,..• � 3 21 TAV - ,�r., 1 0 .. -A \re- , ti 4 t " ill4.k:,,A .a 1: , I • it) Tits. - ...4 _ - • / 't ol.A. 4:al, i I I klish A . •.. l'i:.- a vast Os., „At 'fill*, [ki ier IV-Mite- O !Wailli RA' - t.' fr CC •'LL�:L j� G it , -• e=1 NorthigH . � - ka % a- wi1411. III ` f it ell`odeof H917ay `,Adn nivro on August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 8 - Longmont at Sugar Mill411 ... . - AIR'_ : >. :0.1_11Wilatti, :riT�' 1 7o. '�Li• J a"s I . �,r to- - ; - r alb .G 444 �' v w •t LEGEND 4► �l a al Fl - off , BOULDER COUNTY ZONING Ifaid DEIS Proposed Station Area tax - .•� GI - General Industrial Existing Land Use r l l ';L , 1 '�' �. ; i CITY OF LONGMONT ZONING • .,Agriculture a r u c•7 • �i # R1 - Residential Low Density at Employment/Commercial/Retail Area • ,ni -\ .. , ! JwPfsnP sn� i R2 - Residential Medium Density r Open Space/Parks x , 1/4„ _7,4.4a ! R3 - Residential High Density .* ' s PUD-R - Residential Planned Unit Development Residential �� • - I tit. .4 -w t o • C - Commercial Misr/ +s-;w .,r w, r r9, : 4 it a. _ �t �► air 1 • yE2 - Estate Residential �= s 1`, j�++_ � tLt ' • ��dtI � . , , !L P - Public il ® t 31/4%Cr,�►. �' i • GI General Industrial :•..�i .'* 'A - . ? _ 119 �� 'tr. *� .�, .� �� t 'Lir� t.� � t - . v,• _ , . ____?-2< , ' 'III* 1:4, R.* "I - • -ma - 4 .4, 4' - -- ' ;.MI ® I �� ` Vii, "r' �w �,,rillifft-I_7-e-1 far 457-----aii ks...2.-,.. . 1.. . A -Kb- .. alie' . illith@ � � - _ E - - J € it L , t! `�''.('f SUGARMILL RD _ --. • ,,, .. 4. 0. • - • ' �' ' jit A - . 1 icl ., .g ,(( 1 'r CD . e - --� . . - - - --,,,,` • s _ ••• ( • mac: 1 4 GI (B ) __---za___ tar __ i. ♦ a ` . .. _... - 1;to • - H �!• • I .- - - - -. _ . FN Ft �� e» _- ' North i r .._ . .-, ___ . o r •.: August 14, 2007 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail- DEIS Package A EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 111 9 - 1 - 25 and County Road 8 it t CITY OF DACONO ZONING 1 LEGEND - - -�o -- C-1 - Commercial District ft. DEIS Proposed Station Area /pp'.. CITY OF ERIE ZONING Existing Land Use Agriculture • PD - Planned Development Employment/Commercial/Retail Area "` . � WELD COUNTY ZONING s Open Space/Parks •., A - Agriculture Residential - - _ . i 7'. - ' -Y *'. - F0L-4+ - . ru - - - . -.... . I 14 - - - - It 25 . •w. 1/ _ . . 1: j ,'_ • 1 ANY. a 1// //// J " ///e/., • J " � ,� �_ :: a/J!//t -_ -- -- Py71/i/!/'/! / /// //1///// 1.i' ,F j _'T”-:-- -_ .. . .� ..a1iv-aL iv+•+. -y--- ..� r . . i __.,..g, . , rt!//tt/ /t/////t # # tttt/ . .4 /felt//t// /J//t///tt` .e/', - •_ 1 rlt /tttl/// l /////Is ,r -' r /J strirand . F r/// /J / lJ// /Jet/// /!/ /Jet// / t//ttJ � , � � k . s// //// J! test/'.. ►/ l// /t // 1 r • ';r . i/ / // I/Jt/t . . 411 :1Har"."%ft-...„TkikaL.s. 14* • _ _ in Ei• , , , •• • . ,•4. i . . 1- r.l . .a• - _ _ • / - - _ - /., t - - - - - / art . I/! Star/.r• / / // O / / /4 • .Ittt / 1 / t _• _• _ _ _ _• Jr • . ' I / / / � I l s / 1lfd ;rt/ 1/J t - tl / t -drll / / 1t1 /J / / Or / _' / / a' / l/t /// t / // , .ill // /tt / //JF /l h. f lt//!////t /! , - _ - -_1 - ,/t //sJe///!/td L . _ 7/!ire ////carte//I A - .• _ _ 1• • • - • rear/ ! t /'1//ee/te/// ,/r'/;fir l% I/IP7e//-r/lie-r /dell let .tJ/ t ! / 1 / t / IJtIJ! Jr weir tt / IllS :Cr fi tl, i. / tt / / /tJ/ttJi + ar ' F "1 - 'A1 r , 4 , r t D r�-a l I elf` 4: P K I 1 « - DD tr - . 4. i y I/N_• , ,. t North r�Adm ;;II se n August 14, 2007 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • 9 • Appendix E Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance Facilities I S Appendix E • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-25 Commuter Rail - DEIS Package A EIS ilk otential Sites information. cooperation. transportation. Portner Rd . and Trilby Rd . - Fort Collins LEGEND r CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING Existing Land Use ! E - Employment • — ' c _ LMN - Low Density Mixed Use s Agriculture - �- r RL - Low Density Residential Employment/Commercial/ ., p 0 I POL - Public Open Lands Retail Area UE Urban Estate ,,. Open Space/Parks . '\ ,---1 LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Ii 1. Residential Ili>. • FA1 - Farming 4 FA - Farmin • Maintenance Facilities �P.- to t : .;�`tirl l:fir' .. . . Potential Operation and • -•,_44,44): `-"'•4`-T''' - Maintenance Facility ' -at Cc t r ' iS t •`• 'i rIP si ca Existing Local Transit tit ' _ ��1, -_�--��. , - _11 ,:0: -. ' ' 'l ' - •L;'nx-�� - Facility j T . . -% . )r • - - • - ; - f ' a „ .1. '," \? zi- ' 1 ili Q School District Bus Sites __V T ' ' ri IIP tj ‘ art D :si-•••‘ ' li. 141 ��,- 4Nt-i . - �i_ r efrrte t fa . os •-, -9 -, , < 'ra: *AI a 'ate �'INII .�' a W• , ��, It ers • 1-E ♦v II• t ,. , : tek — DUI .,1,.nr ,.... _J . , la , • N „,. .ef_t , , 1 a.\t ► TRILBY RD EXI . _ in lip. r 7vs i-iittele, r_ ♦ t/ _., I.t ..r.� may] _ R2 illy " �.(� ' .- ' t� ", �a� ; lam'" mil"- �.j 4 t ftdY +ipr ,c I/fit' _ '^ . . 't ,�lf lri . •y _ s'�4♦ "4..;441 ; • • O• �� 0�� •'"` a �,'+ � .�N � �,� � T.; ' FA 11(W) r-- _. : se a - ' - 1 ..` • 1 "As. .-...1 , -41/4-_ ..c.. _ .. as 1 cal, . is • \ • - • ' griiki4 i_i_si. =.__ iti . • • ..,.• I ..1 - I'•warm • .‘ I r� :r �r ft ' 11t h �i, �� _ " L- • ,rr' I �_ I I 1 I I 1 h - - nin, a cvJI- 93c ` _ -ie► f : `'; .' SE .r-i _ .;; August 14, 2007 North Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-25 Commuter Rail - DEIS Package A EIS Potential Sites information. cooperation. transportatiol County Road 46 and US 287 - Berthoud LEGEND • r 2 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ZONING Existing Land Use ilt R-1 - Single-family -_ ., R-2 - Limited Multiple Agriculture R-3 - Multiple Family Employment/Commercial/ M-1 - Limited Industrial Retail Area IA'ill ,� M-2 - Industrial Open Space/Parks � LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Residential — FA1 - Farming Maintenance Facilities -- - I Potential Operation and :,�� 1 Maintenance Facility 44S,Xz; L. , • A 4 1. p ti --: 1' . , t.. • it t r 0 'i rip" .a.# -a 41 Stir pia 'it- - . •.1 • '-Ni1 :t .'t- .E. mp -c :Kr/ .1 :is F�' ;s�� R - 1 ; , M-2� 8 _ , 7 s C , eV I ar ` -\ z• ilk ' 111. .;" T 1 1 Jr r • • • ;. __ - - -- -- p n.•R-y2 ...� r L- 1 , L II E M - 1 = £ N r 2 .r.:74.6 -- is. . . � .�s �.-•.y.- �:o�.r�� an�'•- -nr.�r'� c.l_�.r RJtSlrRi ; :� ~ .. ry -�r. -� —R 1 R - . . ,� _ . 4. 3 - . , . . . . . _9 ,.e e. •, .. L_J SUNNYWOOD PL M -� III • - -1' lima(:La.. a . '; re. - 'a r �� 1 — , R.7.2 �, R; 3 LrU e ' r,. - + Ww � C�� f i1 .4i1� K t - = MR :tr • - ■ �! Imo. roc r 1��: w ; - 7 Ile 71 III .2 August 14, 2007 North Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-25 1- 25 Bus Rapid Transit - DEIS Package B EIS Potential Sites uiiurmation. cooperation, transportation. 31st St . and 1st Ave. - Greeley . LEGEND _ . . _ Existing Land Use '+� , 1R MI M Agriculture ,,i. , ,fir - __ _ _ EmploymenUCommercial/ �' ' `•t „ Retail Area n* *41991 MP •� . . .. . . __ `- G r0 Open Space/Parks ` `"° • t p p i.� .�_• -_ Unkn 0 wn Zoning . Residential `` - • ' - 5 - • , Maintenance Facilities - • w.• • J + i t C� Potential Operation and , '` a t ._ c Maintenance Facility . • } t - 1_ 5- , • • -- - , ` a _ -r I Alternate Site t" ` k. { f"-- I 1 -, - n __3 31 ST ST i ,es.' .3,t,-, '-' : R M FH r , ,-' vri • ... ,t. : a : 4* ill - , 0 - ima MI MI RMFH a: attain - . . ,- _r t , L �ice♦ ?�t"�' �% �_ ' - g i b ! . sk! �' - ,so y 4tkl- + - f.- . .r. �Y _ � ~� R01 - - �, r '� R M H ' _: -•" _ .----'37TH'ST ��1 T ..... - • CITY OF GREELEY ZONING l RC •yi - R�_� r I h4 Industrial Medium Intesity ■�f' u -4-1� ' C-H - Commercial High Intensity e _'" r'. - R-M Residential Medium Density - `,• - CITY OF EVANS ZONING gal" RBI C-H - Commercial High Intensity ♦' ;ily�;a Io • ,- R-C - Residential Commercial RMFH - Residential Manufactured Housing 71::: �l , . , . Rh,1H Residential Mobile Home 't Mr r - pU D ` ` �': ° R 1 Single Family Residential- • _.�-. -- ':s . , "1 !, . ' R-2 - Two Family Residential ;t' • a '. �` PUD - Planned Unit Development R., 1 - �r ,�It WELD COUNTY ZONING o CS t . - 1 ' AW - Agriculture O'. �",• lreCAr . . - I Inr - I•tiCTIHPIC :v, August 14, 2007 North Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-2 s 1-25 Bus Rapid Transit - DEIS Package B EIS Potential Sites information. cooperation. transportatio4 Vine Dr. and Timberline Rd . - Fort Collins LEGEND ... - Existing Land Use IVflVIN ._ Agriculture .40, iiikij Employment/Commercial/ ss . Retail Area Open Space/Parks It Residential Maintenance Facilities :i M Potential Operation and - Maintenance Facility o 7 41,::: ti.- AA!Kr it... 44 CO i 1;c I j W �' '. ,t �I1" •, '�� fir-. ". Y .... ._ FAS1 Rir . , .. t4 711, '' ` . . .... . ......, ..; :; 1„ . L.. _.....„. / . , i , , ,:, .. J I r l , . .. : , , _ i :_t __- -._ I. ,____., f _ ._. :.VINE DR _.B - 411 , _ I-.1 ... . . . . „ , , . . , . . , �. I ' rtf� ! I X ("7i' Iiii ; i r., _ _ _ _______ _ . 41,09;s: ,474e :7* :--446 . , ,a' '''-., _. , IFellSi.i T "' t ► `� • � • 1 � ► ME 4,21-.5 ra r , c . . . , . - 11 . .„ , .. , . ,. Ifor , 44- f,., ftJ3YdR!i _._ . . ULE!iJRi!J 0 , fi b(ff PI itY [f' - -car a i ,IIIIIIII h f - '` ' = - �► ' - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING i �, LMN - Low Density Mixed Use -` � 1' ( MMN - Medium Density Mised Use ' a - CC - Community Commercial i. . ( Y E - Employment INTERNATIONAL BIND ' LARIMER COUNTY ZONING i � I FA1 Farming E �' I - Industrial _ . . - � _ " _•I x C Commercial .n ,. O \ .VA �r •t , cic,, . s _ 0 _ Open _ . B - Business 1111 . ._ --or 7N fw 1 August 14, 2007 North� • Appendix F Land Use and Zoning Maps Interchange Upgrade Locations S Appendix F • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • Interchange Upgrades NORTH 125 DEIS Package A or B EIS information cooperation. transportat!o • 1 - StateHi Highway 1 LEGEND District #5 $ Ili TOWN OF WELLINGTON ZONING Zoning Boundaries �` �: ` .,� Performance District #1 Existing Land Use ' Z' Performance District #2 `e ' r Employment i Performance District #3 Residential LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Thimmig Annexation PD #1 ` o Open Space Agricultural ao . 4r le Park/Open Space alN021,4 r 4', .,.. 1 . • I I . / Vacant land re \ / I ' i . :• ' . f '�. at- re- r7-c- -. . kt7, . . _. . - , rt 1� . , �. �iaS '.R Ku . v . �'i�! '1 - IPIlf'E4 a �T'AV . A = .. . -- e District #3 yCyCJI�rtuu[11 ®®- yb.� . a. i - r' ' '" �� fr til� 3S'r�CF�N ii ^'1 K 1 _ �r ,— ' �� - st' I'. j,�I 17.7 �� . _ I . - _ - a we r--1 4 in y !e If.di NAYES•AV I�' .;�� GJ • N ' .. lir GARFIELD __ s 'Q + t �rr , a � • u+' ' IIIIII r I , i_ - L Ira .1 L ' !, -t 3 J= (yQ�[ HARRISON 'AV •-_ ; _ - 1,41 _ Itazi: in t: !'�tII!Ihwi t_,,IIIII '� NSW ��` _ A r c. r�CKINLEY AV. d . u ,.� . nf',Y 0 . " -,. • -1 • • tp <_. i .,__ i Jb(,y., ROOSEVELT�Aa ��® w / / Performance District #3 , �� an 4 It- IN •OLNC`oel;CreekiPerformance District #1 ;r Jail.. _ KENNEDY � o a r' _ .NE[i\- v' / ; H_ ILT AMON AV i. O + IMJACKSON�CT w : . ' : ':' 4 . -TYLER ET - 4 ; - f ` \� MAE CT � --'-t `- 1,1(' ,-.' _ „ BOXELDER entz -V LL se------ - ___ _ JEFFERSON AV,, =-' - -- 0 FPNC • tt • nW • • • - • • 1 ' t North I o •: ---- P no-Tic-CV August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 2 - Mountain Vista Dr. 1 I , , s as ' . i I I LEGEND 1 1 •k J"k3 71 i c� is CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING Zoning Boundaries ,, c,, 1- I Industrial District Existing Land Use '; ' 4 E Employment District lir Employment o LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District Residential - UE Urban Estate r: Agricultural m WELD COUNTY ZONING Park/Open Space = • r FA1 - Farming Vacant land i! i0 i fs ...,c_% ga0 Open Space .n 4 / 1 . - . . • .' 14n f v 4 twit a i l ! ' -1lI111.1. IIII • 11 . . . 111 ! 1. .. . 1 ! , ;k• Il . I a 1 . 4k .95,-; • - 1 _ l l..y�r • • . 1 . .. _ '. _ _. . 41 I i li \ 1 ..? i — — MOUNTAINDR`_:_� - - ,': 1 iia. ail . s' : er .,, .. l t • ' _ ' • 4 ' . I ..,. r '•intaali c.w . ; I • i .1. t ... % �.T 0 '°M=pa_ k::4 \. sir.. Mill . 1M M -ET n— T.,„t., • a0-CC.C , . f 1I/ — .. _ .7 s M N Q X11 . ri ... , �►: e�_ MERCO:EN PL , 41 r-------- .� - j 11l1df11• ��1 �lls�� . tan, _= ., ,...‘. • 0 •. -s , il I North 1 I. r - i41- 1 QUI r, tA 1 C.Y�•Cn ":9gnt°y August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatioi • 3 - State Highway 14 LEGEND ~`Y"r ' • CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING :,. Zoning Boundaries t i .,' . I - Industrial District Existing Land Use Q 1 , , l % . i ' UE - Urban Estate District Employment I it ,;i. - ..I -„ C Commercial District ' LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District Residential 0 ',�.� l ; E - Employment District Agricultural �-7-I "� __. - LARIMER COUNTY ZONING I le Park/Open Space rya. r I • Industrial Vacant land 1 ; - i, 0,41 C - Commerciallimi a , I, 5 Ill. t - M1 - Multifamily 7' I • 0 Office rl • - ! �r-.7• r fnIR{' I r Y nl.r + a J II I i Ill it1 • - WO !): ail ; - - i #5f I , ' I I 41 . . , , . , :. • .. i Illi- • Cz. - —IIII _ I. 1 6 0 I . rte •~' 4 C 77111 r .,. r' + R1 • . �.J ' •i `I , - 'y r X11 ., •( lb nett , gat • I . --•--: — . it _ ;a - W :cal ;erlii ....a fI X41 - - _ FA 1 I -« ,1 •I i ft 17— ; , tot 41°4" • . 1 0 21/4• F A:1 lilt ail .. • . . . • elt . . . <or- —tc. . , t. I re V. \ / let-,...:0 , jer% .1.41.. 0 3, , —1 VIVI. Pi" 4 . • 4 -.1 I -7 ‘ 1 • ' ee - . , , it , ` s�ylf +!'fir O _ t •1• • ' J. f,i.•. ( t� r`l , r t , t i_' , .. yt -, , - • " , 4 tl - ./ s - • r 14r f.[ _ . I .-..... . _ . . ,. ., . I I —' 4I : 7 ' . f4: ' •, • ... — 0ms: I ft, I r. e ^ 7 ... .‘ J . 11 si. 1 E .��"`� C. " ST' X gi .. ,, 0 - v\- rl'\ . - . l , ill , r I North ]\/_I ! — i i riesteIT 0 .spy August 15, 2007 p � Interchange U rades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 4 - Prospect Rd_ , . I LEGEN D f � ' *� LMN t:_ .._ . . .. . `. ajr 1 Zoning Boundaries ' . '- ' - _ -; n- Existing Land Use : an. Employment , �s • Pt ' ‘It r 'et. . ..*1.� Residential .y E . 0 I UE Agricultural i :,.� Park/Open Space : _ '� ` Vacant land C 1 `' 4 N. . . . _ FA . 1 -- r- -- I 1 R _. fir:N.N3/4_______::____________11! illit. FAA r- - itLauE . W FA t - IIIIIr t. hilt FA . ± ; PROSPECT RD Q it. 4 ",, i plit"): -I- , c A i • r ..„ - - . I . , , _ , . . 'gr. ;41 grit ' q ( - ,t� 1 rt,. •+}T .77_ 4 / �ti .i‘'' . • . . _. _ . .. 00 4.... 4 .,t \. . ,, ...;4 s i ,` 'Si•, _} _ 1 POL , tai:-. _ , , ;� ♦ _ -wr i,t4 ,. , i = = i CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING ", �� LMN• Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District t = ;' 1 . '� ! E Employment District t _ I - Industrial District " C - Commercial District 4 .° - ti { FA1 POL - Public Open Lands District . _ = 1 I:C �' UE - Urban Estate •• 3 LARIMER COUNTY ZONING " 1 t: ; �' sic .�. III ._ r r, 0 - Commercial FA1 - Farming . .. . . ' 1 1 North FA - Firming 141 Fw-•r� -edenoi ,ati«o— r adr,nos+,otan August 15, 2007 gUpgradeseIn erchan NORTH1--25 tIlA ka EIS DEIS Package A or B g information. cooperation. transportatio • 5 - Harmony Rd . lie _ --_ .- . ..atela�A-1 .. 2 • LEGEND FA :4. CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING 4 ,. Zoning Boundaries ;L POL - Public Open Lands District �' TOWN OF TINMATH ZONING Existing Land Use .• ., :r _ , F Employment S, fr - • A - Agriculture �- • • B - Business Residential '+ 9 .•, Comm Commercial Agricultural 25 C-2 - Community Commercial 1 Park/Open Space .° PALS R-1 - Old Town Residential Vacant land i A LARIMER COUNTY ZONING It FA1 - Farming C - Commercial - : T - Tourist .s 0 - Open • ilb * 111. 4 lb SI.14. . �. `• - - -v. ,' aR1 " _1. • ; viixt\. -T, . 1 I. . • iiiirtik7 4:1 , B N . it.E. . :- - / t ,,, ,iii , C -2 • :.4 .7., Ti. -L;' ! 1 4, egtgra ii;v.: ,iis. isa. -._ 't tom — FA 1 "" GS HARMONY.RD - - • _ -__alp _ - tr.Th - it an l \ \ Y '4 A") : _ :1/4:I I I\:1 .. fib 1 r • 1 t . r.i. I ."..‘ t les 71".\ '' - iya d Comm• ;, , t�l�,'1C' ....• i . 1 ' I .% .r< .. __ ale yy. l .1 .r: si ; \ .,� . _ :. �. . . _ , 2,,,.. ,, . B ., . . I ., t . ,c . .VI , , s �F -,, --�' i w 1` ` ..I t1 7.- Oi FA1 1 1 \ a. . .4, 1,- I . ,, , •,,, -......1_ 1 - - . \ . .., . \ . ',Alfa,` 4. . , • } ' y - . 4 l r. V V - ii ' • 'II „, . .., 47 . t t North ' IL' -at s 9 .' I R I _` . 1 '� August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information cooperation. transportatio 6 - Hit .ghway 392 411 _ a . 4 Imikaiiii...- -,_Si .- `! LEGEND LARIMER COUNTY ZONING r Zoning BoundariesJil: . RMU FA1 - Farming Existing Land Use R` - -f '. ' I R Residential • 4p Employment -- ., C M - Multi-family Residential •' 25 ' * }' C - Commercial AP - Airport r Agricultural El - Estate • 4p Park/Open Space - GC-PUD TOWN OF WINDSOR ZONING ti Vacant landN. f I L Limited Industrial s '3/4 GC - General Commercial i , -° .. GC-PUD General Commercial " 7 RMU - Residential Mixed Use I• bLie..ga 1\1/4 , .0 , ii.„ ,.. , f , -" 'j - — .r- -1114 i - _- _. . - _ ��..:• l't I ' - ail l� - ki 311 -ii _ . _ FA1 :1 ! \ T :113/4Dilli _. N\ ' i t C �.` GC-PUD�3 y "Tilt an I t r _—r - ' --1 :1___ -- . ; , ---..3.-.a 392 __...— sa - �: f �GC-PUD. tri. - P - t. : ISI‘ .if lc). I,,,P`1!),i; it k 4 -iri gra . -..ity4 , IN pi tee. . .. 4,14,„ 4F tta. 17, Is _ ' '. - . r to,tr ' ..L. . A -/ * iNts,_ - I a - i *1( -: i ' - - ' -ffi.. 1 AP . Olt - - IL IS DR ' , A 't h , ___;/ a i 1�._ 41 _ t i �, r tI . 0:3 y _` s lit�'�� 'lac ti �. `! _ r A 1 • 4 , --- r 21 II a •i -`21: • siP, I 1 6 1 0 xl .1 NI . N.. go V • Iliti I ' 11 al 1 Ito 101 LI471, -I in I • ..- *4.0 IP i i "1, lig ---:•9 iliftk\Ntattk.---r ' nal 0,104. Ea' \TS irgra rif 4 NI ' I ,: North •►„•�-egill fit } y s �1 August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 jig' ka EIS DEIS Package A or B g information. cooperation. transportatior • 7 - Crossroads Blvd . LEGEND CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING B Developing Business Zoning Boundaries I Developing Industrial Existing Land Use J . :4 DR Developing Resource ir Employmentipi P74 Larimer County Fairgrounds PUD Residential P-59 Millennium Addition P-83 - Undefined Agricultural LARIMER COUNTY ZONING le Park/Open Space 0 �, `' AP Airport Vacant land 25 ' ' I-L - Light Industrial j : • P-74 r ii__.. . . .- '1 • - s _, - AP . ' _ r , I t - 1.�.. • • r _ ..re M _ - nit- \ — - - CROSSROAyDS BLVD , ,. _ - ' .. • R - 1 7,' ✓ � i iv� Ill Cam\/ " - - --• 0 r - . , — 4-- c, . _ -. __ ._ HIDR� . -_ , r- r .. P-59 P-83 P-59 ill . , I North • - r I N N - rt1Wan *;:r;;-; August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DES Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatic P P 8 - US34 ( lof3 - West) 1 LEGENDlige. , A. Zoning Boundaries Existing Land Use AP Employment "" _ Residential ` ' • � • •, Agricultural • - Park/Open Space - Vacant land / SA °• • d. I • � • r r ly, • � : :'ifla!i ; A :�444- v . • •41.\ 4* • , vit 4. 4.. .,,, et • /4 * , , , •, . : #s ts ?. , c ,. og, tai.: . - - ti tifi - ' - - -00,-4 sr "...,tv ., . ‘ i t- ty...rj :7 ' ! .z_ \ 7 .1.: "if, i i t ., , thrallFOX RA n . - Z .14-4:4 1\1 : 411 '1 Y t� . f 1 ` 1. 1 1 �• w __ _ . . . t I. 1. �. ,. -_ 13413-----IML _-- 0 INtit N B , ' i - . \ : ;_ 4 f . .. rs. -' 0 ii CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING B Business ! I Industrial FA P-12 - Gateway PUD P-45 - Rocky Mountain Village II PUD LARIMER COUNTY ZONING - B - Business 7 AP -Airport 1 T - Tourist r t <5. f FA - Farming 1 ` t North i Ai 44rol r{g4woy Ale Acf�. ^ ,�[c,b^ August 15, 2007 Pg Interchange U rades N0RTH1--25 k e A or B EIS DEIS Package information. cooperation. transportatioi • 9 - US 34 ( 2 of 3 - West) _ CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING LEGEND 1 ' M `. B - Business Zoning Boundaries DR '� ' • t ' "t., a. DR - Developing Resource Existing Land Use AP ' Ve , c; I - Industrial , Employment I 4i. Ann P-12 - Gateway PUD ---r- '' P-59 - Millennium Addition PUD Residential Agricultural LARIMER COUNTY ZONING C - Commercial ~ - ;$ Park/Open Space : ,. " / AP - Airport Vacant land / i i T - Tourist �� API FA - Farming N a TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING { : _it ��: _ PUD-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial District P nd na Annexation • I . :. : .7 i P-59 ..;;;.--" 0t 1...... . ..,i .: ' • . . a :iv *0 / 2 Ili ,. , FoXr 'AI DR Y _ i AL I 4,- - \ . . , .. , _. -- _______7i , . i . . _ ._ . 34 - FA . Nipj . 10 .,111 • • I i1 `-_ I i ' Pending 1 a 'Annexation :-. ' ' I ll et FA 0 „ r it � 1 -a. .i r lit.. - 1. `e‘aj ,. "--ti. II \ r r k. �f \\,. I _. 1 • • 1'1 _net . 'Li j r *.i . 4* S ~: ?e1_)<• r IP North , ,, I .i "1"- :44: ff.:-:4.- 3 'ic'r* .:1747- 7:4- C 4tA .: -. 'i; ^� drisibwL ___ .' O de:I: roioy August 15, 2007 _ _ Interchange Upgrades NORTHI25� DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatic 1 Q - US 34 (3 of 3 - West) II . , I LEGEND , CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING Zoning Boundaries B - Business DR - Developing Resource Existing Land Use ' ' ,; P-59 - Millennium Addition PUD --a Employment LARIMER COUNTY ZONING _ Residential C - Commercial Agricultural .,• ;s AP - Airport I - Industrial 4 Park/Open Space T - Tourist O Vacant land FA - Farming TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING a. f se f Ail PUD-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial District Pending Annexation i , e P-59 w1 FA• -� I t f pr, 0 . _ FA _ . it 34 DR f-r—... .y.. :.= T i :' �r 1 . •., J, - I 001 11 PUD-C in �, .- jz :.µ - V - - - .- - to lt , 1 • . • a:. 4!.F -VIN 4'' - t,. ; - , a { I r - Y North \i - t I l c"--..\- Nom., i as f3h0n, August 15, 2007 Interchange Upgrades NORTH I--25 AorB EIS DEIS Package information. cooperation. transportatio • 11 — State Highway 402 LEGEND _- '" ,, ti -`- TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING — ''� " - �• PUD MU Planned Unit Development Mixed Use District Zoning Boundaries ~. �, - �:.. • • PIJD- PUD-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial District Existing Land Use I PUD - Planned Unit Development District i Employment PUD-R - Residential Planned Unit Development District Residential LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Agricultural FA - Farming B - Business Park/Open Space 25 Vacant land .- - , FA .1 , B 0r f -. `a ' I' PUD-MU , ., , _,. biiitt , ., . _ . _ A 4., 4 '402 .. ' " — —_ \ • tu-) , i , _ 4.... . . t • 3/44 •y 4t. 'lir .. , . cp i - FA 4 . i . _ - 1 —MU • - U.:." , 1 I 1n 1_- , A I . 1 \ , • - . .\ . ' • I [ t North i • lieligwLI i.-1.f1:2• �;vitro' H r August 15, 2007 Administro n e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatic 12 - Weld County Road 52 , .. . , ibi,. 441...., LEGEND TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING Zoning Boundaries PUD-B - Planned Use Development Business District Existing Land Use \ : LARIMER COUNTY ZONING dit' Employment B - Business 41 Residential ' C - Commercial \ FA - Farming - Agricultural . \ , F _ Park/Open Space \ ,, c7 Vacant land ilitik ' , ; 1: 11 -1Ndit 11— - - - - \ I OW � ' f4t- c a VI -- - . 0 � . �n.�t1N1t I . . 1 ` \ FA n . Vii., . . , , iii • __ 3 ``. , riv]d`, l . t ' } M, • FA Q A17141 -- • _ V. [ ` North Q ___ =._ August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio • 13 - State Highway 60 g y , , 1 LEGEND TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING Zoning Boundaries r f Gateway - Gateway District Existing Land Use PUD - Planned Unit Development District Employment PUD-MU - Planned Unite Development Mixed Use District - • WELD COUNTY ZONING Residential _ A - Agriculture Agricultural . .. L r Park/Open Space r1 :: , tiv - a Vacant land • ' � �>;, a: >--- d PUD-MU `___------- zcnit • LONGS'PEAK RD • 111l!WHIH 0 : ' . ,1 1'lll'W w1 :r :g f G - t W - L( a , . CID � � .. n A. r, ih .. . ., )),! \ s 1 1. .. s t , T _ II sitii\ 0 — I r :II: \ li SOS. �...► .. _�.. 160 �. . 3 1. Plfr ki r if ... . . . _ . . . . i?- . V ? .., HI I A A F . t---k-,- s.. :. . '- ll • • r North • l �l�:�or�7 Ngghway August 15, 2007 VAdm:s'rc on e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 14 - Highway 56 I t . LEGEND - TOWN OF BERTHOUD ZONING Zoning Boundaries i No Zoning iiip ., Existing Land Use A i 1 " TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING Employment # SF-1 - Single Family Residential WELD COUNTY ZONING Residential + ' A - Agriculture Agricultural , - _.- . 1-- Park/Open Space - C) Vacant land 25 __ t _ . d . x. - -r • - ; -"'' � . NO ZONING 4 NO ZONING k', ', .. r t.‘e , A q se `, A .. /Ai; ,.. _ • 1 E, A- tom • - _ _ . t. 9 ,, 56 -. _ . . SON° I .i r"f . _ 1 , 1440, .: •• • - , : ). — . ..,. ._ _ . ,,. _ . _ _ . . .. _ . . , .. ,, • , __ ___ 1 _ --�r�� . . is, 1 . . 4 . - . „...-- . . • . . i . ._ . . , . • . , s 1 or' • . - , . .... _ f -_ -,. - - _. •. 1 AL' t`' - ,,J T` NOIZONING`� " __• ,-- ,_• y .y. . 1. .. -'{�' �. ;�`4 .. - - ti ' T - . . ' _ -..7 . . it North Ito Determine - . ill .. L )T ;...:* W A r¢.,5'i 91,way -n . August 15, 2007 Interchange Upgrades N0RTHI25 ,A I Package A or B EIS DES Pacag information. cooperation. transportatioi • 15 - County Road 34 LEGEND ��, IL MEADZONING C.J.K Annexation - Zoning Boundaries III i Raterink Annexation I Existing Land Use .►R'� t ' Denver Canadian Inc. Annexation 1 at Employment _ 1-25 Annexation #1 - • 1-25 Annexation #2 1 4p Residential A WELD COUNTY ZONING pi 4 Agricultural A Agriculture Park/Open Space -1 . -- .'..ler_, _ _ *I\ . Vacant land ma. _ . ., __ . ..1: te a C.J.K Annexation t j ' . : . ti. ' Rat4..../..,,, .,- ink7Annexation .i • s • i 4 i ; F ,• i, s I I I. I I '' A•. , WGR-34 II - - - .. -Jr 2. rst . :I • i , s . 125"Annexation #1 - - _ N p. , ' - ; I `25)Annexation�2 � , ., 'Ilq037,.. ..--, , . . -; ... _., . . t. 5 .it . , .. { J: :�_ �� t ! s^ r :v , Denver Canadian Inc-Annexation : - . a • °P. t North I 411 4.-`l fT I I 1 1 I • i / / Fenn -• 0 .: I , August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH I--25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. trans . . portatio , 16 - Highway 66 I LEGEND1 )1 ___,__,_ ' 4 Zoning Boundaries . E Existing Land Use ��^J)1 Employment y , Residential - -- ' ' PUD - 11 $II :0 .1 - • i ..,-. 3 ,, tat 114' , ' Agricultural • ' _ - r ?ra - - - », •- `- ) - lig P Space • PUD .- Park/O en S I ass vacant land ; tom ,; .l\l Ole !' II t iss. r II - ~' r_____ TMULLIGAN DR M• •:r- -- 4'..1 4. , 0" y 4� 1 �- PUD Q_ A Hil ers-Schmidt-Rademacher Annexation b 1 y 9 ,I , :� �• . : usin - ss: , , ..,, .. II), ts .; 1 Et- ---_ z h'OR'T:PUD -1/4; j •-, VgLLEY_DR - rk 3 i t 1 .1 j w 1 a� i � i ' .,, i ' • . . PUD ' - r - J 4 i > � . .i, I. • 7• SOUTH•VALLEY•DR I i 2,, HIG'ritat AtiD vR ' k, — *Di 11 i '1•• / . ! 4 - P-- - ' I f-- 100111 • . it ice .4 , 7. I I , , PUD 111. ,� 1 PUD vet: A '- F • st - r i • ;'_T. nn - x - ti : n IIII1 e /II 11 Rademacher Annexation TOWN OF MEAD ZONING Hilgers-Schmidt-Rademacher Annexation - Foster Ridge Annexation `i- Rademacher Annexation t Business Park Sanborn Annexation _a_siaj ii i ,. - WELD COUNTY ZONING PUD - Planned Unit Development C-3 - Commercial A Agriculture !a. Sanborn Aniivrin".1.11111.711.111,11. . . . _ , ation rI/�\I ,I err i. � 1,..�,j-....- - a-.�, 1, J v ` North • � , -. 11W. I ti • rhi ---T gi Adm as anon°y August 15, 2007 pg Interchange U rades NORTHI25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportation • 17 - Highway119 .misit. LEGEND •• • 1 ' i - - < r—R TOWN OF FIRESTONE ZONING Zoning Boundaries = �!; '' C Commercial Existing Land Use I1 R - Residential Employment - . - " WELD COUNTY ZONING Ant Residential 9 A - Agriculture Agricultural a T. C 3 Business Commercial �' - PUD - Planned Unit Development '' 4 Park/Open Space + s• A .. R-5D 5 Mobile Home Residential Vacant land I1 Sf . IX'S , . _ ,w. \ . Is •D IllingH. Mi a\O�S rp �i K \ 1.;"thilx • • _ I ::1t : i N11 119 - _ • �, - ' I irri t• — . . ; 4.:4" . 'al . PUD � , i ` :� �; � �:• ; . psi. , Th. - •i. lea t -., _ . k.. ,, .1 .._ . -_ . _ _ . 2 ! a . at \' _ I. 11 11 _ .. . , rill/ / • L MM • _ . �� +��7�i1fi1! HI Ili C�3 i i. a�� 9/11• ■111111lob . J . 1 �• it, 111111// r ' j it: X111111! . ` l �: �. UMW (1. i R-• ' HO Ir ) ; MIMI %%aticri� 1/Iw l t a // �j, %1111■ 11111111 I t y�,' �Ii11■ !//111/ ' `111�1111111111111.1�. � ,' „ /SO , ' • A • . . . .IIIII PUD , I i^rIt�` ' +` ` P , ` r PUD R A : fit , � .' � " • i.. I North / +--1k i qti. �i m�,t--- August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH1--25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 18 - County Road 20 I f i LEGEND _ TOWN OF FREDRICK ZONING 44 Zoning Boundaries PUD I . , PUD PUD BLI - Business/Light Industrial District (w/PUD overlay) j __ PUD R-1 - Residential District - Single Family (w/PUD overlay) Existing Land Use � ' R-1 - Residential District Single Family Employment „ ' - ' ' ' PUD R-E - Estate District. Large Lot Residential I - Industrial District Agricultural WI `'. WELD COUNTY ZONING it.. A - Agriculture Park/open SpacePUD Plann-d Unit Development; ill ii Apt Vacant land \E' r\ .. ' • . A SALAZAR WY h ._ h� . . PU D BLI R1 , • - , • - •[� } 1 : sot PUD BLI �� II PUD (, Q :: Cl o Z o . , , )N 9 • , ., _. / . . .. 1 . 1 •4 .40, PUD PUD ; ::r . BLI BLI - ` , . I � _ . A { - . 4 1. . .e• sou. 7. .J•1 \ \ .. .. __ . A wiL _ , ! - i , i It a eras r. sit-- „ . .._. _ . 1 .. i A ' / � � ,;N al jc 7 ,E'ST?9T - �*k ` 1 North ` � J .� a-r-4 OMMINIOnaNtallIMINIIIIII ray.'- - ,rrA°im `9a�r August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio S 19 - Highway 52 r � Y LEGEND f:: TOWN OF FREDRICK ZONING Zoning Boundaries " ` . \ R-1 - Residential District - Single Family ' CH52 - Mixed Use Hwy 52 District Existing Land Use " , I Industrial C Employment ; C-E - Employment District Residential TOWN OF ERIE ZONING Agricultural ' ' RC Regional Commercial * TOWN OF DACONO ZONING Park/Open Space _ y Vacant land R-1 R-2 - Residential _ CR - Commercial Residential I L - Light Industrial . __ ' I `' i . -S 1. n - . . - - ` - /A \ 1. .`, _ . . kit C3 Ill . ,I \ 52 os I Si ce- ' - Ill fra / . L C - s a • -:F\ A:LT� � pR1 s — ' ' r\-:110 illmi ii - t ,. ' Q �� .... . .,... .„ 0 _ i. ttltl 1111 d a- ;I �O - • . , ,,, IIIit'If- Vii; �( - ,t �C�l -, _. _ -\ ; - CR ilibi hallaill iv RC - R2 • 1 . K . I North ea%ederol A e way � Adm�tp� August 15, 2007 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A or B EIS information. cooperation. transportatio 20 - County Road 8 I I a: I LEGEND • WELD COUNTY ZONING Zoning Boundaries b. A - Agriculture N. Existing Land Use • TOWN OF DACONO ZONING atz Employment \ • . R-1 - Residential District alIFResidential �: C-1 - Commercial District 6+ . `, .. TOWN OF ERIE ZONING - Agricultural ' Park/Open Space t `� , PD - Planned Development I Vacant land A - r - R-1 r - 1 H ,-- - N (____. i J l '[ s ill. ill' s I . ... , , . , . , , t ' , p w /I\." I.,. ., D7�. : .- s r O S North l ��. - 7 ' .yam• ftt,ji5'fCt9g,"ar August 15, 2007 • N oRrx I-25 OM EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Environmental Justice • • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Technical Memorandum ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE • Prepared by: JE JACOBS October 2008 • NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Regulatory Background 1 Existing Conditions 2 Minority Populations 2 Low-Income Populations 3 Additional Data Sources 7 Minority-Owned Businesses 10 Specialized Outreach 12 Political Context of Specialized Outreach Efforts 12 Specialized Outreach Activities 12 Input Received through Specialized Outreach 14 Environmental Consequences 16 No-Action Alternative 17 Package A 17 Component A-H1: Safety Improvements 17 Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes 18 • Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades 21 Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail 21 Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus 26 Benefits of Package A 27 Package B 28 Component B-H1: Safety Improvements 28 Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes 29 Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 32 Benefits of Package B 33 Conclusion 33 Mitigation 34 References 35 • NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES Page No. Figure 1 Census-Identified Minority Populations 4 Figure 2 Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and HUD Data 6 Figure 3 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 County Minority Populations 3 Table 2 County Low-Income Populations 5 Table 3 Additional Data Sources 7 Table 4 Business Survey Distribution to Major Employers 11 Table 5 Community Events 14 Table 6 Small Group Meetings 14 Table 7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H1 18 Table 8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-H2 and A-H3 21 Table 9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-T1 and A-T2 25 • Table 10 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-T3 and A-T4 27 Table 11 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1 29 Table 12 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-H2, B-H3, and B- H4 31 Table 13 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-T1 and B-T2 33 • NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information cooperation transportation• . INTRODUCTION Environmental justice is a public policy goal of promoting the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the decision-making for transportation. Satisfying this goal means ensuring that minority and low-income communities receive an equitable distribution of the benefits of transportation activities without suffering disproportionate adverse impacts. Achieving environmental justice requires both analytical techniques as well as the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. This technical memorandum is prepared in support of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The analysis that follows documents the presence of minority and low-income populations, minority-owned businesses, and important community resources and connections in the regional study area which serve these populations, and evaluates the potential for impacts to these populations and resources. The special efforts that were made to involve minority and low-income populations in the decision making process are also described. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Environmental justice was first articulated as a national policy in 1994 when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (E.O. 12898), Federal Actions to Address • Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. E.O. 12898 required federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States. The purpose of E.O. 12898 is to ensure that federally-assisted projects do not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. For those projects that do, E.O. 12898 requires actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such effects. E.O.12898 was enacted to reinforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states, "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Subsequent Orders at the federal level, including Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2 Order To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (U.S. DOT 1997) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Order 6640.23 Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (FHWA 1998), have further defined the obligations of outlined in E.O. 12898. On May 13, 2007 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a circular titled Title VI Guidelines for FTA Administration Recipients (FTA C 4702.1A). The purpose of this circular is to provide recipients of FTA financial assistance with guidance and instruction necessary to carry out Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and comply with the requirements of DOT Order 5610.2 and the DOT Policy Guidance Concerning Recipient's Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons (70 FR 74087, December 14, 2005). • 1 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. On May 27, 2005, the Colorado Department of Transportation issued CDOT's Title VI and • Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects— Rev.3 to assist in interpreting environmental justice mandates. The guidance outlines the process for environmental justice analysis, including data collection, public involvement, impact analysis, and mitigation requirements. The analysis that follows has been prepared in accordance with this and all other applicable guidance for addressing environmental justice. EXISTING CONDITIONS The area evaluated for the presence of minority and low-income populations, minority- owned businesses, and services important to minority and low-income communities consists of the regional study area for the North 1-25 project (Figure 1). East-west boundaries extend from US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line to approximately 3 miles west of US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. North- south boundaries extend from Wellington to US 6 in Denver. The regional study area spans portions of seven counties and includes more than 35 communities. Minority Populations The identification of minority populations begins with the analysis of 2000 Census data at the block level. 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 American Indian or Alaskan Native. The 2006 FTA circular includes multiracial persons as a separate category of minority persons having origins in more than one of the • Federally-designated racial categories. It is important to note that 2000 Census data does not list Hispanic as a racial category. Instead, Hispanic or Latino heritage is considered an ethnicity; a person of Hispanic of Latino origin can identify with any racial group. To avoid double counting, the total White, Non-Hispanic population of a geographic area is subtracted from the total population to generate the total minority population. The percentage of minorities is then compared to county averages. Table 1 shows the percentage of minority persons in each county. These percentages serve as the thresholds by which regional study area census blocks are compared. 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 1. • 2 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 1 County Minority Populations County Population Minority Percent Minority Adams 363,857 133,357 37 Boulder 291,288 47,776 16 Denver 554,636 266,639 48 Jefferson 527,056 79,640 15 Larimer 251,494 31,335 12 Weld 180,936 54,363 30 Source:U.S, Census Bureau,2000. Note: Broomfield did not become a county until 2001 and was not included in the 2000 Census. Approximately 27 percent of the census blocks within the regional study area (5,709 out of 20,778) have a higher percentage of minority persons than the respective counties. Of these 5,709 blocks, 1,112 (or 20 percent) contain very small populations. For example, there are 60 blocks with two people, one of which (or 50 percent) is a minority. The census block with the largest total population is associated with the Colorado State University (CSU) Campus in Fort Collins. This block contains 4,124 persons, 584 (or 14 percent) of which are minorities living in university housing. Similarly, the block with the greatest total population in Boulder County has a total population of 1,302 persons, 670 (or 51 percent) of which are minority students living in university housing. In general, minority • students are not permanent residents with critical social and community ties. As shown in Figure 1, the remaining minority populations are primarily located in and around urban areas within the regional study area, although some are scattered throughout the regional study area. Low-Income Populations For purposes of privacy, the census block group is the most detailed level of data that displays income information. FHWA Order 6640.23 defines low-income as "...a household income at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines." A different threshold (e.g., US Census Bureau poverty threshold or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 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. • 3 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation411 Figure 1 Census-Identified Minority Populations LEGEND / / \t Study Corridors 1 ^% Highways /✓moon \, /\/ Arterial Roads ' \•-• tiq r'r1 Regional Study Area %/ City Boundaries j \-- Picec° \ \ Cities & Towns Fort Collins 1 Census Identified Minority Populations • II A,, ■ (Census blocks wrth a higher -.t ` _ ,I �} t percentage of minorities than ,_ _ I the county) I Ti tar "Linn ICIf is i I I . I i Sources U 5 Census BureauX00 ' r li ILatta►Asor ti a Latta , I -i , t__ 1` i . All; , . ' •L'oveland 1- 1 i e�.� Ls Sa / 1 I 'Catrpros ______ Jo►ao a 6Q - 85 i / L' ett O Man i i Iaoa Gicr.er i ' ' . : o ' i Nkacl I / i Longmont II. 't ii less f von.:rp I. % II Nit.'eat i • sMM i/, ' Ni.ef �hceaeKA -y/..----7 o . 11.1/, Datao Fort Laps: 1 / —Cabana! I :Traitalereat O I Va tee abeeg ' Boulder ! qa CI) 0 ashr<t< ""I - r . . .Le. ;, Sr /te -- ..-� &rgA 1,7 . 7 / 0EaslsA< Mc% / 36 Naslc.. ”'' Olboe►toa t\e:. i , ._ I,' Denver-11a- V 0 2 4 6 8 10 Z 1........_../i l r r I Miles North . . . . .. .... . I 4 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 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 and the income thresholds set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)for the distribution and allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. HUD thresholds are developed for counties (or in some cases, Metropolitan Statistical Areas[MSA]) by household size up to an eight-person household. The thresholds are based upon household income as a percentage of median household income. In this case, households earning less than 30 percent of the Median Family Income are considered low-income. These thresholds are then adjusted to reflect the average household size for each county in the regional study area. Table 2 shows the percentage of low-income households in each county. These percentages serve as the thresholds by which regional study area census block groups are compared. Any block groups within the regional study area with an average household income below that of its respective county will be evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and are selected for outreach. These block groups are shown in Figure 2. Table 2 County Low-Income Populations Low-Income Number of Number of Percent Low- County Threshold Households Low-Income Income Households Adams $22,560 128,290 25,626 20 Boulder $27,322 114,793 28,266 25 • Denver $21,453 239,415 71,000 30 Jefferson $21,966 206,256 31,313 15 Larimer $20,990 97,128 22,213 23 Weld $17,887 63,197 12,953 21 Source: HUD, Federal Year 2006 Income Limits; U.S. Census Bureau,2000. Note: Broomfield did not become a county until 2001 and was not included in the 2000 Census. As shown in Figure 2, low-income populations are clustered around US 287 in Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins; along US 85 in the Greeley Area; along SH 119 in Boulder; and along 1-25 in Fort Collins and the Metro Denver area. It is important to note that in rural areas census block groups are often large and can be miles long. This census geography typifies many of the census block groups in the Greeley area, which extend well outside of the regional study area. These block groups may contain low-income households that do not live in the regional study area. • 5 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 111 Figure 2 Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and HUD Data LEGEND A/ Study Corridors /\/ Highways �••� ' 1 •�'�. % .\-•�, 85 /\./ Arterial Roads / ,` r . Regional Study Area , City Boundaries j I" r t a Cities 8 Towns t Fort Collins . / 5J Low-Income Populations Identified Using 3 I Census and HUD Data 2 1 Sources U s Census Bureau :000. KM. 3206 4-� Teas& I i l Lusts +1fan i 34 '-_ i , C I. l' nr�ti 1 M-�� Lo:elana • i!. [tae' Iii tc,t L. Ys `/ lam! o a.0 la 0 hMail a 85 e<r 1 v • , . �= 1 / i sraa> / 4,rnn,ont lost• 1• I VaBssra JFrtebea • Nira * _ ^.. Jfisderick i 1 1 < VDacose font.... �t • ii ` °O.sMrcd 1 t . O Es' I ' VapesM ry ulder 'r .••rte as *+l _ r i- / VV• 'c.; •�-psi f opt • t - • nika aE.sroMe Its _ • ! .�� ' ! / -' •, -! ( f -I- --1 . 1 `--_ _ .-__ / •1• °r, Denyer / r �r I 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 \ i ° /• I ,.v Miles North r - I 6 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Concentrations of low-income households are also located in single-family homes, apartments, and mobile home parks in Longmont along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line, south of Greeley along SH 85, and in Gilcrest and Brighton along SH 85. Additional Data Sources Census data alone is too broad to accurately represent the social and economic make-up of the households within 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. Contacts that yielded information about minority and low- income populations are listed in Table 3. Locations of minority and low-income populations and services identified by these contacts are shown in Figure 3. Contacts also provided suggestions for public meeting locations and places to post project information. More detailed information on public involvement activities is provided below, under Specialized Outreach. Table 3 Additional Data Sources Source Date Source Date North Central Migrant Education Program 2/26/04 Town of La Salle Catholic Charities of Greeley 6/03/04 Boulder Emergency Family Assistance 8/11/05 Salud Family Health Center in Brighton 6/03/04 Care Housing, Inc. 8/11/05 • Fort Collins Human Rights Office 6/04/04 Casa Vista 8/11/05 FISH of Broomfield County 6/08/04 Crossroads Safehouse 8/11/05 Brighton Housing Authority 6/11/04 El Comite 8/11/05 Fort Collins Neighbor to Neighbor 6/11/04 Fort Collins Home Program 8/11/05 North College Business Association 6/11/04 House of Neighborly Service 8/11/05 Loveland Housing Authority 6/15/04 OUR Center 8/11/05 Urban Renewal Committee of Greeley 6/16/04 Vineyard Christian Fellowship 8/11/05 Fort Collins Housing Authority 6/17/04 Disabled Resource Center 8/12/06 Human Services of Loveland 6/21/04 Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 8/12/06 City of Fort Collins 5/17/06 Erie Food Pantry 8/12/06 City of Greeley 5/17/06 First Call Service Center 8/12/05 City of Longmont 5/17/06 Foothills Gateway, Inc. 8/12/06 City of Westminster 5/17/06 Fort Collins Food Distribution Center 8/12/06 Town of Eaton 5/17/06 Fort Lupton Food Pantry 8/12/06 Town of Fort Lupton 5/17/06 Fort Lupton Salud Clinic 8/12/06 Town of Garden City 5/17/06 Island Grove Community Center 8/12/06 Town of Gilcrest 5/17/06 La Familia Center 8/12/06 Town of Wellington 5/17/06 Mental Health Connections 8/12/06 Town of Frederick 5/18/06 Northside Aztlan Community Center 8/12/06 Adams County 5/19/06 Planned Parenthood 8/12/06 City of Loveland 5/29/06 Respite Care, Inc. 8/12/06 Town of Ault 5/29/06 Rocky Mount SER, Brighton 8/12/06 Town of Brighton 5/29/06 The Mission Fort Collins 8/12/06 Town of Johnstown 5/29/06 Weld County Senior Nutrition 8/12/06 • 7 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Eligibility for the Free/Reduced Lunch Program was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Regional study area schools where 50 percent or more of students are eligible for the Free/Reduced Lunch Program were evaluated. Within the regional study area there are a total of 88 schools where 50 percent or more of students are eligible for the Free/Reduced Lunch Program. The majority of these schools are located in Adams County (32 schools), Denver County (17 schools), and Weld County (16 schools). Specialized outreach efforts (described under Specialized Outreach below) 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. Analysis of 2000 Census data and community resources revealed that Hmong populations and persons that speak primarily Asian/Pacific Island languages are predominantly located in the Metro Denver Area with small populations in Longmont and Fort Collins. In none of the regional study area census tracts does more than 3 percent of the population speak primarily an Asian/Pacific Island language. Consultation with community leaders in the North Front Range revealed that the Hmong population consists of five clans with patriarchs. Hmong community leaders indicated that they would be more responsive to project mailings than community or small group meetings. Based on this information, project flyers were translated into Hmong and distributed to key community locations as described under Specialized Outreach. • • 8 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources LEGEND Ale Study Corridors »_ / Highways . '''�1r w�.v� �_ ^ ,\ i � -• ,85 7\7 Arterial Roads / ,-..\i J Regional Study Area kc."4 ' Ptt cc . c r � ' City Boundaries \ / o Cities & Towns I Fort G Urns \ r Planner Identified Minority Populations2ity. - '"'" `' 'Tr I t le Planner Identified Low-Income Populations I 't Community Facilities Serving Minority or I ars ots a$cvcraact Cato 1 Low-Income Populaions I ►, I 28 1t 7 ] 1 �— - �di4l.-.—r r _ l lacier • We cartes U s Census Bateau :Ccci MUG W� Colorado Graze d ! 1 II Economic D.:atopnwnt and International Trad.•Knots)Business i i Greele t .� Office 200$ Gonwnun.catwns��,Local Planners 1 i Loveland N Gatdaa c 34 ¢ ` tarot t I I j 1-------- A - \ 1 __ Li S ! Caw.Pgs �_ �akae a I. W. I ital. I is I ►k I: mate rata .J . • - L ngmont I lost I 1/ Saara 1 i 0Fwcn .s 1 N.wok P arradetick I. / \ - - b-I—a -- - aoacoas fon l• JJJppp �'/ aGaasartel 1 QEric / 0Varost a Want.Dcry I ,Boulder i a Wanks to I - 1 as &iqk \./\` ' VIM/ .?. 1 \ \ a Easttake Mca i -`,...•••••••• / 7 .%..•,`� NeA�css_ f, 36\ / 411.\\ antennas /. i �\ � // •I •_. -2--i-r _ t Denver-A - - ` 1 I.. �/Q� ! ; v - _ G 2 4 6 8 10 ! 1 /1 I . 1 art>� It✓ Miles North .nnm' • 9 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 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 distributed to businesses along the following key roadway/rail corridors in the regional study area: ► 1-25 ► BNSF ► US 34 from US 85 to 1-25 ► Harmony Road (US 68)from US 287 to 1-25 ► US 85 from Greeley to Denver ► SH 119 from Longmont to 1-25 ► E-470 to DIA Mailing addresses were obtained from parcel data and were extracted for first, second, and third tier businesses from the roadway. Using this method, surveys were delivered to 1,297 businesses. In addition to parcel based mailings, surveys were hand delivered and mailed to targeted locations within the regional study area. Targeted locations were identified using a combination of census data, field observation, and input received from small group meetings. An additional 100 surveys were distributed in the following targeted locations: • ► Longmont: east and west sides of Main Street between 3'd(SH 119) and 6th Avenues. This area was selected because (1) it may employ/serve the Collyer Street neighborhood, which has been identified as both a minority and low-income area, (2) the area surrounding these businesses contains higher than average populations of minorities, (3) businesses are located along the Feeder Bus Service line being evaluated in the DEIS, (4) participants of the small group meeting in Longmont identified this area as one with a concentration of businesses that serve minorities. ► Fort Collins: east and west sides of US 287 between Vine Drive and Conifer Street. This area was selected because (1) it may employ/serve the Andersonville, La Colonia, and Buckingham communities, (2) the area surrounding these businesses contains higher than average populations of minorities, (3) businesses are just north of a commuter rail station site that is being evaluated in the DEIS, (4) participants of the first small group meeting in Fort Collins identified this area as one with a concentration of businesses that serve minorities. Additional locations were selected based on census data and field observation (e.g., business names were in Spanish). These include: ► West side of SH 85 frontage road between 37th and 39th Avenues in Evans. ► West side of SH 85 frontage road between 42nd Avenue and the Platte River in Evans. ► East side of SH 85 between 4th Avenue and First Street in La Salle. S to NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • ► West side of SH 85 between 4th and 6th Streets in Gilcrest. The project team also identified major employers in the vicinity of the regional study area. Project information and business surveys were delivered to the locations listed in Table 4. Table 4 Business Survey Distribution to Major Employers Employer Location Agland, Inc. Greeley, CO Aims Community College Greeley, CO Burris Company, Inc. Greeley, CO Hensel-Phelps Construction Greeley, CO North Colorado Medical Center Greeley, CO Roche Constructors Greeley, CO RR Donnelley& Sons Greeley, CO Weld County School District 6 Greeley, CO Bella Romero School District 6 Greeley, CO State Farm Insurance Greeley, CO Super Walmart Greeley, CO Swift& Co. Greeley, CO Stinton Dairy Greeley, CO Meadow Gold Dairy Greeley, CO Eastman Kodak Windsor, CO Metal Container Corporation Windsor, CO • Hall-Irwin Construction Eaton, CO Business surveys were distributed in both English and Spanish between December and March of 2006. Of the more than 1,400 businesses surveyed, 175 (13 percent) were returned. The analysis that can be derived from a survey is only as good as the response. Some responses were incomplete or left unanswered. Results of the survey are summarized below. Only those responses that were answered properly are included. The complete survey is contained in Appendix A. 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. 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 11 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. 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. SPECIALIZED OUTREACH As recommended in Appendix B of CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects—Rev.3, specialized outreach to minority and low-income populations was conducted as part of the North 1-25 DEIS public involvement process to gather comments and concerns regarding the project. 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 has already been noticed in Colorado. For example, at recent planning meetings and public events for unrelated projects in Silverthorne and in Aspen, there were no Hispanic/Latino participation, even though there are known Hispanic/Latino populations in these towns. The project team made every effort 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 was 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. It is important to consider that participation by the Hispanic/Latino community may have been hindered by the political climate in spite of these efforts. In general participation in small group meetings was low (several meetings had less than ten attendees). In addition, the multiple attempts that were 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 involvement program, additional efforts were made to ensure an increased level of awareness and participation in the project. These efforts included working with community leaders and liaisons, targeted distribution of project information, Spanish translation, the use of Spanish language media, attendance at cultural and community events, and holding small group meetings. • 12 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • The project team identified local community liaisons to assist with specialized outreach activities. As leaders in their local communities, liaisons were asked to provide project information to their local communities and communicate any concerns or issues to the project team. Community liaisons also provided guidance on effective outreach strategies. Specialized outreach included Spanish language newspapers, newsletters and mailings which announced upcoming meetings and described the project process. In addition, information in Spanish was posted to the project website throughout the project. A Spanish language translator was available at the project public meetings to answer questions. Project fact sheets and flyers about the project and upcoming public involvement activities were delivered in both English and Spanish to many locations throughout the project where minority and low-income populations might have access to them, including: - Adams County Housing Authority(Commerce - Greeley Assembly of God (Greeley, CO) City, CO) - Ault Public Library(Ault, CO) - Greeley Planning and Zoning (Greeley, CO) - Brighton Housing Authority(Brighton, CO) - Hudson Public Library(Hudson, CO) - Broomfield Planning Department(Broomfield, CO) - Lincoln Park Library(Greeley, CO) - CARE Housing (Fort Collins, CO) - Longmont Public Library(Longmont, CO) - Clinica Campesina(Lafayette, CO) - Loveland Housing Authority(Loveland, CO) - Commerce City Community Planning (Commerce - Neighbor to Neighbor(Fort Collins, CO) City, CO) - Cross Community Coalition (Denver, CO) - OUR Center(Longmont, CO) • - Dacono Public Library(Dacono, CO) - Rodarte Center(Greeley, CO) - Denver Community Development(Denver, CO Salud Family Health Center(Longmont, CO) - Denver Development Services (Denver, CO) - Sunrise Community Health Center(Greeley, CO) - Eaton Public Library(Eaton, CO) - Urban League of Metro Denver(Denver, CO) - Firestone City Hall (Firestone, CO) - Weld Chamber of Commerce (Greeley, CO) - Fort Collins Aztlan Center(Fort Collins, CO) - Weld County Housing Authority(Greeley, CO) - Fort Collins Communications(Fort Collins, CO) - Weld County Planning and Zoning (Greeley, CO) - Fort Collins Senior Center(Fort Collins, CO) - Weld County Social Services(Greeley, CO) - Fort Lupton Public Library(Fort Lupton, CO) - Windsor Severance Public Library(Windsor, CO) - Fort Lupton School Library(Fort Lupton, CO) - Windsor Town Hall (Windsor, CO) - Glenn A. Jones Memorial Library(Johnstown,CO) - Women, Infant, Children (Fort Collins, Longmont, Greeley, CO) The project team also identified and attended local cultural and community events to distribute information about the project, answer questions, and gather comments. Fifteen events were attended between 2004 and 2006. These are listed in Table 5. 13 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 5 Community Events Date Name of Event Location 6/05/04 Berthoud Day Berthoud, CO 8/24/04 and 9/17/05 Frederick Miners Day Frederick, CO 8/07/04 and 8/13/05 Loveland Art in the Park Loveland, CO 9/11/04 and 9/10/05 Celebrate Lafayette Lafayette, CO 9/18/04 Greeley Fiesta Greeley, CO 8/14/05 and 8/13/05 Milliken Beef-n-Bean Day Milliken, CO 12/01/04 Hispanos Unidos de Greeley Expo. Greeley, CO 08/05/05 Greeley Farmers Market Greeley, CO 9/16/06 Mexican Independence Day Longmont, CO 9/30/06 Bridging the Immigration Divide Longmont, CO 9/30/06 Community Development Resource Fair Adams County, CO The project team contacted approximately 42 Hispanic/Latino community and church leaders throughout the project. Hispanic/Latino community leaders were offered information about the project and the opportunity for small group meetings. Small group meetings have been held in the locations listed in Table 6. Table 6 Small Group Meetings Date Name of Group Location 11/04/04 Loveland Housing Authority Loveland, CO • 8/06/05 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO 8/13/05 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO 7/28/05 Windsor Farmers' Market Windsor, CO 1/23/06 Aztlan Fort Collins Town Hall Meeting Fort Collins, CO 3/14/06 Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision Larimer County, CO 9/21/06 El Comite de Longmont Longmont, CO 9/21/06 A New Image, LLC Brighton, CO 10/25/06 Templo Betel Fort Collins, CO 11/11/06 Agua Viva Baptist Church Loveland, CO 11/19/06 Holy Family Catholic Church Fort Collins, CO 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 Greeley, Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont would be willing to drive to access transit service to Denver. Participants expressed general concern about the cost of the alternatives and how alternatives 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. • 14 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 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 1-25. Other than Brighton, participants generally felt that transit alternatives would enhance employment opportunities 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 OUR Medical Center (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 were concerned about immigration policy. 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. Input received through specialized outreach helped the project team understand the community resources that are important to minority and low-income communities. Meeting participants identified key community facilities, neighborhoods, businesses, underserved • areas, and important relationships between communities (social, familial, employment). These resources would be given special consideration throughout impact analysis. 15 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • The following section provides a summary of potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the alternatives being evaluated in the DEIS. The environmental justice analysis evaluates each alternative to determine whether there is a potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations when compared to populations that are not minority or not low-income in the study area. A disproportionate impact 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 will be suffered by the non- minority/non-low-income population. An adverse impact means the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to: ► Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death. ► Air, noise or 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. ► 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 DEIS were reviewed to determine whether the build packages and each of their components would have any adverse impacts on all segments of the population, including minority and low-income population groups. If no adverse impacts were expected for a resource, then no further environmental justice analysis has been undertaken with regard to that particular resource. If, however, adverse effects were identified for a resource, additional environmental justice analysis was done and is described below. Note that impacts to natural resources (i.e., flora and fauna, geology and soils, wetlands) have been • 16 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • assumed not to have any direct impacts or indirect effects on human populations. Refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS for detailed descriptions of the alternatives under evaluation. 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 and Package B. However, certain adverse effects on minority and low-income residents in the 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, 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. 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, 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 100 residential receivers between SH 14 and SH 60. Sixty-nine of these receivers 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 dBA to 77 dBA, an increase of less than 2 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. These receivers would also be impacted under Package A and Package B. The 31 impacted residences not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision 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 minorities 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 alterative 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 seven populated census blocks • adjacent to SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington. Of these, three are identified as having minority populations. Three households characterized as low-income are located between 17 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange. These households are located on rural properties and are not part of an established neighborhood. 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 from a single-family neighborhood of approximately 39 homes that is approximately 37 percent minority. Although conveniently located, the traffic, noise, and activity associated with the lot could disturb adjacent residents. Of the four residential relocations in this section, three are located in census blocks/block groups identified as having minority or low-income populations. The affected residences are widely distributed in rural parcels south of Wellington. The noise analysis identified impacts to the residential area (16 receivers) in the northwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange (referred to as Wellington East in the noise analysis). All of the receivers are located within three adjacent census blocks that contain minority populations. The impacted receivers are immediately adjacent to the highway and would also be impacted under both the No-Action Alternative and Package B. The mitigation proposed for these residences is a noise barrier which would reduce noise to below impact levels. The noise barrier would result in a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 7 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements. Table 7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-Hl Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations • Three residential property displacements; traffic One residential property displacement; traffic impacts from carpool lot impacts from carpool lot Residential area (16 receivers) in the northwest No residential areas impacted by traffic noise quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange impacted levels by traffic noise levels; proposed mitigation reduces noise to below impact levels 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 Mountain View 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. ► SH 392/1-25 Interchange. South and west of the SH 392/1-25 interchange along the 1-25 frontage road, the Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision is identified as having a concentration of minorities. A newer single-family residential subdivision is located on the west side of the highway and does not contain a concentration of minorities. • 18 NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • ► 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 areas 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, and 5 between SH 60 and E-470). 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 Mountain View Mobile Home Park in the northwest quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange. Census data • indicates that this community contains minority and low-income populations. Impacts would include a new access configuration for residents of the Mountain View 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 Mountain View 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. This would result in a net reduction in traffic related impacts when compared to 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 the proposed configuration. As a result, the highway would be widened approximately 30 feet to the east. This would allow for the frontage road to remain in its existing location, but would require two property displacements from a neighborhood east of 1-25 that does not contain minority populations. • 19 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and café, existing access would be replaced so that • customers would 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 relocation 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 property displacements would occur. Improvements near the SH 119/1-25 interchange 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 12 businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (eleven between SH 14 and SH 60 and one between SH 60 and E-470). Assessor data indicates 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 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 as being minority owned. 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 93 receivers between SH 14 and SH 60 • (Component A-H2). Sixty-nine of these receivers are residences concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision. Noise levels would increase at 66 of the 69 residences and would range in intensity from 66 dBA to 77 dBA, an increase of 3 dBA or less over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. Proposed mitigation reduces the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 32, which would be an improvement over the No-Action condition. Of the 24 impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows, 17 are located in census blocks/block groups that do not contain minority or low- income populations and 7 are located in census blocks with minority populations. Noise levels would range in intensity from 67 dBA to 80 dBA, an increase of approximately 1 to 7 dBA over existing conditions. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. Refer to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for a detailed analysis of potential noise impacts. The visual analysis 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. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. S 20 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis, 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 8 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. Table 8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-H2 and A-113 Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; 16 residential property displacements access revision No known displacement of businesses owned 12 business displacements by minorities or of special importance to minority populations 76 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels 17 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels increasing 0-2 dbA(69 from the Mountain increasing 0-7 dbA- receivers are scattered Range Shadows subdivision—after mitigation, along North 1-25 32 receivers impacted) Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would Retaining walls (> 15') and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions result 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. 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 BNSF corridor, so would not result in a new impact to an established community. None of the residential displacements associated with Component A- T2 are located in census blocks or block groups 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: • 21 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. ► 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 from 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. A largely Hispanic church with a historic presence in Loveland. 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. Approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit persons along the Front Range that are uninsured or underinsured and in need of medical care. ► St. John's Church. Approximately 1 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► OUR Center. Approximately 1 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. 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. Less than 1 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 Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont 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 the 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 3r° 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. • 22 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 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 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 SH 7 (Component A-T2). Assessor data indicates 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 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 as being minority owned. However due to their proximity to • minority populations along the BNSF rail line, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would increase noise and vibration in neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified moderate impacts at 167 residences along the commuter rail corridor (151 for component A-T1 and 16 for component A-T2). For Component A-T1, '149 of the 151 impacted receivers would occur in areas with minority or low-income populations. The majority of these (140) would occur in Longmont, in minority and low-income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. For Component A-T2, one of the 16 impacted receivers would occur in areas with minority or low-income populations. Noise levels would range in intensity from 59 dBA to 78 dBA, an increase of 1 dBA to 3 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. The majority of these impacts can be mitigated with quiet zones, wayside horns, noise barriers and/or other methods as described in detail in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report. The vibration analysis identified impacts at 87 residences within 65 feet of the nearest track (37 in Loveland and 50 in Longmont). The majority of these (81) are located in areas with minority or low-income populations. Noise and vibration may disturb sleep or normal conversation for people in affected areas. All of these impacts can be mitigated with ballast mats, tire derived aggregate, under-tire pads, and other methods as described in detail in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report. It is important to note that the noise and vibration analysis was based on the best available • right-of-way information. As design continues some of the impacted properties may be 23 NORTH I--25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. acquired for right-of-way purposes. Refer to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for a • detailed analysis of potential noise and 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 stations 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, 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 conducted for the DEIS 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-income portions of the Clark Centennial and Lanyon neighborhoods. Twelve residences immediately adjacent to the proposed track would also be displaced from these neighborhoods. Retaining walls and sound barriers would also shield residences from the existing rail line, lessening the visual impacts of the railroad. As described in the noise and Vibration Technical Report, 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. The majority of these (12) are in Longmont. 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 SH 7. 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 within areas identified as having minority and/or low-income populations. The Old City Electric Building has been designated by the City of Longmont as a local landmark. While these buildings do not provide services unique to minority or low-income populations, 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. • 24 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis prepared for the DEIS, 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„ 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 of 2006 indicated that they 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 connect the Casa Vista neighborhood to the northern part of Longmont as well as Fort • Collins, Loveland, Boulder and Denver. Table 9 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Table 9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-TI and A-T2 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 potential degradation of community cohesion in services; travel time delays and out of Longmont; travel time delays at at-grade direction travel at at-grade crossings crossings No known displacement of businesses owned by 16 business displacements minorities; displaced businesses most likely provide services and employment for minority persons 150 receivers impacted by rail noise levels, 140 17 receivers impacted by rail noise levels; from minority or low-income neighborhoods along vibration impacts at 6 residences; proposed the BNSF in Longmont; vibration impacts at 81 mitigation reduces noise and vibration to residences; after mitigation, 1 receiver impacted below impact levels by noise; and none impacted by vibration 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 25 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-TI. and • A-T2 Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations sound walls would result in a high effect on visual areas; sound walls would result in a high conditions at 14 locations; commuter rail stations effect on visual conditions at two locations; would have a high effect on visual conditions at commuter rail stations would have a high three locations effect on visual conditions at one location Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Minority and low-income populations are distributed along US 85 with concentrations in Greeley, Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City. Approximately 156 populated census blocks and 39 census block groups are adjacent to US 85. Of these, 46 census blocks have higher than average populations of minorities and 22 census block groups have higher than average numbers of low-income households. Impacts associated with the commuter bus include one residential displacement (for a proposed station on the southeast corner of US 85 and 42nd Street) and impacts to neighborhoods as a result of an increase in transportation activity at bus stations. The proposed 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. The proposed maintenance facility at 31st Street and 4th Avenue in Greeley is less than 0.25 mile from a minority neighborhood adjacent to US 85. Residents would experience an increase in bus traffic, noise, air, and visual impacts. Noise associated with this station would not reach impact levels (as defined by FTA). 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 5 businesses. Assessor data indicates that these businesses provide services that include a convenience store, welding, and professional services. Impacted businesses were not identified 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 as being minority owned. However due to their proximity to minority populations along the US 85, these businesses most likely provide employment for 26 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 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. 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 10 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. Table 10 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-T3 and A-T4 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 may provide businesses provide services and employment services and employment for minority persons for all 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 would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS Benefits of Package A Other benefits would be expected to result from the implementation of Package A in addition to the overall improvement in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. These include: ► Short-term and long-term employment— employment related to the construction of the facilities as well as their on-going operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in the DEIS for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. ► Improvements in safety and emergency response time. ► 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. • 27 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. 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 areas as under Component A-H1: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/I-25 interchange in Fort Collins. Impacts would be the same as those identified in Package A for Component A-H1. Table 11 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B- H1: Safety Improvements. • S 28 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 11 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-Hl Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; traffic One residential property displacement; traffic impacts from carpool lot impacts from carpool lot One residential area (16 receivers) impacted by No residential areas impacted by increased noise traffic noise levels; proposed mitigation reduces levels noise to below impact levels 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 and five between SH 60 and E-470). Four of the 15 displacements between SH 14 and SH 60 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, approximately ten 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 15 businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (13 between SH 14 and SH 60 and two between SH 60 and E-470). Assessor data indicates 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 by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and . International Trade, Minority Business Office, through public involvement efforts, or through 29 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. the business survey distributed for this project as being minority owned. 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. 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, bus rapid transit (BRT) and vanpools would be available to all 1-25 commuters. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 93 receivers between SH 14 and SH 60. • Sixty-nine of these receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision. Noise levels would increase at 63 of the 69 residences and would range in intensity from 67 dBA to 77 dBA, an increase of up to 3.6 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 32, an improvement over the No-Action condition. Of the 24 impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, 21 are located in census blocks/block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations and three are located in census blocks with minority populations. Noise levels in these areas would range in intensity from 66 dBA to 88 dBA, an increase of up to 6 dBA over the existing condition. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The noise analysis identified impacts to numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Adams County. These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low-income and non-minority/non-low-income households. Impacts would also be experienced under the No-Action Alternative and Package A as a result of growing traffic volumes through 2030. However, a greater number of receivers would be impacted under Package B because it results in the most vehicles traveling on the widest I-25 profile at the highest speeds, thus producing more traffic noise. Refer to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for a detailed analysis of potential noise impacts. • 30 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • The visual analysis finds 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 south of E-470 along I- 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 finds that sound walls would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community and would reduce the visual effect of the highway. Highway widening near the 104th Avenue/1-25 interchange would impact 0.17 acres of Grant Park. Grant Park is located within an area with minority and low-income populations and provides aesthetic benefits and recreational opportunities for surrounding residents. The park is approximately 14 acres and would only be affected where immediately adjacent to 1-25, which would not result in adverse effects to minority and low-income populations. Table 12 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Components B-H2, B-H3, and B- • H4: Tolled Express Lanes. Table 12 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-H2, B- H3, and B-H4 Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Four residential property displacements; access 16 residential property displacements; revision at Mountain View Mobile Home Park acquisition of 10 garages No known displacement of businesses owned by 15 business displacements minorities or of special importance to minority populations 72 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels 21 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels increasing 0-3.6 dbA between SH 14 and SH 60 increasing 0-6 dbA between SH 14 and SH 60; —69 in the Mountain Range Shadows impacts to numerous neighborhoods and subdivision (after mitigation, 32 receivers isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, impacted); impacts to numerous neighborhoods Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in County Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would Retaining walls (> 15') and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions result in a high effect on visual conditions Acquisition of 0.17 acres of one 14 acre park No park acquisitions from non-minority/non-low- within a minority and low-income neighborhood income neighborhoods • 31 NORTH I25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) S No residential displacements would occur under Components B-T1 or B-T2. Impacts associated with the proposed maintenance facility at 31St Street and 1s` Street in Evans would be the same as those described under Package A for Components A-T3 and A-T4. 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. In Longmont the feeder bus line would run east along SH 119 and north along US 287. Frequent stops would provide more direct service to Casa Vista, Salud Family Health Center, St. Johns Church, OUR Center, and Hispanic owned businesses along US 287 than would commuter rail. 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 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 as being minority owned. 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 4th 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' wide by 300' long, with a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting and landscaping. The station in Firestone would require a business relocation which would change the visual landscape for travelers affecting all segments of the population including minority residents of River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and adjacent neighborhoods west of the Firestone Road interchange. Table 13 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit. • 32 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 13 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-T1 and B-T2 Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations No residential property displacements; activities No residential property displacements associated with maintenance facility would impact one neighborhood No known displacement of businesses owned 1 business displacement by 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 Station platforms and overpasses would result in in visual impacts to the surrounding community visual impacts to the surrounding community in in two locations two locations Benefits of Package B Other benefits would be expected to result from the implementation of Package B in addition to the overall improvement in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. These include: • ► Short-term and long-term employment— employment related to the construction of the facilities as well as operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in the DEIS for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. ► Improvements in safety and emergency response time. ► 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. CONCLUSION Safety improvements between SH 1 and SH 14 (Components A-H1 and B-H1) would result in three residential relocations from census blocks/block groups with minority and low- income populations. This is compared to one residential relocation for the general population. The affected residences are distributed along 1-25 in large census blocks/block groups that are generally not part of an established neighborhood or community. Both the minority and low-income households and the non-minority/non-low-income household could be relocated to comparable housing in the area. In addition, the safety benefits to minority and low-income populations in Wellington outweigh the impact associated with relocation. • 33 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Although a concentration of noise impacts was identified within the Mountain Range • Shadows subdivision, mitigation proposed for this community (under Components A-H2 and B-H2) improves noise levels at 37 receivers over the No-Action condition, resulting in a net benefit to the community. Minority and low-income residents in Longmont would experience impacts from the implementation of Component A-T1 (commuter rail between Fort Collins and Longmont), .which would include '16 residential relocations, noise above impact levels at one receiver (after mitigation), visual impacts, traffic impacts, and the potential for exacerbating the existing barrier created by the BNSF corridor. 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 (323 or 324) north or south to access the commuter rail. RTD local bus service would be modified as needed to serve the two commuter rail stations in Longmont. The commuter rail would, however, improve regional connections and access to some community facilities. A determination of whether disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low income populations will occur in the Final EIS. The following factors will be considered in this determination: ► Comparison of adverse impacts that would occur to minority and low income populations vs. those that would occur to the non-low income and non-minority population • ► Benefits of the transportation investment ► Mitigation that would be provided ► Opinions related to the impacts, mitigation, and benefits as obtained in the public and agency review process and from additional targeted outreach that will occur MITIGATION 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 will 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 would 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 adverse effects. Mitigation has already been factored in to the analysis of impacts to minority and low- income populations. For example, mitigation for noise impacts in Wellington reduced the effects of traffic noise to below impacts levels, avoiding a disproportionate impact to this community. The mitigation will be carried out for that alternative even if there is not a finding of disproportionately high and adverse effects. i 34 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 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 an equitable treatment for al 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 in order to permit the broadest opportunity as possible 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. Efforts will continue to be made to ensure meaningful opportunities for public participation during the development and review process. During the public review and comment period • for the DEIS, all segments of the population (including minority and low-income populations) will have the opportunity to review the project alternatives, their associated benefits, adverse impacts, and any proposed mitigation, and can propose additional mitigation that will reduce adverse effects. Additional meetings with the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision and El Comite de Longmont will be held to invite participants to comment on the analysis, identify additional concerns, and propose additional mitigation measures. REFERENCES ICF Consulting with Myra L. Frank & Associates, 2003. Desk Guide: Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning Office of Policy Analysis & Research. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2005. CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects. 35 • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • NORTH I--25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS • information cooperation. transportation APPENDIX A. BUSINESS SURVEY • Appendix A NORTH I-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Appendix A NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS • information. coopers:ion. transportation. APPENDIX A Survey of Potentially Affected NORTH IE$ Business Owners 'ormason L0CVeral.0, I„rfourur~ The Colorado Department of Transportation is studying several alternatives in Northern Colorado to alleviate congestion on 1.25 and make travel safer. The range of alternatives includes improvements to the roadway system and/or to the transit system. Each alternative would have different effects on businesses. As part of our investigation of the potential social and economic effects in the study area, we are contacting all local businesses that may be affected as a result of these alternatives. In order to determine potential effects on your business and employees, we would like you to answer thirteen 1131 questions. Your answers will be used to help identify which alternative is eventually chosen and to quantify social and economic impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement 1051 that is required for this project- All of the answers you give about your business will remain confidential. All the data we gather will be discussed in general terms in order to protect the privacy of your business and your employees. 1. Name of business 2 Business adoress !Optional) City • 3 How long has your business been at this location? 4 What types of services does your business provide? 5. How many full-time and pan-time employees are employed at this location? full-Time Part-Time 6 What percentage of the employees at your company are unskilled workers, e.g., manual laborers? What percentage are skilled or professional workers,e.g., electricians or engineers' Acco,dng in the us Deparrmenr in moor"'inskakp labors labor Mot r potres less than two Years^r framing or eraenence:-soled lahor a let a ar/ea.. o vee ,m mg n ecper and'Peo :tuna/' a pua//ed pecmn w.rn Imlds er dens. a Unded en Slar bacmaweate degree o'a lo,eign egmvalenr degiaand who Is a rrrenibe,a/i/ie pmlessmns. Unskilled Skilled or Professional 7 Approximately how many minority employees li e., African American, Native American, Asian, or Latino) are employed at this location? (Actual number or percentage/ Full-Time o Part-Time 8. Does a minority person or persons own this business? Yes No If Yes. Which minority group> 9 Are you aware of any transportation issues that your employees may have? [For instance'.a long commute to work, restrictions preventing use of vehicle to get to work,etc_l. Please elaborate Yes No If Yes, please provide details: I 0.Please estimate the percentage of employees using the following modes of transportation to get to work: Vehicle % Bus Transit % Walk % Bicycle % Other % • Appendix A NORTH I 25 Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 11.Had you heard of the North 1-25 EIS prior to receiving this survey? Yes No _. 12. If yes, where did you hear about it? Newspaper articles Television Word al mouth Radio Public community meetings Council;Commission meeting Committee meetings Don't remember Other: 13.How do you prefer to receive information about the North I-25 EIS? Newspaper articles Public service announcements Through a newsletter The project Web site Ads in the newspaper Via E-mail Public community meetings Other: Please return the completed survey in the envelope provided.It you are not presently occupying this address,or it there are multiple businesses at this address, please provide us with a contact or contacts who may be able to answer these questions. II you would prefer to complete this survey over the phone please contact Jessica Woolery with PRACO at 13031 689-0704 or 17191473-0704. • For questions pertaining to this survey or to the North 1-25 project or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Jessica Woolery with PRACO at 13031 689-0704 or '7191 473-0704 or visit the project website at blip:::www.dot.slate.co.us:North125eish Comments: • Appendix A Hello