The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062501.tiff ead Town of Mead P.O. Box 626 441 Third Street Mena-"A Little Town With a Big Future" Mead,Colorado 80542-0626 (970)535-4477 • September I, 2006 Mr. Mike Geile Chairman, Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioners: The Town of Mead Board approved the 2006 Mead Transportation Plan as a component of its Comprehensive Plan on August 14, 2006. It is intended to be the "major street plan" contemplated by C.R.S. 31-23-213. I am enclosing a copy of the plan for your review. This plan encompasses roadways within a three-mile radius of the Town's corporate limits as statutorially permitted by C.R.S. 21-23-212, and the plan can be approved by the County (see C.R.S. 31-23-208). The Town Board will ask the County to consider giving the plan its approval. As a further illustration and assistance to the review, enclosed is a drawing that reflects a three- mile radius from the Town's current corporate boundaries outlined in black, with the Town's planning area (area of influence) from its Comprehensive Plan outlined in gray. You will note that the three-mile street plan allowed by law almost completely coincides with the Town's general planning area. We would be happy to attend a meeting to discuss this document if you schedule it for a meeting agenda. We could also arrange for FHU representatives to be in attendance, as that may be helpful. Please let us know. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Michael D. Friesen Town Manager nNs,�„r / 7Govoil 0 n : /L, c f1 vfirirstM WN t.t.-,,, ,i trillt.VA. \i'l a IAD!! ',,77 ,. .,••'M �R. am-`� r-54421 SIMI! I``li��l L I'�a—�AN WI! i mill ,' 'IMF' IIIIL ,i I _ • I illi y • t .r. -M, �`1 t... ,iy � i1t /Ei' I'ihi. ,in si BERTH JUs_ ` ; � - � , -Inal11 1111111Mill III, 11111111114_, �.J , jam' iLi __ • ll lolli� t-- , I : yt Wen liatir' III ' t by. f ', .,,- ,-,.= , . rir, -„,.-1,?,...;:;-:-,s. ihsx, IllAr MI � �,,, ; � .c.7 r,. a a e'a ('111 "% , 111 q I ii.„1„,,,, F ,q, MI ) !Alla .... 1UItII IlkNA— _ Jf B - .......„,.. st �4se .�� 't � ,,_ : ' '''� ,]rte` r i ft tto .. i.G_ i Yi'• i Priv _V . ., ,.,„. ttt •aki., : - : I 1 ^ w a • •, i •: s' . a r- 3 .11' S r^ r_ r Town of Mead :::,..... @.... Transportation Plan ,.... _ . . ..t.,,t, es pr. CR40 .•• I CR 40 r r a r R 3R \ R 2006 —..41i: : r• y"• CH 36 c; U CR 36 r • I � _� CR-3.38 C r r. c CR.32 r N ea r 66 cc r .c X ¢ M V CR 28 • CR 28 CR 28 r � rE 3 CR26 r r II FELSBURG r` (II ULO LT ex LEVIG r Om. ead Mad-"A Link Ten ^ WWI•Big F1brt" .- TRANSPORTATION PLAN .p .. ••••• " Prepared for: r The Town of Mead 441 Third Street Mead, Colorado 80542-0626 .wp Prepared by: .p Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 ^ Centennial, CO 80111 303/721-1440 Project Manager: David E. Hattan, P.E. Project Engineer: Jenny A. Young, P.E. FHU Reference No. 05-058 August 2006 r-. ,.p sead Transportation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS �. Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 �- 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 2 2.1 Roadway Conditions 2 2.2 Traffic Control Devices 2 2.3 Traffic Volumes 7 2.4 Other Transportation Modes 7 3. FORECASTED GROWTH 9 3.1 Land Use Forecasts 9 3.2 2030 Traffic Forecasts on Base Network 17 3.3 Identification of Deficiencies, Constraints and Alternatives 17 ., 3.4 2030 Forecasts on Improved Network 27 3.5 Buildout Forecasts on Improved Network 27 4. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 30 4.1 Roadway Plan 30 4.2 Functional Classification 32 4.3 Street Standards 34 4.4 Access Control Policies 34 5. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 39 5.1 Implementation of Projects 39 5.2 Roadway Widening Phasing Options 40 5.3 Major Street Plan for the Comprehensive Plan 42 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 43 FELSBURG HOLT & e. ULLEVIG n Stead Transportation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Existing Roadway System 3 Figure 2. Existing Roadway Widths 4 Figure 3. Traffic Control Devices 5 Figure 4. Existing Speed Limits 6 Figure 5. Existing Traffic Volumes 8 Figure 6. Traffic Analysis Zones 10 Figure 7. Existing and Planned Development 13 Figure 8. Mead Area Land Use Plan 16 Figure 9. 2030 Traffic Forecasts on Base Network 18 Figure 10. 2030 Land Use on Base Network Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratios 20 Figure 11. Potential Constraints 21 Figure 12. Western Parallel Arterial Options 23 '^ Figure 13. Western Parallel Arterial Preferred Alignment 25 Figure 14. 2030 Traffic Forecasts on Improved Network 28 Figure 15. Buildout Traffic Forecasts on Improved Network 29 Figure 16. Roadway Plan 31 ^ Figure 17. Typical Arterial Cross Sections 35 Figure 18. Typical Collector and Local Cross Sections 36 Figure 19 Typical Rural Cross Sections 37 LIST OF TABLES rte. Table 1. 2030 Land Use Forecasts 11 ^ Table 2. Buildout Land Use Forecasts 14 Table 3. Land Use Summary 15 Table 4. Planning Level Roadway Capacities 17 Table 5. Western Parallel Arterial Modeling Results 24 Table 6. Functional Classification Criteria and Design Characteristics 33 Table 7. Access Control Policy Guidelines 38 Table 8. Transportation Improvement Projects & Opinion of Probable Costs 40 r'* ,,* FELSBURU (' HOLT & r� ■ ULLEVIG r* Ss Transportation Plan \'.^ 1. INTRODUCTION The Town of Mead is located in the northern Front Range of Colorado, just west of 1-25. It is situated in close proximity to Loveland and Fort Collins to the north and Longmont to the south. Mead is approximately 40 miles north of the Denver metropolitan area, the economic center of "'^ Colorado. Mead currently functions primary as a bedroom community for the larger communities nearby, although there are some agricultural, industrial and commercial employment opportunities in Mead. Denver and much of the Front Range have been experiencing significant growth over the past decade, and it is anticipated that there will be continued growth and development pressures in the foreseeable future. As a result, Mead has experienced increased interest in both residential and commercial development in recent years. The downtown area of Mead is situated approximately one mile west of 1-25 in Weld County. e. WCR 34 currently serves as the primary east-west roadway through the Town of Mead, while WCR 7 serves as the primary north-south roadway through the downtown area. Business activity in the Town of Mead is currently focused on the east side of the SH 66 interchange with ^ 1-25. Mead's planning area is generally bounded by WCR 1 on the west, WCR 17 on the east, WCR 26 on the south, and WCR 40 on the north. However, the northeastern quadrant of this area (generally north of SH 66 and east of 1-25) has been excluded from this planning effort. ^ The purpose of this Transportation Plan is to plan for and accommodate future growth and development in and around the Town of Mead by mitigating existing transportation problems and identifying future needs. 40. ^ FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 1 asead Transportation Plan 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM A thorough inventory of Mead's transportation system was conducted to serve as a baseline survey of the existing network. This effort included the collection of data associated with the existing Town and County street system (i.e. laneage, paving, traffic control devices, and posted speed limits, etc.) and the compilation of recent traffic counts recorded by Weld County and the ., Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Overall, this inventory establishes the existing level of transportation services provided in the community and serves as a basis for identifying near-term, mid-term and long-term transportation needs. 0.1 2.1 Roadway Conditions The principal component of the Mead transportation system is the roadway network, primarily located along section lines. Figure 1 illustrates the existing street system and the surface condition (paved versus gravel) of the roadway segments. Many of these roadways are paved and have two lanes with 24 feet of pavement. The paved section of WCR 36 between 1-25 and WCR 7 has four foot wide paved shoulders; this is currently the only section of roadway in the Mead planning area other than the state highways that has paved shoulders. The majority of the roadways in the planning area do not have shoulders, although some have narrow unpaved shoulders. Figure 2 provides an inventory of the lane and shoulder widths of the paved roadways. Several county roads in the Mead area are unpaved, also indicated on Figure 2. 2.2 Traffic Control Devices Figure 3 illustrates existing traffic control devices in the Mead planning area. The purpose of intersection traffic control is to ensure safe and efficient traffic operation by assigning right-of- way between conflicting traffic streams. This assignment of right-of-way provides uniform and predictable movements of vehicles and pedestrians. Typical intersection traffic control may consist of a traffic signal or a STOP sign on the minor street approaches. There are currently four signalized intersections in the planning area; one at the SH 66/WCR 7 intersection, one at the SH 66/WCR 1 intersection, and the I-25/SH 66 interchange ramp terminal intersections. There are a number of intersections with one- or two-way stop control. Two intersections have four-way stop control: WCR 34/WCR 7 and WCR 34/WCR 5. Another form of traffic control is the posted speed limit of a roadway. An inventory of existing speed limits was performed and is shown on Figure 4. Many of the county roads have no specific posted speed limits. There are lower speed limits along WCR 34 and WCR 7 in the developed areas of Mead. SH 66 has a posted speed limit of 60 mph west of 1-25 and 65 mph 0.4 east of WCR 9 '/�. There is generally good continuity of speed limits along all of the roadways in the planning area. That is, speed limits are consistent between sections of road and changes are tied to differences in the type or density of adjacent land use. Almost all of the roads in the planning area are straight, and slower speeds through curves are not a concern. Speed limits and traffic operations should be monitored in the future as further growth occurs to make sure that vehicular speeds remain within appropriate and safe ranges. ^ A FELSBURG � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 2 r- ,... ..'^ pi FELSBURG HOLT & r" ULLEVIG n CR 40 1 - CR 40 I N., d �CC 1 `_ - O V ` O s"" __ ) CR 38 CR 38 ; -' -- -.- ' e 25 V �� C' a\ CI- ON U CR 36 � `° U CR 36^ �. �.. CR_34_ ❑ CR34 R32 �� /' rL,--- CR32 ... U U N ^ 66 66 Q _ U a` \ Chi O l - CR 28 . L '_J CR 28 R 28 1 J 25 , 1 L; aD CR26 �- ' �, ice- �� U --- - — —1 " ,- - �:- �,' — LEGEND i. me = Paved Roads = Grade Separation Bridge I — - me = Gravel Roads IdOli = Interchange and Grade Separation Bridge IVI .. Figure 1 st..' .. Existing Roadway System .. North Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-05010/10/05 Page 3 ,.... .- pi FELSBURG HOLT & rULLEVIG 1 \ CR 40 7.37 - - lw fT _ `\ U o . CR 38 r. . 1212 U � ti \ em e" Ea R\ U CR 36� I �-. \ 4 12 12 4 '. _ _ _ �.— _ _ _ _ U - - CR 36_ CR,34 314 - -Am. 25 \ II C, o " I - CR34 11J 1e-ie-Il c 10 a-ie tI-te r, �' � � r" U �, ,ij R 32 — _�.'-- _. CR 32 .`. 9-12-12-9 • 9 12 12 5 2-12-12-2 66 cc 4, O � - r-e - • CR 28 4)? C L,_ •"- i mi CR 28 witieini 2-2a a ,. , r----- / _ , c , .. )' C ,... .. LEGEND .� miliii = Paved Roads xx-vv-vv-xx = Paved Shoulder- Lane Width- Lane Width - Paved Shoulder a ii-mm = Gravel Roads [xx]-vv-vv-[xx] = Unpaved Shoulder- Lane Width - Lane Width - Unpaved Shoulder a "a = Grade Separation Bridge a eau = Interchange and Grade Separation Bridge Figure 2 Existing Roadway Widths North e-.. Mead Transportation Plan Phase II 05-058 11/9/05 Page 4 ,^ ri FELSBURG Hu OLT & ^ LLEVIG ^ .. H - r. J 'I cR 40 r T ca 40 co o � o 1-\ 0 I JJ ^ _) CR 38 y ,tiI _ el -r1 CR38 1 r. T 1 / / '0 �'";� 1. -t- F P J ll f c , " 5 \ io �- a U ^ SI CR 36 - �a el 1 CR 36 CRS 4 4 , . ' r. s ^ ^ T...., 41 CR34•- ❑ T t � . ' el CR34 -r1I 1. CIF^ \ ii U � 1j R 32 _ CR 32 - r/^ I ' ,,,,, ...... ^ T 66 t1 ', , tJ" 66 T A•..'� - - CR28 ` \ ,_J CR28 L ^ I CR 26T �� C LEGEND r = Stop Sign = Grade Separation Bridge n mil = Paved Roads ' = Interchange and Grade Separation Bridge . ... .. - = Gravel Roads © = No Intersection Traffic Control ^ ' = Traffic Signal Figure 3 Traffic Control Devices ^ North Mead Transportation Plan-Phase 1105-058 6/5/06 Page 5 r r „.... C FELSBURG Hu OLT & LLEVIG r r L 1 ��R`40 I CR 4Q _ IIT- ¢ % m Q )7 55 a n U / Uz o / - 0,) 4 \ sSv " - rJ7 - -. _CR 3�yD NPS C. _ f PS _ C R38 ~ 2 r lira ;/ � w° v oymR ® n Cr - RE 0 U N. NRSB • �R 4 20 N S Qua 35 NS N S• Cc a El 3Sn. .30� e ' \\ a • - 55 /� Z l9N s. CR34 .... p', ....o h ..° .n; CR Vili 45 / 45 35 25 X25 35 45 45 r \, 49e L am, ._.�® �--- ''55 CC r.I I •- ,/ , : 2 _ _ �G �;'--,- NPS NC 32 .... q§a `30 . 35 �\ 35 N'S N ^--___,\ Q z u_ ' L see t.� J 35 66 60 65 . 60 50 65 65 Cc 66 60 �, cc 1 Sn /- U t, z 1 ma22. \ ) ¢ O z .— - CR 28 1 m 'r--/ ` Z CR 28 L R 28 _ / ao C LEGEND p = Paved Roads n = Posted Speed Limit(mph) p r en .. - = Gravel Roads NPs = No Posted Speed r = Grade Separation Bridge = Interchange and Grade t. Separation Bridge Figure 4 an. VN Existing Speed Limits r� North Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II05-05810/10/05 Page 6 ,read Transportation Plan \ww:rr-u ^ 2.3 Traffic Volumes Daily traffic volume counts within the planning area have been collected by Weld County and CDOT over the past few years. Weld County regularly conducts coverage traffic counts and recent traffic count data were available for all major roads in the County. CDOT makes annual estimates of volumes on state highways, the most recent being 2004. Figure 5 shows 24 hour (daily)traffic volume counts along major roadways in the planning area. The year of the count is also noted on the graphic because the count years range from 2002 to 2005. As would be expected, 1-25 has by far the highest volume with approximately 52,000 vehicles per day (vpd). SH 66 carries approximately 12,500 vpd east of 1-25 and 14,600 vpd west of 1-25. County Roads 1, 7, 13, 17, and 34 carry the highest traffic volumes of the county roads in the planning area, with volumes in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 vpd. 2.4 Other Transportation Modes The Great Western Railway (GWR) is a short-haul roadway which runs through the Town of Mead, providing local service to industries in the Mead, Johnstown, Milliken, Loveland, Windsor, Greeley and Longmont areas. From the south edge of the Mead planning area, GWR tracks run between WCR 5 and WCR 7. The tracks run through the downtown Mead area, crossing WCR 34 just west of WCR 7, crossing WCR 7 just north of WCR 34, and then extending east under 1-25 and the northeast across WCR 13. Although the GWR line through Mead is active, the level of weekly activity is quite limited. PIN ^ Currently, opportunities for alternative transportation in Mead are limited. The Weld County Department of Human Services (Weld County Area Agency on Aging) provides van service for elderly and handicapped residents of the Mead area on an appointment basis. In addition, there is currently no scheduled public transit service provided in the community. The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is currently underway. The Draft EIS includes two packages, both of which include transit service that could benefit Mead residents. Package A includes commuter rail generally along the US 287/BNSF corridor with a rail station at SH 66. Package B includes bus rapid transit (BRT) along 1-25 with stations at SH 119 and SH 56. The stations in both packages are relatively close to Mead, but they are outside the planning area. Mead should participate in the North 1-25 planning process so that proper consideration is given to a BRT station in Package B that would better serve Mead (at WCR 34 or SH 66). If a station 001 serving Mead is not included initially, provisions should be made for a future station to serve Mead as the area grows. ^ rook w. p FELSBURG r' HL T & . \ ULLEVIG Pagel ,..... ..... pi FELSBURG HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG IN r. \ CR40 ' 1 - - C - CR40 ^ 150to/ ` P. a -�� O c cc o cc - cn �- N. mcE N o .0. - 150 (3 CR 38 `� ' t 10 600 CR 38 pjp��/'/, / 0 N ye�c cc o r� Of J , to U CR36 30 /�,--��11 130 \ \40 40 '. CR36 90 CR,343/4 '•`J O `� N TLS \ N R 900 .- o ^ CR 34Th O, ,id' or 79 O J 730 V CR34 1,180 X1;06 1,100 , _ e 230 --o\ —<- ^ � , R 32 270 ^: ® ). �i' -1--'"°^,, CR 32 ^ o � �j \ N 110 I v o c ',1 L cq ,r O O coo j '-U N'`�.i r Y• 66 1'4 6'00 A� 12 500 1- J ss QQ ^ 1 7,400O CV Am. 1 120 CR 28 6. \ J CR 28 (ju CR 28 -- 130 13 130 170 ^ \ J 430 T a Or o 90 cR2s ^ 180' 290 110 111 LEGEND .s. XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume- 2002 �e„ XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume-2003 XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume - 2004 ^ XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume -2005 Figure 5 7NXXXX = Daily Traffic Volume -2006 Existing Traffic Volumes .. North Mead Transportation Plan-Phase I 105.050 7/20/05 Page 8 • .• Transportation Plan 3. FORECASTED GROWTH In order to properly identify potential improvement projects that will be required for the transportation system in Mead, it is important to first understand the nature and volume of traffic in the planning area in the future. It is also useful to understand existing traffic flow patterns, as presented in the previous chapter. The analysis of future traffic volumes for the Mead planning area is based on the 2030 regional travel demand model developed by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFR MPO). This computerized model includes the entire North Front Range region. The model area extends from SH 66 on the south to Larimer County ^ Road 88 on the north, and from west of Fort Collins to east of Greeley. The NFR model was used as the basis for developing forecasts for Mead because it provides the context of Mead in relation to the rest of northern Colorado. Mead is a part of the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region, which surrounds the NFR MPO. Because it is not a part of the NFR MPO, Mead is on the edge of the NFR model. For the purpose of modeling the Mead planning area, the model has been extended south to SH 119. Two basic inputs to the computer model are the land use estimates and the transportation network. The amount of traffic which different types of land uses (residential, retail, office, industrial, etc.) generate has been measured for the North Front Range and around the country. ^ The amount of development (number of households, square feet of businesses, etc.) can then be used to determine the volume of traffic that will be generated from any specified area. In order to develop these specific allocations of residential and commercial development throughout the North Front Range, the NFR MPO has subdivided its planning area into 815 traffic analysis zones (TAZ's). In order to more accurately forecast future traffic volumes in the Mead planning area, the TAZ's were further subdivided to create 40 new TAZ's. Figure 6 shows the TAZ's for the Mead planning area. r-� The current NFR 2030 Fiscally Constrained transportation network has been used as the basis for the modeling effort in Mead. This network includes those improvement projects which are committed over the next six years plus the projects which are included in the Fiscally Constrained list of the North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. In the Mead planning area, the model includes the widening of 1-25 to six lanes. 3.1 Land Use Forecasts The Colorado state demographer reports a population within the Mead town limits of 2,331 in 2004 with an average household size of 3.15 persons per household. It is anticipated that Mead will experience significant growth over the next 25 years and beyond. The Town of Mead Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 27, 2004) identifies a buildout population in the Mead area of influence of approximately 100,000. Forecasts of future growth in the Mead planning area have been developed using proposed development plans along with land uses and densities identified in the Mead Comprehensive Plan. Although the area generally north of SH 66 and east of 1-25 has been excluded from this transportation planning effort, the future land uses in this area have been estimated and accounted for because the traffic generated by these land uses will impact the remainder of the Mead planning area. pi( FELSBURU HOLT fsa i., ULLEVIG Page 9 ^ pi FELSBURG FIOLT & ^ ULLEVIG 1 N CR 40 1 CR 40 N. -6 r., o - -�m1 ' 2 3 a °4 ' �.j O 6 7 ` I U ") ' CR 38 - \-II CR 38 I v 9 0. "'I .y 1Z:, t2 t 14 CR 36 - - ___ \_ -_ _ O CR 36 i , I a. CR•34 3/4 18 '° ' I 15 1 , 20 i 21\ 1 22 23 w �., _ CR1 _ _ d _ ,�. , 1._� CR34 2 215, �' 2 , r"J �1�, _y29 ( 1 e. _ 1 • R32 26 e�i`'' =L_-" 1, CR 32 / U 30 ' 31 3 , -c ® ---1 3)5 - _°S-3-6 l 4 e. � �38 � ~ 4O, cc� 4110 / ,T CR 28 1? ' CI in;- .-)m CR 28 1 45 ( ICR 28 42 43 z5 15 I -' aD 1 CR26 - ! ' a. ) % C ,., LEGEND TAZ Boundaries I—I = Grade Separation Bridge .-. XX = TAZ Numbers law = Interchange and Grade Separation Bridge 17 's, Figure 6 Traffic Analysis Zones North ^ Mead Transportation Plan-Phase 1105-058 10/10/05 Page 10 p .. • . Transportation Plan 2030 Forecasts Many development proposals within the planning area have been presented in recent years. Figure 7 shows the existing developments in the planning area as well as the planned '-• developments which have been presented to the Town of Mead, Weld County, or the City of Longmont. For the purpose of this Transportation Plan, it has been assumed that all planned „a, development shown on Figure 7 will be developed by 2030. These planned developments were used to estimate the land use projections for 2030, as reflected in Table 1. Any development above and beyond the current proposed development is included only in the buildout forecasts. The household and employment projections in Table 1 correspond to the Traffic Analysis Zones shown on Figure 6. By 2030, over 19,100 households are projected in the planning area, which corresponds to a population of approximately 60,300. An estimated 18,000 jobs are projected in r. the Mead planning area by 2030. Table 1. 2030 Land Use Forecasts TAZ Households Retail Service Production Total Employment Employment Employment Employment 1 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 693 418 836 279 1,533 4 0 0 0 87 87 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 ,. 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 29 0 0 0 0 9 0 - 0 0 0 0 .-• 10 354 209 418 139 767 ,� 11 0 26 52 17 96 12 0 0 0 0 0 '.. 13 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 16 337 0 0 0 0 17 169 100 100 0 200 ,., 18 249 0 0 0 0 19 364 94 188 63 345 20 0 0 20 0 20 ^ 21 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 25 452 0 0 0 0 .. 26 103 0 0 0 0 ... .. p FELSBURG rd HOLT & ,... ULLEVIG Page 11 . ,. • , i Transportation Plan TAZ Households Retail Service Production Total Employment Employment Employment Employment ,. 27 107 0 0 0 0 28 29 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 .. 30 0 0 0 0 0 r. 31 0 0 0 0 0 32 333 348 0 0 348 0. 33 49 800 1,600 533 2,932 ^ 34 2,400 0 0 1,568 1,568 ^ 35 1,800 0 0 0 0 36 66 0 0 0 0 ^ 37 1,320 89 178 59 326 ,.. 38 600 202 125 42 369 ^ 39 1,342 596 1,192 397 2,185 40 950 1,359 2,718 1,603 5,680 ^ 41 1,800 0 0 0 0 .. 42 523 0 0 0 0 43 1,655 0 110 0 110 a 44 3,423 397 795 265 1,457 ^ 45 0 0 0 0 0 +. TOTAL 19,147 4,639 8,332 5,053 18,024 a a' a' r. .. a' r, .. .. .. v. a" r. .. 0.,, pei FELSBURG .., CHOLT & ULLEVIG Page 12 ^ ms ^ plFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG ,0.• fa. CR 40 1 -' \ / CR 40 h. 2 r. _ U a Q )gym a U\ co O•011 r^ U ) o \ ^ "" (J CR 38 LL CR 38 e la ^ U i 1 \ / �•' '' CI U ^ CR 36 ^` it U •-_` CR 36 ^ CR,34 3/4 '•`J O ^ CR34 ❑, ( - J CR34 U \^ ^ U / / •QR 32 ~--L. CR 32 ^ 66 �Q, 66 _ ^ m3� U �` f- U UCC 0 o „ � (/CR 28 �'•J +�- CR 28 ( CR 28 l \,..4. "t___—°--.QC) CR26 � U1 Ark ^ LEGEND Existing Land Use 2030 Land Use Buildout Land Use ••"` = Planned/Underway = Existing Mead Development Mead Development = Future Development ''�' (per Mead Comprehensive Plan) Existing Weld County = Planned Weld County Development Development #0... = Planned Longmont Development Figure 7 7\ Existing and Planned Development n North ^ Meatl Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-o5e 8/5/06 Page 13 -, ad Transportation Plan r- Buildout Forecasts The planning area for this Transportation Plan includes a significant area that is outside the current Town boundaries and may remain in the County. These areas will generate traffic that '^ may use Mead's streets and are therefore included in the analyses. Because no specific development plans are available for the remaining land in the planning area, the land uses and densities identified in the Town of Mead Land Use Plan from the Comprehensive Plan (as shown on Figure 8) have been used to estimate the level of households and employment at ^ buildout of the planning area. These land use forecasts are shown in Table 2. The buildout land use projections represent a significant increase over the 2030 projections, with approximately 46,900 households and 54,600 jobs in the planning area. Using the current household population of 3.15, this equates to a buildout population of nearly 148,000. This is greater than •— the 100,000 population included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mead should work with Weld County to monitor the densities of proposed developments to ensure that adequate facilities are provided. r. ,. Table 2. Buildout Land Use Forecasts a TAZ Households Retail Service Production Total Employment Employment Employment Employment 1 256 0 0 0 0 2 480 0 0 0 0 .� 3 973 836 1,673 558 3,067 r, 4 2,640 836 1,673 645 3,154 ,-. 5 128 0 0 0 0 6 112 0 0 0 0 7 128 0 0 0 0 8 253 0 0 0 0 9 480 0 0 0 0 ^ 10 354 209 418 139 767 ^ 11 3,096 1,202 2,405 802 4,408 r- 12 390 0 0 0 0 13 128 0 0 0 0 14 128 0 0 0 0 ^ 15 1,005 52 105 35 192 16 1,111 0 0 0 0 17 169 100 100 0 200 18 488 0 209 0 209 19 364 580 1,160 387 2,127 ,,. 20 1,815 716 1,452 477 2,646 21 992 0 0 0 0 a 22 493 0 0 0 0 23 128 0 0 0 0 24 256 0 0 0 0 .. pmFELSBURG ^ ' HOLT & r., C ULLEVIG Page 14 r-, ead Transportation Plan a TAZ Households Retail Service Production Total Employment Employment Employment Employment 25 572 0 0 0 0 26 103 0 0 0 0 27 827 476 951 317 1,744 .• 28 2,525 1,673 3,345 1,115 6,133 .. 29 1,144 0 0 0 0 30 176 2,091 4,182 1,394 7,667 31 180 418 836 279 1,533 .. 32 333 348 0 0 348 33 232 800 1,600 533 2,932 0,-. 34 2,400 0 0 2,788 2,788 35 2,240 418 836 279 1,533 36 914 0 0 0 0 37 5,237 89 178 59 326 38 2,003 202 125 42 369 39 1,342 596 1,192 397 2,185 .. 40 950 1,359 2,718 1,603 5,680 41 1,800 0 0 0 0 ... 42 1,643 0 0 0 0 43 1,655 0 110 0 110 ,.. 44 3,423 397 795 265 1,457 45 840 836 1,673 558 3,067 TOTAL 46,904 14,236 27,736 12,671 54,642 0. Table 3 provides a summary of the existing, 2030 and buildout population and employment forecasts in the study area. The Mead and Weld County development totals correspond to the developments shown on Figure 7. The column label "Remainder of Study Area" represents those areas for which there have not been any proposed developments to date. As described previously, the Mead Comprehensive Plan was used to estimate the future land use in these areas; however, at this time, it is unknown whether development in these areas will occur within the Town of Mead or in Weld County. Table 3. Land Use Summary Weld County Mead Development Remainder of Study Area Total Development Year Population Employees Population Employees Population Employees Population Employees , , 2005 2,781 513 107 0 0 0 2,888 513 i. 2030 14,462 14,388 45,851 3,636 0 0 60,313 18,024 ^ Buildout 14,462 14,388 45,851 3,636 87,434 147,747 147,747 54,642 4- Aek Ill FELSBURG r'd HOLT L T & •,, \ ULLEVIG Page 15 ... PFELSBURG H O I & ULLFVIG . .,.,. .....: fir,. _. __r I. is1 . s p 4 , ® a . S '- ► . k I has a , a _ � t - -- ,,,...„,...., _,4 -. _.... �Ja;emin....... - ''n4- t : ' a . � IT ie 'NO _ 4•1 4 44 ab 44IF j0 . ehIi �l: a. IF; :."- Y I ! ` _ r. 1,1 Wi; VA �I t Fi1` �i ' __ j � „ Figure 8 FN Mead Land Use Plan North Mead r2 nsporlaiior plan phase II 05-058 1 113'05 Page 16 ad Transportation Plan 3.2 2030 Traffic Forecasts on Base Network Once the land use forecasts were developed for each of the TAZs in the Mead planning area, the NFR computer model was used to forecast 2030 traffic volumes. The 2030 traffic volumes generated by the land use forecasts described previously were first applied to the base roadway network. The base network includes the regional improvements associated with the NFR 2030 Fiscally Constrained Plan. Within the Mead planning area, this includes the widening of 1-25 to six lanes. The existing roadway network was used for the remaining streets within the planning area; all section line roads were assumed to be paved. The resulting 2030 traffic forecasts are shown on Figure 9. 3.3 Identification of Deficiencies, Constraints and Alternatives Roadway Network Deficiencies The purpose of modeling the future land use on the base network is to identify future deficiencies in the existing roadway network. Table 4 provides design and maximum planning level capacities in vehicles per day (vpd)for various roadway types and laneages. The design standard capacities generally conform to level of service D, which is typically the design goal for urban areas. The maximum capacity corresponds to the breakpoint between level of service E and F where roadway failure and resulting congestion can be expected a significant amount of the time. Table 4. Planning Level Roadway Capacities Functional Number of Design Standard Maximum Classification Lanes Capacity Freeway 4-Lane 60,000 vpd 80,000 vpd 6-Lane 95,000 vpd 120,000 vpd 2-Lane 13,000 vpd 16,000 vpd Major Arterial 4-Lane 26,000 vpd 32,000 vpd 6-Lane 39,000 vpd 48,000 vpd Minor Arterial 2-Lane 10,000 vpd 12,000 vpd ,. 4-Lane 20,000 vpd 24,000 vpd Collector 2-Lane 8,000 vpd 10,000 vpd 4-Lane 16,000 vpd 20,000 vpd FELSBURG CHOLT LT & ULLEVIG Page 17 i^ FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG n CR40 1 - • 3,400 C • 0 : (N? Nr. Il W� O7 _,-�0, N ; U^ 4,60 CR 38 6,800 . •.� 8 Si- - Il8 QN _ __• .+ Ih • N / G� • -rCR36 �OO ^1 1,300 ^ 200 CR,34 3/4 '-`J Jco 0 : ^ N p ,,2OOFF"��Fi O ,�., CR 34 ❑ "13,908 6,100, f-6/,20_1_ 7,200 r .. �, o \ o boo ;1V ¢ c R U N N G I ^ j r r 0 1p__ '��R 32 -i -7 ^ a, - 40\Q 2,4 06i ,. _0 ] 114 500 18,000 9,00.0 16 32,100 29900 0 l`J i 4,,,OO T 22,600 �- O ^ N R CD I� U N �_ •� ^ O •O U a 3 N U ,O U �� r) in ^ ct) 12O r M .. CR28 0 � � 10,300 CR28 T L ( CR28 ) 5,000 5,4100 14,100 /' I 5,400 �' cc co no o � - � o ^ ^ / 500 1,700\• Qr aD ' 100 CR26 i�' 7 ^ � � 1,200 LEGEND XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume , , Figure 9 2030 Traffic Forecasts on Base Network .. North n Mead Transportation Plan-Phase 11 05-058 06/01/06 Page 18 P1 .. ,read Transportation Plan wa.grr.• r•-• One measure that is used to define operational characteristics is volume to capacity ratio (v/c). This analysis compares the capacity of the street as it is designed and constructed to the volume of traffic it carries, or is projected to carry in the future. The planning level daily capacity thresholds shown in Table 4 are the basis for the v/c ratios developed in this transportation plan. Roads with lower functional classifications and fewer lanes would be expected to accommodate fewer vehicles per day, while roads with higher functional classifications would be expected to accommodate more vehicles. Because a hierarchy of roadway functional classifications does not currently exist for the Mead roadway system, the Minor Arterial maximum capacity was used for all county roads and the Major Arterial maximum capacity was used for SH 66. These capacities assume that all county roads would be paved by 2030. The v/c ratios calculated for streets within the planning area are graphically depicted on Figure 10. These ratios have been calculated using the forecasted daily traffic volumes shown on Figure 9 and the maximum roadway capacities provided in Table 4. The red segments represent roadways which are projected to carry traffic volumes in excess of the planning-level roadway (v/c >1.0), representing level of service (LOS) F. The yellow segments represent roadways that are projected to operate at near capacity conditions (v/c between 0.8 and 1.0), generally corresponding to LOS E. The green segments represent roadways which operate below capacity (v/c < 0.8), representing LOS D or better. The v/c ratios shown on Figure 10 indicate that several roadways in the planning area are projected to carry volumes exceeding their capacity in 2030 if no improvements (other than paving) were made. Sections of WCR 1, WCR 7, WCR 11, WCR 28, WCR 34 and most of SH 66 through the planning area are projected to operate at above capacity conditions. These roadway deficiencies help to identify potential roadway improvements. e., Potential Roadway Constraints A field survey was conducted of the roads in Mead which may require substantial improvements in the future. It is apparent that existing development and topography could present constraints which will affect new roadway alignments and widening of existing roads. These locations are identified on Figure 11 and are described below. ► WCR 5/WCR 36: County Roads 5 and 36 are not aligned on the mile grid in the vicinity of their intersection because of Highland Lake. The current alignment of the two county roads creates the need for low speed sections, which is atypical of an arterial roadway. In the future, there should be larger radius curves around the lake to improve safety for motorists not expecting to make abrupt turns. Recognizing, however, that this is an area with historical structures and associations, modifications to the current alignment may "' not be feasible. ^ (� FELSRURG HOLT & ,., ULLEVIG Page 19 FELSBURG HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG CR 40 • N ^ p CR 8 / V , CR 36 I • i i ^ 1 CR 34_ f1', ' - rJ ..... 2 . , , �,QR 32 �T op ,, 66 d re ' L -aill CR 28 i LEGEND ^ = v/c >1.0 (Over Capacity) = 0.8 < v/c < 1.0 (Near Capacity) ,� Figure 10 ,� = v/c < 0.8 (Below Capacity) 2030 Land Use on Base Network .. Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratios ^ North T Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 6/5/06 Page 20 ...... a pi FELSBURG FIOLT & ^ ULLEVIG n CR 40 - /� - - CR 40 S a) C) ) � a CC _/ q U m ^ U U L CR 38 -- O CR 38 a _r ,,� ( - _ -L.I { •- J , _ G t5 a''m C' cc \ cr ^ CR36 •'5 ,, \ I m I �\ U '�� CR36 C1 3,34 , � 3 N a h ` o � ,' I Cc U a CR_34_,.„\ ❑ :.I CR34 ^ ' V a / C ^ m \ m __ _ a LR J . _1,3ztJ (5� t 1 a '' I 66 i 66 0 CR 28 CR 28 25 O O/� )it� - L.; �i ^ / I 4� CR 26 -� • .•• LEGEND > ---9' I = Interchange ^ R = Railroad ^ D = Existing Development ^ G = Geometry ^ Figure 11 0 Potential Constraints ^ North ^ Mead Transportation Plan•Phase II 05-058 05/31/06 Page 21 ad Transportation Plan ► 1-25 Frontage Road/WCR 34:The Frontage Road on the east side of 1-25 intersects WCR 34 in close proximity to the ramp terminal intersection. With the planned growth surrounding the WCR 34 interchange, inadequate spacing between the intersections may cause excessive delay and queuing problems. Because CDOT has control of 011 access near interchanges, Mead should coordinate new development in the vicinity of this interchange with CDOT so that future growth and traffic needs are included in the development plans. Similar to what is happening at the I-25/SH 66 interchange, the frontage road may, as an alternative, be eliminated. ► WCR 34 and WCR 7: Existing development is located on three of the four quadrants of ^ the WCR 34 and WCR 7 intersection. In order to accommodate additional turn lanes, signalization and potential future widening (along WCR 34), additional right of way requiring relocation or taking of adjacent structures may be necessary. ^ ► Railroad Crossings:Two potential at-grade railroad crossings have been identified within the planning area. Obtaining these crossings will require extensive coordination with the Great Western Railway and Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and justification for the crossings will be required. This effort may be aided by the low volumes of train traffic and the local service. n Improvement Alternatives Parallel Arterial Options Weld County's /-25 Parallel Arterial Study(Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, September 2003) established preferred alignments for parallel north-south arterials on both sides of 1-25, extending from WCR 2 to WCR 50. On the east side of 1-25, the study recommends an arterial generally along the WCR 9 1/2 alignment. The Town of Mead concurs with this recommended alignment; it has been included in the Roadway Plan. The /-25 Parallel Arterial Study recommends an alignment on the west side of 1-25 that makes use of WCR 7 to the north and south of Mead, with a bypass approximately at WCR 5 '/2 between WCR 28 and WCR 40. Because the Town of Mead does not support this alignment, an analysis has been conducted to look at alternative alignments of the western parallel arterial through the Mead planning area. One of the primary concerns for Mead is to ensure that the western arterial provides relief to WCR 7 through the downtown area. Four alternative /ON alignments have been tested using the North Front Range travel demand model to understand how much relief they might provide to WCR 7 in the future. The four alternatives are shown on Figure 12, and they include WCR 1, WCR 3, WCR 5 and WCR 5 '/2 (as recommended in the 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study). Table 5 shows the approximate reduction of traffic on WCR 7 through the downtown area for each of the four parallel arterial alignments. These reductions are based on the 2030 land use forecasts and the base case roadway network with the addition of the western arterial. pmFELSBURG r' HOLT & ■ ULLEVIG Page 22 i+. ,.... ..'"^ pi FELSBURG HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG ^ 'P., CR 40 1 • ." 1, r. I -6 r _ , #••••• CR e , _f / o / r„�I� t f • v CR•343/4 ``J Q• •.. .+ U �j • R 32 - v ' J 011 ^ „� Ca I 66 66 O O ^ - CR 28 C`9 J'- J CR 28 �"� CR 28 /- , Z' /'o ••••••• \ l CR26 . — ' 2 c .. 0.1 ''N Figure 12 /1 FIN Western Parallel Arterial Options ., North Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 6/5/06 Page 23 asead Transportation Plan Table 5. Western Parallel Arterial Modeling Results Alignment Percent Reduction in Traffic on WCR 7 in 2030 WCR 1 3% WCR 3 7% WCR 5 32% WCR 5 '% 47% As the table shows, the WCR 5 and WCR 5 '/2 alignments would provide the greatest level of relief to WCR 7 through the downtown area. Because the WCR 3 and WCR 1 alignments would require significant out of direction travel, and because they are three and four miles away from 1-25, respectively, they would not provide the level of relief that is desired for either 1-25 or WCR 7. The WCR 5 and WCR 5 'A alignments were considered in more detail. The following is a description of the advantages associated with the two alignments: ► WCR 5 Alignment • Utilizes existing 60 foot right-of-way • Provides potential construction cost savings with existing paved road • Provides phasing opportunities with existing road • Increases distance from Eden's Reserve and North Creek subdivisions • Provides greater separation from schools on WCR 34 • Bisects fewer parcels • Provides enhanced support for commercial activity at WCR 5/WCR 34 intersection ► WCR 5 %Alignment • Requires less out of direction travel • Increases buffer from the historical Highlands Lake area • Results in minimal impacts to directly adjacent residences • Requires minimal traffic control to construct • Results in minimal impacts to existing utilities • Provides opportunity to plan/phase/construct with development After considering this information, the Town Board supports the western parallel arterial alignment along WCR 5. The preferred alignment is shown on Figure 13. There has been considerable controversy between Weld County, the St. Vrain State Park, and the surrounding communities regarding how the western parallel arterial will connect to SH 119 south of Mead. Since this issue has not been resolved at this time, the preferred alignment (Figure 13) shows that a crossing of the Great Western Railway would occur south of SH 66, but the connection to SH 119 is not depicted as part of Mead's position for the western arterial because that is outside of the Town's planning area. Osk . FELSBURG ' HOLT & �., ULLEVIG Page 24 p,i,'^ FELSBURG HOLT & "^ ULLEVIG 71 ri °'u F 9 C ii ,. . i 'a • r e .. �i. ,c- 491).• I. 1► �11 r J rv+� M 4 .. •• . a Jp 1i rte, .. 8I n� / �!< ' + s{' dpi .H9{ t tii ilih Ilia ,11- -•,, .— w' } o 1 q __- t dy+ __ l ASP 1_ g& . Figure 13 '. Western Parallel Arterial Preferred Alignment North /". Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 6/5/06 Page 25 4ead Transportation Plan New Interchange Options ^ In order to accommodate full buildout of the Mead area, it is anticipated that an additional full movement interchange along 1-25 may be needed. The new interchange could potentially be located at WCR 38 or WCR 40. Based on the 2030 traffic forecasts, the existing interchanges (SH 66 and WCR 34)will adequately serve the Mead area; however, right of way should be preserved at the WCR 38 and WCR 40 intersections with 1-25 so that development does not preclude the future construction of an interchange at one of these locations. A new interchange would primarily benefit the Town of Mead; however, because 1-25 is on the state highway system, a new interchange would require coordination with CDOT. At this time, the Town of Mead does not have a firm preference for the location of a future interchange, although Mead has required the developer of the Margil Farms Annexation to reserve adequate space for a potential interchange at WCR 38. Further study will be required to determine the most appropriate location and the feasibility of such an improvement. Such a study should be coordinated with Weld County and the Town of Berthoud, since WCR 40 is planned to be the boundary line between Mead and Berthoud. Paving Many of the county roads on the mile section lines in the planning area are currently unimproved. Improving such roads will involve paving and constructing curb and gutter, along with providing turn lanes, sidewalks and bikes lanes according to the typical cross-sections described in Section 4.3. Weld County considers unpaved roads with volumes greater than 300 vehicles per day (vpd)for their paving program. a New Roadway Links There are currently several missing links of the arterial street system on the mile section lines in '1 the Mead planning area. Completing these links would provide for continuity of arterial roadways throughout the planning area. The roadway link extensions are as follows: ► WCR 3 between WCR 32 and WCR 34 ► WCR 32 between WCR 1 and WCR 3 ► WCR 38 between WCR 1 and WCR 3 ► WCR 40 between WCR 3 and 1-25 a Roadway Widening As shown on Figure 10, there are several roadways in the planning area that are projected to operate at above capacity conditions if no improvements were made by 2030. The addition of the eastern and western 1-25 parallel arterials will relieve much of the congestion in the north- ,- south direction of travel. In the east-west direction, SH 66 through the planning area should be widened to four lanes to accommodate 2030 traffic forecasts. Mead should work with CDOT and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission to include this in the fiscally constrained plan. WCR 34 from 1-25 to the western arterial (WCR 5) should also be widened to four lanes by ^ 2030. Other roadway widening will be needed to accommodate the buildout traffic forecasts. As ^ described in Section 4.1, right of way should be preserved along these corridors so that widening to the ultimate section can be accommodated when necessitated by traffic volumes. pFELSBURG i. /d HOLT L T & .� \ ULLEVIG Page 26 a elk • , Transportation Plan 3.4 2030 Forecasts on Improved Network The next step of the modeling process was to analyze the 2030 land use on the improved future roadway network. The improved network includes completion of the eastern and western parallel arterials as described above, paving of all section line roads, completing the three missing links (WCR 3, WCR 32 and WCR 38), widening SH 66 through the planning area, and widening WCR 34 from 1-25 to the western arterial (WCR 5). The 2030 traffic forecasts on the improved network are shown on Figure 14. Based on the travel demand modeling results, the improved network should adequately accommodate the 2030 traffic volumes. There are a few locations at which a roadway segment is projected to operate at near capacity conditions (v/c between 0.8 and 1.0). These locations include: ► WCR 9 '/z between WCR 28 and SH 66 "m ► WCR 28 between WCR 7 and WCR 9 '/z ► WCR 38 between 1-25 and WCR 7 ► SH 66 between WCR 11 and WCR 13 Additionally, the section of SH 66 between WCR 7 and WCR 11 is projected to operate at above capacity conditions in 2030, even with four lanes, because of regional traffic. The remaining roadways in the planning area are projected to operate at below capacity conditions (v/c < 0.8). 3.5 Buildout Forecasts on Improved Network The buildout land use forecasts were developed in order to determine the ultimate cross-section of the roadways throughout the Mead planning area. The travel demand model was run with the buildout land use forecasts on the improved network, and the results are provided on Figure 15. With a buildout population in the range of 144,000, many additional roadway improvements will ^ be needed to accommodate this level of growth. A comparison of the 2030 (Figure 14) and buildout (Figure 15) traffic forecasts show significant increases in traffic throughout the planning area. n '0 As. ^ . FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 27 r. pi FELSBURG HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG - 1 C \ O CR40 I cr ^ • r.. .••••• 1600 1 u fts, r/O • • ^ ,4900_ 5500 (3 5400 11,100 . • 3 R � V ^ l CR 36 �00 ^^� '` 100 ...\ • Cc '^ 100 CR•343/4 '``J o �E - • • • I -.—_� —�— O N 00 a. 3700 �60 5200 ei 13,200 .-- lc o m o O $ o ^ O O y O � IN O n b O .0.... 3 40& 15 la I ^ COOO O 19 100 23 800 66 ,600 37,900 �0 40,500 35,700 M 66 1 c 25,300 ^ `, 70 CO roi / ( Ap Urn c0i o_O O1 To- ....-. oo CR28 O r .7200 CR28 O / j ( CR 28 ) -\4300 400 11,200 ] I./', o 3400 Q r ) o ^ o c O - o O O gpm� ' o °'- '''r O 1 roil; di /— _ /r1 ^ ( l 700 °' a� 100 o CR26 . � ^ I _ � 1,200 0,-, C j ^ LEGEND ^ Figure 14 XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume 2030 Traffic Forecasts on 0 Improved Network North ^ Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 6/5/08 Page 28 �• pi FELSBURG HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG 1 ''� O \ 0 r. ) m CR 40 / l - U 1- ..... 3000 7 4 (:) 0 0 cc co _• co co rn ^ U 2 o �^ - „9000- 9600 L) 9200 28,900 Immi n _ C _ r i ,yw m ct�y r— • •^ CR 36 Cr 1 100 \ a _ ^ 200344 • to ^ 0 5900 , . ,00 a 15,50 35,000 0 ' O i• o : LTC oo \,ic0 c �+ a ri O ^ � � _-� '�R 32 r U 15 0 5060 89 0,\ 0fp,0.1 _._..—. /i 0 0 in CM 29,500 37,135N 66 5,800 �51, 0 N 1t.1 50,100 46,200 01 i If 00NO lc 37,000 66 ^ cc O o ,.CC N ,'� , J H ,_ 10 f a o i. N: U M04C f-C O! U',b U Gp co co !+ _000 1.- `CR 28 10,800 CR 28 / f 1� ( CR 28 n 1,800 800 1700 ] [7., 00 9500 Q a _. . ,/ )1:- ...-. . o a �- - o a a✓' 0 / /- I� / "o a � - CR26 ' ^ 1500 p ^ LEGEND ^ XXXX = Daily Traffic Volume Figure 15 Buildout Traffic Forecasts on Improved Network North /� Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 6/5/06 Page 29 ,read Transportation Plan ^ 4. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 4. 1 Roadway Plan The character and viability of Mead will be dependent on the quality of the roadway system. Mead's Roadway Plan is shown on Figure 16 and illustrates the classification of each road. The Roadway Plan also provides the future laneage requirements for the county roads on the mile section lines with the planning area. Some of the roadways will clearly require widening to four lanes over the 25 year planning horizon, such as SH 66. Other county roads may not need widening until significant development is realized, which may be beyond the 25 year horizon. For these instances, right-of-way should be preserved for a future four lane section. On Figure 16, the first number shown indicates the number of lanes that will be needed in 2030. The second number indicates the number of lanes for which right-of-way should be preserved. The second number represents cross-section of the roadways that would be needed to accommodate buildout of the planning area. The right-of-way designated in the second number could also be for spot widening. For example, if a development were planned and a traffic impact analysis indicated that there was a need for a widened section with turn lanes, such a recommendation would take priority over the 2030 laneage recommendation for that particular section of roadway. Alternative approaches to phasing the construction of four lane arterials are ^ included in Section 5.2. The existing roadways in the planning area do not conform with Mead's street standards, as described in Section 4.3. The Town should work with developers to ensure that the arterial roadways adjacent to developments are improved to the Town's standard cross-section. There will likely be gaps in the roadway network where the development has not yet occurred; in these cases, the Town may need to participate in the funding to provide a continuous improved roadway. The existing 1-25 interchanges at WCR 34 and SH 66 are expected to sufficiently serve the Mead planning area through 2030. At buildout, an additional interchange along 1-25 at either WCR 38 or WCR 40 may be needed to accommodate the growth. Figure 16 shows both WCR 38 and WCR 40 as potential future interchange locations. As noted in Section 3.3, because a determination of the appropriate location for a future interchange has not been determined, right of way at both locations should be preserved so as to not preclude a future interchange. Both WCR 38 and WCR 40 are shown as future four lane roads. A new interchange would drive this need for widening in the future. fir pFELSBURU rd HOLT & �.• ULLEVIG Page 30 r•• .-. FELSBURG ' HOLT & r" ULLEVIG .. 1 .. ) \® CR 40 ^ 2l• ^ I A0044, N r� I 0 25 • .. U % ., ) z/a O G z/a V CR 36 \ \ y ip ® CR,34 3/4 '- •a �, \ mru 77+ CZ ... 4l. 66 ./. - /. 66 • . __ " en I. 24� -.. r 25 N N O 13 .. CR28 �' I CR28 L / CR28 2l4 ® _ .% " � i .r. / _ 4D CR26 i P1P U L&,GEND .. O = Alternative Future Interchange Location (Beyond 2030, Only One Location) ,"` = Freeway = Major Arterial Minor Arterial = Collector '^ = Local Road Figure 16 OM*4. VN 03 = 2030 Laneage/Buildout Laneage /\ Roadway Plan North /"^ Mead Transportation Plan•Phase II 05-058 6/5/06 Page 31 • . Transportation Plan 4.2 Functional Classification Within a roadway system, each road is classified by the relative functional levels of mobility and access assigned to it. The primary function of a roadway is to provide either a high level of mobility (where higher speeds occur and direct land access is restricted) or to provide a high level of accessibility (where speeds are lower and direct land access is emphasized). These two functions, mobility and access, are in conflict; the more access is allowed by a facility, the greater its capacity for mobility is reduced. Freeway, expressways and arterials have the highest levels of mobility but have the greatest restrictions on access. Collectors and local streets serve greater access needs but have reduced capacity for traffic movement. It should be noted that the primary determinants of functional classification are length of trip, average travel speed, frequency of access points, and continuity. Traffic volumes, while often higher on mobility facilities, do not by themselves determine roadway function. It is possible, and frequently the case, that accessibility roadways carry relatively high traffic volumes (e.g. access to major office parks, regional shopping centers, etc.) and require multiple traffic lanes to accommodate the demand. By the same token, a mobility facility, serving relatively long trips at higher speeds between low density land uses may require only two traffic lanes to accommodate the demand. To further clarify the distinction between the mobility and the accessibility function, the following descriptions of roadway types and Table 6 present general characteristics for various types of ^ roadway functions: ► Freeways- Freeways have the highest level of access control. Access is allowed only at ^ grade separated interchanges; no at-grade intersections are allowed. Interchanges are typically at one mile or greater spacing. Freeways allow the highest level of mobility, providing unimpeded, high speed, high volume regional and interstate connections. ► Expressways - Expressways have limited access, typically via at-grade intersections at one mile spacing. They are typically unsignalized but can be signalized or made into interchanges where high volumes on the crossroad require. Expressways provide high speed, unimpeded regional connections. r. ► Major Arterials - Major arterials should be limited access, typically via signalized or unsignalized, at-grade intersections at one half to one mile spacing. Major arterials provide relatively high speed, unimpeded, town-wide connections. There may be direct access where they pass by existing homes, but future development should provide internal street systems and limit or prohibit individual direct access to the arterial. ► Minor Arterials - Minor arterials also have limited access, but may provide direct access to properties if no other reasonable form of access exists. Intersections are at-grade and Ask may be signalized. Minor arterials provide relatively unimpeded connections within the community and distribute traffic to higher classification roadways. ^ ^ rN FELSBURG BOLT & ^ ULLEVIG Page 32 .01 .- • . Transportation Plan fiN ► Collectors - Collectors may provide direct access to abutting properties, but this is not '• encouraged in residential areas. Intersections are at-grade and typically have some form of traffic control (stop signs). They provide connections between local streets and arterials and usually retain continuity through neighborhoods. Collector streets are typically identified through development plans and thus are not specifically identified in ^ the Roadway Plan. ^ ► Local Streets - Local streets serve the highest level of access, providing direct driveway access to adjacent properties and carrying traffic to the collectors. Local streets can be of limited continuity and may be designed to discourage through traffic. Table 6. Functional Classification Criteria and Design Characteristics Functional Priority Freeways and Arterials Collectors Locals Characteristics Expressways Mobility Primary Accessibility Accessibility Primary Mobility Accessibility Mobility Only Secondary Secondary Only Traffic movement, Traffic movement, More frequent land Direct land access, '" Service Performed highest speed, no relatively high access, relatively lowest speeds direct land use speed, minimal low speeds ^ land access ,•-• Interstate and Within major Within Within Typical Trip between major regions of metro communities neighborhoods ^ Lengths regions of metro area and between and business , area communities centers Totally Interconnected Interconnected No continuity ^ interconnected and continuous and continuous required Continuity and continuous within major within communities over an entire regions of metro ^ metro area area Interchanges at 1 At-grade Signalized and Stop sign to 1 1/2 mile signalized stop controlled controlled or ^ Access Type and spacing and at- intersections at'A intersections at 1/8 uncontrolled .- Spacing grade signalized mile spacing CA on mile spacing. intersections. intersections at'A minor arterials). Some restrictions Unrestricted , to 1 mile spacing. Private access on private access private access. No .rivate access usuall restricted Facility Spacing .- Urban 1 to 3 Miles 1 Mile %to ''/z Mile As needed Rural 5+ Miles 1 to 2 Miles 1+ Mile As needed '1 °A) System Mileage 5-10% 5-20% 5-10% 65-80% ^ %Vehicle Miles of 40-55% 20-35% 5-10% 15-30% Travel Carried ^ IIFELSBURG ' HOLT & ,., ULLEVIG Page 33 s Transportation Plan 4.3 Street Standards - The Town of Mead has established typical street standards for arterial, collector and local streets, as shown on Figures 17 and 18. Both the two and four lane arterial sections can be accommodated in a 100 foot right-of-way. The arterial cross sections include 12 foot travel lanes and an 18 foot raised median. On-street bicycle lanes and detached sidewalks are included in both the two and four lane arterial sections. The collector and local street sections include 11 foot travel lanes with detached sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes and/or on-street parking. ^ Each of the arterial, collector and local street cross-sections include curb and gutter. The sidewalks and bike lanes will help to ultimately provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the planning area. Mead's standards also include two rural cross-sections, as shown on Figure 19. 4.4 Access Control Policies In order to preserve the functional integrity, safety, and capacity of roadways in Mead, it is necessary to establish general access control policy guidelines as part of the Transportation Plan. As previously mentioned, each classification of roadway represents a compromise between the level of mobility (use by through traffic) and access. Access management ^ minimizes interruptions to traffic flow on major roadways while providing appropriate levels of access for adjacent existing and future development. A proliferation of driveways and residential street intersections decreases the speed and capacity of major roadways while increasing ^ hazards to motorists. The purpose of these policy guidelines is to encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the provision of direct access to the roadways with lower functional classifications — primarily the local network, and to a limited degree, the minor arterial network. For freeways and arterials, the priority function is mobility, which means that the access to these ^ roads (either interchanges or at-grade signalized intersections) should be limited. Table 7 summarizes the recommended access control policy guidelines for Mead in the future. Mead should supplement these basic access control guidelines with a formal review and approval process and based on preparation of a traffic impact study for each development by a qualified traffic engineer. This formal process should give Mead staff the ability to control access along the Town's arterials through a permitting process. Developers will be required to coordinate their access with that of nearby properties so that capacity and safety are maximized while still accommodating growth. .r+ I— A. 1-. i+ CFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 34 .r. a ^ N- 0 La M ^ re*.` -` � a) O V! mO ca a, a r, i 111 � N a — o b aS S Ct t b I ., a Q ^ ._1 A,.... ! 47---- d b I— /. C CI Cr C15 b b 2 rl N$ t r, r2 r. S ._+ Y LL g 3 LL a 32 ; 0 a d J II'r J a d ' N LL W !di Co co to i W In n To 'fi— I- °� O Qp a +4 Q c CC a y b c b C °CO _ c r .. J N C v 3 Jas O I LL l e 0 a '< �— co a ai a I " .�• ; 6; 3i o 9 a— I -- a— ----- /.. a a a d ; a ^ I C.) � C ^ 0 E-•c21 ill a i ill :rg ti aw .a pa a ` /+ wS0 ____ _ c r. l<a 0 ✓..• ^ piFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG ^ R.O.W. RAW. Aatl I ate r mtl ARv to' 11.0' u.0' n.o' 7.0' PARR 9tl ,.. w , WAY Pm ammo LANE WANING LANE DIVING LANE PED WAY O. s. .. ,.. I Major Residential Collector/ Business Collector (80' ROW - 50' FL to FL) .. n a. ,.. R.O.W. R.O.W. ••••• xtl I 34.0' .. atl -�ARr Y.tl tt.tl 11.0' 7.0' PARK atl - ^ WAY WALK • P WNW LANE Om o LANE PIARIIk WAY WALK . - .. I_oak Minor Residential Collector (68' ROW - 36' FL to FL) .. .. R.O.W. R.O.W. PIN ARIL� P�t 11A' DRIVING LANE PED ! P -sm- ' WALK WAY PARIL OMW LANE PNO ARIf WAY WALK .. ^ Local Residential Street .. (54' ROW - 36' FL to FL) Figure 18 101 7\1 Typical Collector and Local Cross Sections ^ North ^ Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 7/20/05 Page 36 p,lFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG r^� /^ R.O.W. R.O.W. �► I 30.0' c. 300'• .0' 12.0' 12.0' ^ DRIVING LANE DRIVING LANE h Typical Rural Road I (60' ROW - 24' Paved Surface - with Roadside Ditches) ON R.O.W. R.O.W. I I 30.0' 40 0' • ^ 0 12.0' 12.0' ^ DRIVING LANE TURNING LANE DRIVING LANE .0 Typical Rural Road with Turning Lane (70' ROW - 38' Paved Surface - with Roadside Ditches) Figure 19 Typical Rural Cross Sections LON North /"• Mead Transportation Plan-Phase II 05-058 06/08/06 Page 37 • . t Transportation Plan Table 7. Access Control Policy Guidelines Functional Access Type Access Spacing Traffic Controls Classification Freeways Grade-Separated Freeway-to-Freeway Free Flow Interchanges Only 1 1/2 Miles Minimum Merge/Diverge Freeway-to-Arterial 1 Mile Minimum Regional Arterials Grade-Separated 1 Mile Minimum Signals at Ramp Interchanges Terminals ^ At-Grade Intersections % Mile Minimum Signals 1 Mile Preferred Principal Arterials At-Grade Intersections 'A Mile Minimum Signals Minor Arterials At-Grade Intersections 1%Mile Minimum Signal—Typical Stop Signs in Special Circumstances Collectors At-Grade Intersections 1/8 Mile Typical Stop Signs—Typical Signals in Special ionk Circumstances Locals At-Grade Intersections Variable Stop Signs 0-4 The purpose of access control is to limit the number of driveways and conflict points, separate conflict points, and separate turning traffic from through traffic. No more than two access points on adjacent streets should be allowed per property, and access should be to collector streets wherever possible. Techniques to limit the number of conflict points include decreasing the number of left turns, using right-in/right-out, restricting movements at median openings, implementation of spacing standards, corner clearance requirements, signal spacing guidelines, and requirements related to the separation of access points. 0.1 Turning and through traffic can be separated through the use of left and right turn lanes and two-way left turn lanes. Turning lanes should include adequate provision for acceleration or deceleration to minimize friction to through traffic from turning vehicles which are traveling at slower speeds. The State Highway Access Code provides guidance about requirements for turning lanes including the necessary volume warrants and associated geometrics. Mead should follow these guidelines until such time as Mead has the need to develop more specific local guidelines. Major arterials should be considered to be classified as non-rural arterials (NR-A) according to Access Code guidelines. Minor arterials would be considered to have an NR-B classification. FELSBURG Oak r' HOLT L T & ,•m \ ULLEV I Page 38 ,read Transportation Plan 5. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Implementation of Projects As traffic increases, there will be a need to construct curb and gutter on the existing major and minor arterial roadways in the Mead area. Portions of these roads will also need to be widened as traffic grows. Adjacent development should participate in this process by providing necessary improvements along their property. Mead should commission periodic studies which analyze funding mechanisms so that future growth will also help pay for required arterial roadway improvements throughout the community. Many communities in the North Front Range have implemented traffic impact fees. In addition, developments should be required to prepare traffic impact studies for their projects so that the requirements for internal roadways, impacts to the surrounding roadway system, and the impact fees that are appropriate for these improvements can be evaluated. The Town already has a transportation impact fee, so the study behind that fee should be periodically updated. State highways are the primary responsibility of CDOT, in coordination with the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region. The decision to improve these facilities will be based on state and region-wide funding consideration. Mead should monitor this process closely, but all of the money will come from federal and /or state sources. O.. The recommended transportation improvement projects in the Mead planning area have been identified through this planning process, and Table 8 divides the projects into near-term, mid- ^ term and long-term time periods based on the projected travel demand. Although funding sources for the projects will vary, opinions of probable costs for construction of each project are also presented in Table 8. These cost opinions include only items which are considered construction-related and are based on 2006 unit prices. No right-of-way costs have been included since these can be highly variable, depending on the current use and zoning of the adjacent property. The need for certain projects, such as the 1-25 parallel arterials and the paving of country roads, will probably be created by specific developments, and these developers should be held responsible for funding of such projects. Additionally, developers should be made responsible for improving the arterial roadway(s) adjacent to their development to the Town's standard cross sections. 111 FELSBURG rd HOLT & 00.1ULLEVIG Page 39 p &ead Transportation Plan Table 8. Transportation Improvement Projects & Opinion of Probable Costs Improvement Project Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Near Term Projects Intersection Improvements at WCR 7/WCR 34 $150,000 Subtotal $150,000 Mid Term Projects Signalize WCR 7/WCR 34 $200,000 Pave County Roads See Below Subtotal $200,000 Long Term Projects ^ Town Projects Railroad Crossing between WCR 32 and WCR 34 $230,000 Extend WCR 32 from WCR 1 to WCR 3 $3,600,000 Extend WCR 3 from WCR 32 to WCR 34 $3,600,000 Extend WCR 38 from WCR 1 to WCR 3 $3,600,000 Widen WCR 34 (1-25 to WCR 5)to four lanes $9,000,000 Subtotal $20,030,000 Regionally Oriented Projects Construct Eastern Parallel Arterial through planning area (2 miles) $7,200,000 Construct Western Parallel Arterial through planning area (5 miles) $18,000,000 Widen SH 66 to four lanes (WCR 1 to WCR 17) $36,000,000 Extend WCR 40 from WCR 3 to 1-25 $10,800,000 Subtotal $72,000,000 General Road Paving Pave County Roads (35 miles at$1.4M/mile)2 $49,000,000 Subtotal $49,000,000 GRAND TOTAL $141,380,000 Cost based on 2006 estimated unit costs. Costs do not include right-of-way, traffic signalization, landscaping or utilities. 2 Based on two lane rural cross section. 5.2 Roadway Widening Phasing Options When land is developed along a road that is planned as a future four-lane arterial, the developer ^ is generally required to construct a two-lane roadway as an interim phase toward the ultimate four-lane roadway section. The three different options for constructing the interim phase of a future two-lane road are listed below, along with a summary of the major advantages, disadvantages, and applicability of each. es- r-- ^ C FELSBURG rd & �. ULLEVIG Page 40 4 . .. • . • Transportation Plan ^ in Build Inside First Most applicable if interim road is expected to last a long time or ultimate four-lane need is uncertain. ^ Advantages Disadvantages ► Minimal transition with existing road ► May have major throwaway costs — most functional immediately (temporary outside curb and gutter, pavement over future median) ^ ► If sidewalks are constructed at ^ ultimate location, creates major landscape maintenance area between road and sidewalk ^ Build Outside First Most applicable if development is expected to necessitate the ultimate section in the relatively near term. Advantages Disadvantages '� ► Establishes sidewalks, landscaping, ► Creates wide median area to .. drainage, etc. maintain ^ ► Establishes driveway tie-in to ► Awkward turns across wide median ultimate roadway Build Half Street on Development Side Most applicable if development is expected to occur in a relatively orderly manner, or if funding such as impact fees is available to fill in the gaps. Advantages Disadvantages .. ► Developer can construct"finished" ► Major transition to half-section on side landscaping, sidewalk, etc. opposite side of street ► Straight-forward cost allocation for ► Sidewalks are discontinuous — no developers on opposite sides sidewalk on undeveloped side ► Establishes driveway tie-in to ^ ultimate roadway r^� .r FELSBURG 411 ' H O L T & ■ ULLEVIG Page 41 Stead Transportation Plan 5.3 Major Street Plan for the Comprehensive Plan This Transportation Plan will act as the "major street plan" contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. The major street plan encompasses roadways within a three-mile radius of the Town's corporate limits. However, the Transportation Plan and the major street plan encompass the entire Mead Area of Influence contained in the Comprehensive Plan, except the northeastern quadrant. In order for implementation of the major street plan to be most effective, it must be approved by the Weld County. If approved by the County, it would have extraterritorial effect only within the three-mile radius of the Town's corporate limits and not the entire Mead Area of Influence. If approved by the County, the major street plan would control only the major roadways being impacted, accessed, or improved by county (i.e. unincorporated) projects in the three-mile jurisdictional area. It would not control all street layouts within a county subdivision. r-1/4 .. ^ . FELSBURG (4 HOLT & �., ULLEVIG Page 42 ^ Asks , Transportation Plan 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this Transportation Plan is to ensure that the Town of Mead has a plan in place for development of an effective transportation system that is upgraded, as necessary, in anticipation of growth. Mead is expected to experience significant growth over the next 25 years and beyond. In 2030, it is forecasted that Mead area will have a population of approximately 60,300 with approximately 18,000 jobs. At build out of the planning area, the population could be as high as 148,000 with nearly 55,000 jobs. This Transportation Plan provides recommendations for transportation improvements that respond to the projections for growth. Mead's 2030 Roadway Plan includes intersection improvements, widening sections of roadways, constructing the 1-25 parallel arterials, paving of county roads, completing missing roadway links and railroad crossings. As identified in Table 8, some of these projects will be the responsibility of the Town (often times in conjunction with private developments), while others are more regional in nature and will require coordination with CDOT and/or surrounding jurisdictions. The near-term and mid-term portions of Table 8 include three specific projects ^ which total $580,000. The Town should begin to plan and budget for the completion of these projects as well as the paving of section-line roads, as appropriate. Many of the long-term projects will require considerable coordination with the surrounding jurisdictions; the Town should initiate this coordination to begin the planning process. The following list provides a summary of other actions the Town of Mead should consider taking to ensure that the needed transportation improvements are funded: ^ ► Periodically update the Town's traffic impact fee study to reflect growth trends, transportation improvement requirements, and construction costs. ► Require traffic impact studies from all proposed developments so that the requirements for internal roadways, impacts to the surrounding roadway system, and the impact fees that are appropriate for these improvements can be evaluated. Developers should be responsible for improving the arterials adjacent to their developments to Mead's standard cross sections. �„ ► Participate in the Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan process to ensure the consideration of Mead's vision for SH 66 and other regional roadways. ► Participate in the ongoing North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study (EIS) so that proper consideration is given to a BRT station in Package B that would better serve the Town of Mead (at WCR 34 or SH 66). The Town's input regarding interchange and mainline improvements along I-25 could be valuable and timely.fir •rte. FELSBURG rd HOLT & ,. ULLEVIG Page 43 H y: .1 x . 4A � J kJ- ,V:i ₹ _ y`� ..30.`"->. - CR 40 -/1 R — a t`, — Jf 8 CR 33 l� CR CR3o _ .. 4fCR3b � — i ` c m ( ", , tt CR 32 � cr 11■ i q R FrQ O Q n ;— JR 28 L- CR 22 CR 28 — n a CR 26 L I_ I- •il FELSBURG I- (4 HOLT & _ ULLEVIG 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 - Centennial,CO 80111 303.721.1440 303.721.0832 fax _ www.fhueng.com J— Hello