The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20022027.tiff CITY OF BRIGHTON 22 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE I BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80601 I (303) 655-2000 V July 19, 2002 J. A. "Suki" Tsukamoto Weld County Clerk &Recorder 1402 N. 17th Ave. P.O. Box 459 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Suki, Enclosed is the City of Brighton Transportation Master Plan, which the City of Brighton wishes to file with Weld County. Thanks, OlitAIL Karen Borkowski Brighton City Clerk CC: Margaret Brubaker, Attorney Robert Ray, Planner File C pyleg--4age- (l n 2002-2027 1 I CITY BRIGHTON TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Y . 1 4E • d 4 ql i5{{ t ,.j "a anti y.;_ 4 � i • • S t$ n 4 4 +3,• . 2.? • • 1 22 1 PREPARED FOR CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO 1 ; Turner Collie iBrai entnt 6ipnews.Rsnnen•Project s gJANUARY 2002 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Brighton, Colorado — prepared for — CITY OF BRIGHTON, COLORADO prepared by TURNER COLLIE & BRADEN INC. 999 Eighteenth Street, Ste 1500 — Denver, Colorado 80202 303/298-7117 January 2002 Dry cc - BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan CONTENTS — Paee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Purpose and Need 1-1 1.2 Planning Principle and Policies 1-1 1.3 Study Process 1-2 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1 2.1 Current Land Uses 2-1 2.2 Existing Roadway Network 2-1 2.3 Transit Service 2-3 3.0 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND FACILITIES 3-1 3.1 US 85 Access Control plan 3-1 3.2 Adams County Transportation Plan 3-3 3.3 E-470 3-3 3.4 Metro Vision 2020 3-3 3.5 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) 3-4 3.6 Bromley Lane Signal Study 3-5 4.0 2020 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN 4-1 4.1 Study Area 4-1 4.2 Transportation Modeling Process 4-1 4.3 2020"Base Case"Analysis 4-3 4.4 Recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan 4-4 4.5 Analysis of Proposed Transportation Network 4-6 4.5.1 Capacity and Level of Service 4-6 4.5.2 Air Quality 4-7 4.5.3 Traffic Noise 4-8 4.6 Functional Street Classifications 4-8 4.7 Downtown Parking and Circulation 4-9 i TumerColliejBraden Inc. ones BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5-1 5.1 Cost of Needed Improvements 5-1 5.2 Funding Sources 5-1 5.3 Near-Term Priority Projects 5-2 _ 5.4 Transportation Plan Monitoring and Updating Process 5-5 6.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION 6-1 6.1 Public Input: Trails 6-1 6.2 Existing Trails 6-1 6.3 Future Trails 6-2 6.4 Trail Specifications 6-3 6.5 Integration of Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities 6-4 7.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 7-1 7.1 North Metro Transportation Study 7-I 7.2 North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study 7-2 7.3 Bus Pullout Lanes 7-2 Appendices 1. Model Land Use Assumptions 2. City Adopted Roadway Cross-sections 3. Project Concept-Level Cost Estimates List of Figures 2-1 Existing Level of Service 4-1 Study Area and Traffic Analysis Zones 4-2 Base Case Transportation Plan 4-3 2020 Roadway Operations Forecasted with"Base Case"Transportation Plan 4-4 Proposed Major Thoroughfare Plan 4-5 Changes to "Base Case" with Proposed Major Thoroughfare Plan 4-6 2020 Roadway Operations Forecasted with Proposed Major Thoroughfare Plan 5-1 Near-Term Projects List of Tables 5-1 Near-Term Priority Projects 5-2 Fiscally Constrained Plan ii TumerCollieCBraden Inc AVM BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1987, the City of Brighton completed the Brighton Transportation Study to identify a street network plan to serve existing and proposed development within and adjacent to the City. Since 1987, the City has experienced rapid growth in population and is currently evaluating a number of large development proposals. To complement a recently adopted comprehensive plan, the City of Brighton initiated this transportation master plan update in late 2000. The purpose of this transportation master plan update is to develop a multi-modal transportation plan that reflects current city transportation requirements and anticipates future growth needs. Designed as a guide for city staff, developers and local citizens, the transportation master plan is designed to develop an updated major street network plan and integrate transportation plans developed by the City for other modes into a single document. The major task of this transportation master plan update was to develop an updated major thoroughfare plan for the City and the immediate surrounding area. The study area for developing an updated Major Thoroughfare Plan for the Brighton area is bounded by the following facilities: • Yosemite (on the west) • I-76 (on the east),including industrial developments immediately east of I-76 • Weld County Road 4(on the north) • 120'"(on the south) At the heart of the effort was the development of a computerized traffic model of 2020 peak hour traffic conditions in the City based on the latest Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) traffic model and land uses, supplemented with updated 2020 land use forecasts from the City of Brighton Planning Department as well as the Adams County Transportation Plan. The forecasted 2020 traffic volumes are based on anticipated growth and development of future planning areas as well as the potential transportation impact of development in adjacent cities and unincorporated area. Traffic forecasts from this model were used to develop the recommended proposed street network that defined this plan's Major Thoroughfare Plan. Working closely with City of Brighton planning staff, the DRCOG land uses for the model area were updated to reflect current development proposals and other anticipated developments. Some of the larger development plans that have been incorporated into the 2020 land use plan are: • Mountain View Estates I&II • The Preserve • Chapel Hill • Carma • Brighton East Farms • Todd Creek ES-1 TumerCollie j5radenInc. AN a BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • Pheasant Ridge • Platte River Ranch • Sugar Creek • Parkside • The Village • Bromley Park • Hishinuma • Palizzi • Case Farm • Indigo Trails • Diedrichs Farm • Davis • Prairie Center • Silver Peaks -Lochbuie The initial or "base case" roadway network that was analyzed was the current transportation plan from the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. The initial test network also included all of the ultimate US 85 access recommendations contained in the US 85 Access Control Plan, 1-76 to WCR 80. Based on the deficiencies noted in the "base case" analysis, an iterative analysis of required transportation network improvements needed to serve 2020 travel demands was performed. The resulting recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan and the forecast 2020 traffic demand on the proposed roadway network are shown on Figure 4-4 in the body of this report. The aggregate construction cost to implement the recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan is $418 million (year 2000 dollars, excludes collector streets). From the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a number of projects were selected as near-term priority projects. The list includes interchanges on US 85 that were classified as "Medium Priority" or "High Priority" in the US 85 Access Control Plan. Roadway projects selected for inclusion in the near-term priority plan included: • Roadways that are currently nearing capacity or are over capacity, or those expected to do so over the next 10 years. • Roadways needed to serve the fast-growing eastern portion of the City. • Roadways needed to serve E-470 once it is open. Existing plans for other transportation modes, including mass transit and bicycles/pedestrians, were assembled and integrated into this document. ES-2 TumerCollie@Braden Inc- AN CC BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Purpose and Need In 1987, the City of Brighton completed the Brighton Transportation Study to identify a street network plan to serve existing and proposed development within and adjacent to the City. Since 1987, the City has experienced rapid growth in population and is currently evaluating a number of large development proposals. To complement a recently adopted comprehensive plan, the City of Brighton initiated this transportation master plan update in late 2000. The purpose of this transportation master plan update is to develop a multi-modal transportation plan that reflects current city transportation requirements and anticipates future growth needs. Designed as a guide for city staff, developers and local citizens, the transportation master plan is designed to develop an updated major street network plan and integrate transportation plans developed by the City for other modes into a single document. 1.2 Planning Principle and Policies The Brighton Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies states the following principle that should guide the transportation planning process: Brighton's Transportation System Should Minimize Environmental and Quality of Life Disturbances and Maximize Efficiency and Multi-Model Opportunities (page 34). The Comprehensive Plan also defines the following transportation policies: 1. Minimize the impacts of traffic congestion on existing neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the efficiency of Brighton's road system. 3. Create mechanisms to fund the major road construction effort that will support and encourage growth. 4. Work at the State and regional level to obtain highway funds for critical projects. 5. Seek to decrease the number of automobile trips per person and per job in Brighton as the community grows. 6. Plan for a citywide multi-modal road system. 7. Plan for future transit opportunities. 8. Require that redevelopment of existing or design of new local road be designed in ways that support distinctive and pleasing neighborhoods. 9. Pursue improved signing at the edges of the City. The Comprehensive Plan recommended that City's Transportation Master Plan and Major Thoroughfare Plan be updated so as to provide the foundation for requests on the County Master Plan and the state transportation improvement plan. 1-1 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. Ptt pc BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 1.3 Study Process The major task of this transportation master plan update was to develop an updated major thoroughfare plan for the City and the immediate surrounding area. At the heart of the effort was the development of a computerized traffic model of 2020 peak hour traffic conditions in the City based on the latest Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) traffic model and land uses, supplemented with updated 2020 land use forecasts from the City of Brighton Planning Department as well as the Adams County Transportation Plan. The forecasted 2020 traffic volumes are based on anticipated growth and development of future planning areas as well as the potential transportation impact of development in adjacent cities and unincorporated area. Traffic forecasts from this model were used to develop the recommended proposed street network that defined this plan's Major Thoroughfare Plan. Construction cost estimates for identified improvements of the Major Thoroughfare Plan were then developed. Highest priority projects and their potential funding sources were identified for inclusion in a proposed 10-year capital improvement program. Existing plans for other transportation modes, including mass transit and bicycles/pedestrians, were assembled and integrated into this document. 1-2 TumerCollie5BradenInc. or'of BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan _ 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Current Land Uses The City of Brighton, the county seat of Adams County, Colorado, lies at the northerly edge of the Denver metro area. The City currently has a population of approximately 20,905 (2000 census). The City has been experiencing rapid growth, growing 47.2% from 1990 to 2000. This growth rate has been greater that the statewide growth rate (30.6%) and the six-county Denver Metro area growth rate (29.9%) for this same period. This growth in Brighton has taken place as agricultural land is being converted into housing and commercial uses. Much of the recent residential and commercial development is occurring east and south of the downtown area. This includes Bromley Park, a 2,600-acre housing and commercial development bounded east of 40th Avenue between Baseline Road, 144th Avenue, and I-76, as well as the Bromley Park Industrial area,the K-mart distribution center and the Adams County Justice Center on Bromley Lane just west of I-76. On the west, there is the Platte River Ranch residential development at the west end of Bromley Lane as well as intensification of commercial uses along US 85. Commercial development in the downtown area is concentrated along Bridge Street and Main Street. Bromley Lane is a fast growing commercial corridor including a Wal-Mart Center, King Soopers, and food, retail, and auto commercial uses concentrated at and near the Bromley/US 85 intersection. Significant residential development is also planned to the south of Bromley Lane. Brighton also has industrial and manufacturing uses along US 85 and Baseline Road. In addition, Brighton has a strong connection to agriculture as evidenced by large amount of farm land in and around the City. Sakata Farms at the intersection of Sable Boulevard and Bromley Lane is a widely recognizable part of the Brighton community. 2.2 Existing Roadway Network Major regional roadways serving Brighton include: • US 85. US 85 has served as the primary access to the City in the past and will continue to provide a large percentage of the City's regional access in the future. Although I-25 is the primary route for interstate traffic, US 85 provides connectivity to communities throughout northeast Colorado. US 85 carries a wide variety of traffic types including interstate commerce, agricultural traffic and intercity commuters. US 85 also provides for north-south access for traffic internal to Brighton. • Currently, US 85 is a four-lane expressway with signalized intersections at 104th, 112th, 124th, Bromley Lane, and Baseline Road (WCR 2). There are grade separated interchanges at I-76 and at Bridge Street(SH 7). Additionally, there are unsignalized intersections at 120th, 132nd, 136th, 144th, Denver Street, WCR 2.5, and WCR 4. The current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on US 85 is approximately 27,000 vehicles/day just north of the I-76 interchange and 20,000 vehicles/day north of Brighton. 2-1 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. AY OF - BRIGHTON V/ Transportation Master Plan • I-76. I-76 is a four-lane interstate highway connecting I-70 to the west with I-80 to the east. 1-76 also intersects I-25 just north of downtown Denver and US 85 just south of Brighton. Currently, there are interchanges on I-76 at US 85 (3/4 interchange), Sable Boulevard (SH 2), 136th, 144'", Bromley Lane, and Baseline Road. There are additional grade separated crossings of I-76 at 104th, Peoria Street, Buckley Road, _ Bridge Street, and WCR 4. Frontage roads are in place on both sides of I-76 between Baseline Road and Bromley Lane. The current ADT on I-76 is approximately 17,000 vehicles/day just north of US 85 and 11,000 vehicles/day north of Brighton. • Bridge Street(SH 7). Bridge Street provides Brighton with direct access to I-25 and the northern portion of Thornton as well as Broomfield and Boulder. Currently, Bridge Street is a two-lane roadway west of US 85 and east of 27th Avenue. Between US 85 and 27'h Avenue, Bridge Street is a four-lane facility. The current ADT on Bridge Street is approximately 14,500 vehicles/day just west of town and 24,000 vehicles/day east of US 85. • Weld County Road 2 (WCR 2). Weld County Road 2 (WCR 2), also know as Baseline Road due to its location directly on the 40th Parallel, is a two-lane east-west roadway extending to Highway 7 near I-25 on the west and to well east of I-76. WCR 2 has a signalized intersection with US 85 and an interchange with I-76. • Sable Boulevard/4`h Avenue (SH 2). Sable Boulevard becomes 4th Avenue north of Bromley Lane. This two lane roadway connects with SH 2 at I-76 where it continues to Commerce City. The current ADT on Sable Boulevard/4th Street is approximately 12,000 vehicles/day at I-76 and 9,000 vehicles/day at Bridge Street. • Brighton Road. Brighton Road is a two-lane roadway running roughly parallel to US 85 between Bromley Lane and 96'h Avenue. Brighton Road serves as an alternate to US 85 and as a frontage road providing access to businesses along US 85. • Main Street. Main Street is a two-lane facility commencing at Bromley Lane just east of US 85 and traveling north to Fort Lupton. There is a short segment of Main Street with four lanes just south of Jessup. Main Street is also a major commercial street with much of it through the downtown area with on-street parking. Internal to the City, Bridge Street and Bromley Lane are the major east-west thoroughfares. Bromley Lane is a four lane facility just east of US 85. East of Sable Boulevard, Bromley lane is a two-lane facility with a center left turn lane. Except for the facilities mentioned above, all other roadways in the City have two lanes with the exception of a segment of 27'h Avenue. Traffic engineers define the quality of traffic flow on a roadway or intersection congestion as "level of service (LOS)." Level of service considers such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined using letter designations, from A to F, with LOS "A" representing the best operating conditions and LOS "F' the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions. LOS "E" typically represents a roadway's capacity, with LOS "F" representative of stop-and-go conditions. 2-2 TumerCollie1BradenInc. air a BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan Figure 2-1 shows existing levels of service calculated at various locations in the Brighton area. These calculations are based on existing lane geometrics and US 85 traffic counts from the US —' 85 Access Control Plan. Traffic volumes on non-US 85 intersections are taken from the A.M. and P.M. existing peak hour traffic calibration models. As the figure shows, existing peak period levels of service are generally high within the city (LOS "C" or better), with the exception of the Bridge Street corridor near US 85 where recurring peak period congestion occurs. 2.3 Transit Service Transit service to and within Brighton is provided by the Regional Transportation District. Current fixed-route bus service includes: • Route 120. Currently, this weekday bus service operates on a one-hour headway commencing at the Adam County Justice Center on Bromley Lane, going north on Himalaya to Bridge Street, west to 4th Avenue, south to Bromley Lane and west to Brighton Road. From Brighton Road,the route continues to 120th Avenue and connects the Wagon Road park-and-ride lot in Westminster, the North Front Range Community College,and the Broomfield park-and-ride lot. • Route 145X. This route starts at the 42-space 1" and Strong RTD park-and-ride lot and goes to Denver International Airport(DIA) via 4th Avenue. On weekdays, there are six departures to DIA currently with service concentrated in the morning. From DIA to Brighton, there are five daily trips concentrated in the morning and evening hours. On weekends and holidays there are five trips per direction. • Route R. This weekday route connects Brighton with downtown Denver. The start of the Route is similar to Route 120. Four of the six southbound buses start at the Adam County Justice Center with the remaining two starting at East Gate. The route goes down Bridge Street to the 1" and Strong park-and-ride lot then continues south on US 85 to Denver. There are seven northbound buses with all but the earliest bus continuing to the Adam County Justice Center. In addition to the fixed route service described above, Brighton is also served by call-a-ride service operated by the RTD. 2-3 TumerCollie5BradenInc. 11 Z F—_ 8 d jz`Y�F z Inq _ N Uhl < a 822Ia ® m 18P5o LL 1 Mi:l \-- c County <I< Harvest Rd. <�i y u Au ,,,, Rd.37 s 8 Gun Club Gun Club Rd. Rd. — <I< g r <Im PkadRy Rd. I QI< \\ Y Y Himalaya St. [5.___ ~ County Rd.31 ® \ /TRd. Telluride St. v' r N R N W "' g County \ 8 Dtt,Ave/ < Bualdey Rd/ < SU Rd.29 Z ti I 6 tu 191n Ave O •< u li mW _ — Chambers (�) '' <g I Climbers Rd. K O up Ave. Rd. m / 0 '/S ur4 I�I !Sable Blvd. n LL , nh Ave. Z g ,am-. ,-\ WV Potomac St. <I< / Potomac S * I T _ sr. m P' u'5 I00 Tucson St III UP L. by Peoria st. by° �ir� Nome $£ t n AM < .., _ er �� f\ Havana • Yosemite St. I <I< ..-.. ; t Yosemite St. < 0 1 Quebec St. f siii 1 C 0 a t i 4-) q 7S troll C `du' to $9 S a LLILL s .PBsum3 o C a �LL ,.... `e/ ATYCF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 3.0 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND FACILITIES 3.1 US 85 Access Control Plan The Colorado Department of Transportation completed an Access Control Plan (ACP) for US 85 in December 1999. Included in the plan were a number of major changes to roadway access along US 85. Access changes that were recommended in the Access Control Plan were incorporated in the development of the 2020 model forecasts for this current Transportation Master Plan. • 12e Avenue — The four-legged intersection of US 85/120'h Avenue is currently unsignalized. It will be signalized when it is warranted for traffic or safety reasons (high priority). Adams County has been conducting studies (alignment, environmental, etc.) for a number of years to complete 120th Avenue across the South Platte River. The plan would include a diamond interchange at US 85 and a grade separation of the UPRR tracks to the east (high priority). A diamond interchange has been initially identified. • 124th Avenue — This is an existing signalized intersection. There will be no major change at this intersection until interchanges have been built at both 120th Avenue and E-470. It would not be a safe situation to have a signal midway between two interchanges. When the signal is removed, the intersection will be reconstructed to limit access to right-in/right-out only (RIRO) operation to maintain reasonable access to the business(s) on the east side of US 85 (medium priority). If these businesses close another access can be provided, the intersection should be closed (long-term priority). The 2020 traffic model assumes this access is closed. • E-470 — A new connection between E-470 and US 85 is proposed near the current intersection at Nome Street (high priority). A diamond interchange with Nome Street is proposed on US 85 with Nome Street providing the connection between E-470 and US 85. Loop ramps are proposed for the connection to the E-470 tollway which will cross US 85 just south of 132""Avenue. • 132"" Avenue — The four-legged intersection of US 85/132nd Avenue is currently unsignalized. The west leg will be closed when E-470 is constructed. The median "- will be closed to create a RIRO intersection when required to address safety or traffic volume problems. Ultimately, this intersection will be closed (long-term priority) when interchanges are built on both sides (E-470 to the south and either 136th or 144th ^ Avenue to the north). The 2020 traffic model developed for this transportation master plan assumes this access is closed. • 136th Avenue — This four-legged intersection is currently unsignalized. It will be signalized when it is warranted for traffic or safety reasons (medium priority). Ultimately, a diamond configuration has been envisioned(long-term priority). 3-1 TumerColliejBraden Inc ATM BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • 144t Avenue — This four-legged intersection is currently unsignalized. The intersection will be converted to a N configuration (medium priority) in the future to address safety or traffic volume problems. Ultimately, a diamond configuration has been envisioned(long-term priority). • Bromley Lane — This is an existing signalized intersection. Because of operational problems (traffic congestion and safety), an interchange is planned for this location (high priority). A single-point urban interchange (SPUI) configuration is shown in the ACP to minimize the acquisition of commercial property in the project vicinity. The ACP also shows the relocation of several streets in the area. These include the relocation of Brighton Road to align with Platte River Boulevard and of Main Street east, closer to the UPRR tracks. The ACP determined that a grade-separation of the UPRR tracks can only be achieved if the businesses between US 85 and the tracks on both sides of Bromley Lane are displaced. • SH 7 — This existing diamond interchange at US 85/SH 7 currently has operational problems because the ramp intersections and frontage road intersections are too closely spaced. The ramp intersections need to be signalized, but this cannot be accomplished until the existing frontage roads are closed and alternative connections made farther away from the interchange (medium priority). The ACP illustrates using Miller Avenue (via Egbert Circle and Walnut Street) for the west frontage road and Strong Street and First Avenue for access to the east frontage road. • Denver Street—This four-legged intersection is currently unsignalized. The median will be closed to create a RIRO intersection (high priority). When this modification is made, adequate turning radii for large trucks should be included at the intersection of Denver Street and the east frontage road. There are several businesses on the east side that rely heavily on large trucks for the operations. Other improvements at local intersection may be necessary to accommodate these trucks. Ultimately, this intersection will be closed after the frontage road improvements have been made at the SH 7 interchange and implementation of the interchange at CR 2 is imminent (medium priority). The 2020 traffic model developed for this transportation master plan assumes this access is closed. • WCR 2 (168th Avenue, Baseline Road)—A new interchange is planned at this location for the future (medium priority) replacing the existing signalized intersection. A single-point urban interchange (SPUD is envisioned in order to minimize the taking of residences and business property in the vicinity. • WCR 4—The tee intersection of US 85/CR 4 is unsignalized. Properties on the west side of US 85 have access at the intersection. As soon as possible, this intersection should be modified to a N access (high priority). Ultimately, this intersection will be closed when interchanges are built at CR 2 on the south and either CR 6 or CR 8 to the north (long-term priority). The 2020 traffic model developed for this transportation master plan assumes this access is closed. 3-2 TumerCollie&Braden Inc. — ArfCF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 3.2 Adams County Transportation Plan The Adams County Transportation Plan (April 1996) identified US 85, E-470 and 120th Avenue as Transit Preservation corridors. Because of the level of existing development along 120th Avenue, transit service will probably be provided by enhanced on-street bus service. The 2020 plan designates E-470 and I-76 as four-lane freeways and US 85 as a six-lane expressway. These classifications have been assumed in the 2020 traffic model developed for this transportation master plan. — Bridge Street west of US 85, Bromley Lane, 27th/Buckley, 4'h Street/Sable, and 120th west of E-470 are all classified as four lane Principal Arterials. Bridge Street west of US 85 and 120th east of E-470 are classified as two lane Principal Arterials. 144th and 136th are classified as two-lane Minor Arterials. 3.3 E-470 The E-470 Beltway is a 47 mile long,four-lane roadway that extends from I-25 at C-470 south of the Denver Tech Center (I-25 South) around the east side of Metropolitan Denver and connects back into I-25 north of Denver at approximately 157th Avenue (I-25 North). The Beltway consists of four segments referred to as Segments I, II, III, and IV. Segments I, II, and III designate the portion of E-470 from I-25 South, east and north past I-70 and DIA and terminates at 120th Avenue just west of Tower Road.These Segments are completed and open to traffic. Segment I, from I-25 South to Parker Road, was completed in 1991. Segments II and III opened in 1998 and 1999. E-470 is generally constructed to Interstate standards with initial construction of two lanes in each direction. Design and right-of-way provisions have been made to expand to four lanes in each direction.Also,a wide median has been preserved to allow for future HOV lanes or a rail system. The final leg of E-470 ("Segment IV"), the 12.5 mile segment from 120th Avenue to I-25 at 157th Avenue, is under design and construction through a design/build contract. This segment will open to traffic in two phases. The first phase, from 120th Avenue to US 85, is scheduled to open in the fall of 2002. The second phase, from US 85 to I-25 at 157th Avenue, is scheduled to open in the spring of 2003. Within the study area, interchanges will be constructed with E-470 at 120th Avenue, I-76 and US 85. 3.4 Metro Vision 2020 The Denver Regional Council of Governments' (DRCOG) Metro Vision 2020 (amended July 1997);is the Denver regional plan for addressing the future growth of the metro area through the year 2020. It outlines strategies and implementation steps to preserve the region's quality of life while also positioning it to benefit from growth.The plan is organized around six core elements dealing with the development pattern of the region, the necessary transportation system and the — actions needed to preserve air and water quality. Free-Standing Communities Under the Metro Vision 2020 plan, Brighton, along with Boulder, Castle Rock, and Longmont will remain separate from the larger urban area, each with an adequate 3-3 TumerCollie c�SBraden Inc. ana BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan employment-housing balance and internal transportation system. They will continue to be free-standing communities. Ideally, the free-standing communities will create their own multimodal transportation networks that include pedestrian and bicycle facilities and internal and external transit services, including commuter rail connections where feasible, and links to the regional system. Each of the four communities would reach populations of between 50,000 and 100,000 by the year 2020. Each of the four communities has an historic downtown area, which could serve as a center for transit,and cultural and business events. Although the development of a town center need not occur in the historic downtown area, the communities have the advantage of an already existing town center. The center's purpose is to provide a focus for the effective use of transit by providing the needed critical mass of jobs and retail activities. Metro Vision Regional Highway Network and 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Under the Metro Vision Regional Highway Network, E-470 and I-76 are classified as "Freeways 4 lanes." US 85 is classified as a "Major Regional 6 or more lanes." 120th Avenue west of E-470 is classified as a "Major Regional 4 lanes." Sable Boulevard, Buckley Road, Bromley Lane, and Bridge Street between US 85, and 120th east of E- - 470 are classified as"Principals 4 lanes." Projects in the study area included in the Metro Vision 2020 Regional Transportation Plan include: • 120th Avenue. Widen to four lanes between Holly and E-470. • Buckley Road. Construct/Widen from 0/2 lanes to 4 lanes between 120th Avenue and Bridge Street. • US 85 at 120th. New Interchange. • US 85 at Bromley. New Interchange. • Systems management improvements. 120th Avenue,US-36 to E-470. US 85, I- 76 to Weld County Line. DRCOG has started the process to update and extend the transportation plan elements of the Metro Vision 2020 Plan to 2025. Over the next year citizens, staff,and committee members will be providing ideas, vision, and analyses to help develop the Fiscally-Constrained 2025 Regional Transportation Plan and a new Metro Vision 2025 Plan. 3.5 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The FY 2001 -FY 2006 STIP has two roadway projects within the study area. They are: • 120th Avenue. New construction, Quebec St. to US 85. • 120th Avenue. Major widening,US 85 to Potomac. 3-4 TumerCollie(5Braden Inc. ATYCF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 3.6 Bromley Lane Signal Study A study dated January 26, 2000 made recommendations for intersection geometric improvements and future traffic signal locations on Bromley Lane. The signalized locations identified on Bromley Lane include: • Platte River Boulevard • K-mart/Grocery Warehouse entrance • US 85 (future urban interchange) • Business access between US 85 and UPRR • Fulton Avenue(existing) • 4's Avenue(existing) • Palizzi Marketplace • 8t°Avenue • Chambers Road • 15`s Avenue or 19'h Avenue • 22nd Avenue • 27`s Avenue • Safeway Marketplace • Telluride Street • 40th Avenue • K-mart Distribution Center(existing) • Justice Center Drive • Town Center • I-76 Frontage Road • I-76 Westbound Ramps • I-76 Eastbound Ramps 3-5 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. ATY CC BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 4.0 2020 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN 4.1 Study Area The study area for developing an updated Major Thoroughfare Plan for the Brighton area is bounded by the following facilities: • Yosemite (on the west) • I-76(on the east), including industrial developments immediately east of I-76 • Weld County Road 4(on the north) • 120th(on the south) The study area is depicted on Figure 4-1, along with the traffic analysis zone structure used in the transportation modeling process. The traffic analysis zone structure corresponds with the structure used in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) regional traffic model. To accurately model trips between Brighton and outlying areas, the overall area that was modeled was somewhat larger than the study area for defining needed transportation improvements. 4.2 Transportation Modeling Process Land uses for the transportation modeling process were based on the DRCOG sketch-planning travel model. For each of the traffic analysis zones (Figure 4-1), the DRCOG data set included 2001 and 2020 land uses for each of the model zones. Land uses were defined in six categories: low, medium and high income housing and employment divided into production,retail, and service jobs. Working closely with City of Brighton planning staff, the DRCOG land uses for the model area were updated to reflect current development proposals and other anticipated developments. The land uses assumed in the modeling effort are summarized on a table in Appendix 1. Some of the larger development plans that have been incorporated into the 2020 land use plan are: • Mountain View Estates I&II • The Preserve • Chapel Hill • Carma • Brighton East Farms • Todd Creek • Pheasant Ridge • Platte River Ranch • Sugar Creek • Parkside • The Village • Bromley Park • Hishinuma 4-1 TumerCollie&Braden Inc N Z� �— S H F.. O U .7 z Q -p- .... g � 8 sz 8 LL — 1 o � � o o a • ' Ic� . — e i g Havest Rd. R — Rd.37 Gun Club Gun Club .. \ ® Rd. Rd. O O Cjg 14 i0 8 c $ W } % Placidity Rd. ZO • Es Himalaya 3t - O •�� = ® � - O O 9 ♦ h O ® ? LL C� ounN Rd BSI I!I: Tovror Rd. CC YS CC O _ Telurlde St. 'a O 4 ® ® < v P O0 �unN Ave < "' \ Buckley Rd. < K _ $ J< NRd.Z9 19th Ave.O O O DI° O O O O a O — ■ `s I 2 Chan•. () A g< 41. Chambers Rd. ,'S■ -) 0ryry_.. Rd. m III 4 4th Ave. O i8 ,. ■ Potomac St ® Potomac S N Z Tucson St. O ® ® Tu.. n . ■ — F4 A III: 7 .®t. OAg �� Nome • ® O NY O' k O® ■® - Mwaa O O C Y O : 2 5 Yosemite St rN . N O !up O l® r Yosemite t < t.1 Quebec St. \ '_�'_® © � ' ` ® p O O O z CL O C .— Q F 0 \- a - r< NOtt Ci - BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • Palizzi • Case Farm • Indigo Trails • Diedrichs Farm • Davis • Prairie Center • Silver Peaks-Lochbuie The following table below summarizes the population estimates used in the transportation model for the model area depicted on Figure 4-1. The table further divides the data for those zones within the study area boundary and those zones within the model but outside of the study area boundary. As shown on the table, there is a several fold increase in both population and in employment assumed in the 2020 land use forecasts. 2001n) 2020 Population Employment Population Employment Within Study Area 22,868 8,002 95,205 61,655 Outside Study Area 7,788 2,419 63,289 48,371 Total 30,656 10,421 158,494 110,026 (1) Year 2001 population and employment estimates are per the DRCOG model land use database. The traffic modeling program TMODEL2 was used to develop traffic forecasts on the study area street system based on forecast land uses. Daily and A.M./P.M. peak hour trips were estimated using trip generation rates defined in the Denver Regional Council of Governments Sketch Travel Model manual (March 1998). Using a modeling process generally referred to as a "Gravity Model Distribution," the travel demand between each pair of traffic analysis zones was computed. The result is a "trip table" that identifies the desired trips between each zone and the "external stations" at the edges of the model area that link the study area to the surrounding urban area. These trips were then assigned to the roadway network in an iterative process that takes into consideration congestion on the various roadway links. The resulting trip distribution of model area '- generated external trips was North 15.1%, South 44.9%, East 5.2%, and West 34.8%. Models were developed for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. An off-peak model was also developed to evaluate conditions for the remaining 22 hours of the day. Capacity evaluations were conducted using the peak hour traffic models of directional traffic flows. Assumed directional roadway capacities for arterials and collectors were 900, 1,800, and 2,700 vph for one, two, and three lanes per direction respectively. Models of year 2001 traffic conditions were developed to calibrate the traffic model to existing conditions. Using the calibrated model, the year 2020 peak hour models were developed using forecast future land uses to iteratively test alternative roadway networks. 4-2 TumerColliecBraden Inc. i —�— x=� O Z a f N O $ a 3 octo _ uEpas t iiiii I © il � Honest Rd. $ a. County Rd.37 3 Gun Club Gun Club Rd. Rd. se \\ Plcadiy Rd. n — e ..rjrf A.- a 3 A 11 O County Rd-31 ®� R A ,\ dS Tower Rd. lip p �4 Telulde St. .\ a & W n County h n ve. A spa ` a Buckley Rd. n < z Z OA be4. n Y C9 § p< / Chambers Rd. O - Rd.®. m / '�^ 9 yy A A A II�� 3 •bke Blvd. A a 2 Ave. p ^ p.. F..- 'J /A ry A r--"�,�, 'e B� ��Vii' •p Potomac St. Potomac S Tucson St. = ® TAM St. O O 13 0 m / ® < Peoria St / St ® €N ≥ a u ��Y AI,II A o ® 3 — Havana __ El ® a 2 O Yosemite St. ; 9 } _ ® I Yosemite St. O _ O Quebec St. / 1 l "- O c 0 t a O c >_ o ATV CF BRIGHTON V Transoortahbn Master Plan 4.3 2020"Base Case"Analysis The initial or "base case" roadway network that was analyzed was the current transportation plan from the 1999 Comprehensive Plan (Figure 4-2). The initial test network also included all of the ultimate US 85 access recommendations contained in the US 85 Access Control Plan, 1-76 to WCR 80. For roadways outside of the study area and for freeways passing through the study area, the 2020 Transportation Plan roadway laneages were taken from the April 1996 Adams County Transportation Plan. Figure 4-2 shows the daily forecasted traffic levels for this initial test network. Daily traffic was estimated from the P.M. peak hour model and this daily traffic forecast is depicted on Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3 depicts those facilities anticipated to operate above or near capacity during either of the peak hour periods. The facilities forecasted to operate above the capacity with the initial test transportation plan are: • Bridge Street—Yosemite Street to 4'h Avenue. • Bridge Street/US 85 interchange. _ • Bromley Lane—US 85 to 4'"Avenue, and I-76 to Gun Club Road. • Bromley Lane/I-76 interchange. • 150th Avenue—Tower Road to I-76. • Collector(138th Avenue)—27th Avenue to I-76. • 136'"Avenue—US 85 to I-76. • 136th Avenue/I-76 interchange. • Henderson Road—Brighton Road to Yosemite Street. • 120'"Avenue—Quebec Street to east of Tower Road. • 120th Avenue/E-470 interchange. • Yosemite Street— 128th Avenue to Henderson Road. • 4th Avenue—Bridge Street to 136th Avenue. • Sable Boulevard/1-76 interchange. • Buckley Road— 144'"Avenue to 120th Avenue. • Telluride Street— 144'"Avenue to I-76. • 45th Avenue —Southern Street to Bromley Lane. • Picadilly Road—I-76 to Baseline Road. 4-3 TumerColliec5Braden Inc. x-•-'•a--4.—a ', a t z 88 U U — 6I' sy8 2g & s t ti B 1 Hu cs< ll Havest Rd. County — Rd.37 Gun Club Gun Club Rd. Rd. 0.0 Id es t PicaAly Rd. ri Himalaya St. ` F Elr. gl- County Rd.31I X Tower Rd. M ^ .... Telluride St. 4." T.,' 3..W U, Z, d Coun \ I 17MAve. < BuctleyRd. < j 4C Z £ ti J £ 0 w il N 19th Ave ; Qf j a v_ O kJ li- az S ; S £ < � � a Chambers O Chambers Rd. 3 U MI Ave.- Rd m I ` lip,.... 'IS ybH, \ 4 Ave IIlO ... atNe BNd ..�••"'�••'� _1` Potomac St Potomac SI o i Fr _ Tucson St. Tu St. IIIN 'ob ' 1 Peoria St. i _ e ea ail d A ` S 40:"`•� re — Havana N`,_ Yosemite St. ..•, 7 Iii Yosemite St, C a Quebec St. / ^'~... C 1... o 0 tQ z r,�r o C - o a Ilmi C axs BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 4.4 Recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan Based on the deficiencies noted in the "base case" analysis, an iterative analysis of required transportation network improvements needed to serve 2020 travel demands was performed. The resulting recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan and the forecast 2020 traffic demand on the proposed roadway network are shown on Figure 4-4. Changes between the recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan and the "base case" plan are depicted on Figure 4-5. To be consistent with new City-adopted cross-sections, all 6-lane facilities are now classified as "Major Arterials", all 4-lane facilities are "Minor Arterials", and all 2-lane streets are "Collectors." The changes in laneage from the "base case" are summarized below, with the former classification in parentheses: • Bridge Street—27th Avenue to Tower Road, 6-lane Major Arterial (previously: 4-lane Major Arterial). • 136'" Avenue — Brighton Road to US 85, 4-lane Major Arterial (previously: Collector/Minor Arterial). • 136'h Avenue—US 85 to I-76, 6-lane Major Arterial (previously: Collector). • Henderson Road — Brighton Road to Yosemite Street, 4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: 2-lane Minor Arterial, agreement with City of Thornton necessary for completion). • 120'" Avenue — I-76 to the east, 6-lane Major Arterial (previously: 4-lane Major Arterial). Reclassification of 120th Avenue to a six-lane facility is in part due to increased DIA activity. • Brighton Road — Bromley Lane to south, 4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: 2-lane Major Arterial). • 4th Avenue — Bridge Street to Bromley Lane, 4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: 2- - lane Major Arterial). • 4th Avenue (Sable Boulevard)— 144th Avenue to I36t Avenue, 6-lane Major Arterial, 45,000 trips per day (2020) forecasted (previously: 4-lane Major Arterial). • 27th Avenue — Bridge Street to Baseline Road, 4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: 2- lane Major Arterial). • 45th Avenue —Southern Street to I-76,4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: Collector). _ • Picadilly Road—I-76 to Baseline Road,4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: Collector). • Westside I-76 Frontage Road—Baseline Road to 144th Avenue, 4-lane Minor Arterial (previously: Collector). In addition to the changes in roadway classification described above, there are several new roadways that were not on the"base case"plan: • • 148`" Avenue — 27th Avenue to I-76, 4-lane Minor Arterial. West of 27th Avenue, Collector. • I-76 Frontage Road (East side) — Baseline Road to Bromley Lane, 4-lane Minor Arterial. This facility is needed to serve industrial development in Bromley Park. • Bromley Lane—1-76 to Picadilly Road, 4-lane Minor Arterial. • WCR 2.5 -US 85 to I-76, Collector. • 7th Avenue—Baseline Road to WCR 2.5, Collector. • 11`s Avenue—Baseline Road to WCR 2.5, Collector. 4-4 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. m z z ----4--- H �N Z2 C aN0 hl e° C 0 0 ^ g o a00 �+ ac "8iHH 6 coo ti nu QJ0 11111 I ® U � QJ Harvest Rd. A County Rd.37 4 Gun Club Gun Club Rd. Rd. N \Pic. Picodly Rd. oe m_ mo e ® M O NY A HlmaWyo St. 8 =® -C.; \ .o - ® g 11. ® o ` i '. s Lu County 'd.31 ® ^ /� p., 171 s ` I m§ 8 Tower Rd. u. v. 0 ®� ` Q O Teaatde St. ® � D: °C ® < ye. 6 ,o Bucldey Rd. < E c COUry Rd. ® N / ® Etit O , € n 29 -. 1 I U • 6 0 EX rr. 0 C19th ye . im N . Se O ? < A Chambers Rd. 0 8 Rd GC P 84 _ us W IS ttpiY N $ 5 N 1 N 2 o •.•ble Blvd. \ x _ 4th Alt M Q �! N an n 5 ix 0 U Potomac St Potomac 51 O Tucson StO. . ` ® T St. 0. d •• Zb,u ® ® / Peoria St. `" O S �•«.•'' — Havana o . > 2 ,� . . ,.,0A ,• •----. ., 2 I ® Yosemite St. I i ® ; < Yosemite Stt.. ::•` I c O ^ lit $E < Quebec St. I ® _ N I '5.% Q C t z o c x t r CD b LI C axes BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • Himalaya Street(50th Avenue)—Baseline to WCR 4,4-lane Minor Arterial. • Picadilly Road—Baseline to WCR 4, Collector. • Tucson Street—Bridge Street to Baseline Road,Collector. • Longspeak Street/I64t Avenue. Shift the transition from the 164th Avenue alignment to the Longspeak alignment east of 19th Avenue instead of west of 27th Avenue in order to avoid some stormwater detention areas. • Chambers Road aligned with 8th at Bromley Lane and extended as a Collector from 144`"Avenue to Prairie Center Parkway. • Fulton Avenue—Bromley Lane to 148th Avenue. • Frontage Road on east side of US 85 — 148th to 132nd, Collector. It should be noted that this frontage road is not part of the US 85 Access Control Plan and as a result, _ will be a City street. • Potomac Street— 136th Avenue to 144th Avenue, Collector. • 132m Avenue—Proposed US 85 Frontage Road to Buckley Road, Collector. • Prairie Center Parkway. A new 6-lane Major Arterial through the Prairie Center from Sable Boulevard to 144`"Avenue. • Sable Boulevard Interchange with E-470 to align with Prairie Center Parkway. A total of nine facilities were removed or realigned from their location in the "base case"plan. Two of these were as a result of the recommendations of the US 85 Access Control Plan. They are: • WCR 4—Main Street to US 85. • Henderson Road—Peoria Street to Brighton Road. Four facilities were removed or realigned at the request of the City. They are: • 19th Avenue—Southern Street to Bromley Lane. • Southern Street—Himalaya to Bridge Street. • 150th Avenue—A collector alignment was previously identified on 150th Avenue. The 150th Avenue alignment has be removed from the plan and replaced by the 148th Avenue alignment. This was done to provide a more regular spacing (on the half mile) of planned streets and better serve the needs of future development between 148th and 144th Avenues. • Realignment of Longspeak Street. As a result of the inclusion of Prairie Center Parkway, three other facilities are removed from the plan. These three are: _ • Telluride Street south of 144th Avenue. • 138th Avenue from 27th Avenue to I-76. • I-76 frontage road(west)between 136th and 144th Avenues. 4-5 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. C N z---.4--- „ a Ee F N tD "- O O •Cj r, E 13 -6 ' E R -O LL D a u 3 b ❑� Qp ll— ® : -4. N Z sr tL u- Rda37 � Harvest Rd. R Olin Gun Club Gun Cub Rd. Rd. Z ... r W Pica dilly Rd. at Z o FlYnaciya 9. hr, I _ 5 \ 2 ix CouAy Rtl.p1 I�I it Tower Rd. P... X ra 0lekiloe sr.x '^ Rt1. '? y _ Y 'j �n J(Z -_. W g cc I 27 Ave. < Buckley Rd. Z Q Courry Rd. V £ (0 rr n z • i - PihAve0 ... xi .. cr. el- _ 3 _ (� i Chanters Rd. U _ 8th Ave. W. on / \ 'C-is Ilej 4O I C4 ble Blvd.c 1 U 4 Ave. W --.......'—‘,..--.....-•—•\...— \t Potomac St Potomac SI 4 Tucson f`\\� ruin St. I�IN 2 a t W %oyb ' € Peoria St. Z on El ts .'�lC._ Novara • .... Yosemite St. 1 • t Yosemite St. _ c .. ilia Pi < < ` a - Quebec St. / �.....-......,� 0 I � C 0 tQ z o C I.. C .. r = ca 1 b 2 QTY6 BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 4.5 Analysis of Proposed Transportation Network 4.5.1 Capacity and Level of Service The planning of roadway network improvements, including new roadway segments and the widening of existing roadways, is based in large measure on an evaluation of the traffic-carrying capacity of the individual roadway segments in the network. As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, traffic engineers define the quality of traffic flow on a roadway as "level of service" (LOS) using letter designations ranging from LOS "A" (best) to LOS "F" (worst). Level of service considers such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. _ In the Denver metro area, LOS "D" is the typical minimum level of service standard for roadway planning. LOS "D" represents a prudent design minimum that balances acceptable traffic flows with the cost and feasibility of roadway improvements. Higher level of standards can be used for roadway planning, for example, LOS "C" is adopted by some jurisdictions. Although LOS "C" can provide improved peak hour traffic operations, the tradeoff of this higher level of service standard can be the requirement for wider roadways and more intersection lanes (providing an excess of facilities to serve traffic demands for non-peak periods). Although the proposed Major Thoroughfare Plan makes significant enhancements to the Brighton transportation network and meets a considerable portion of the forecast _ traffic demand, there remain several facilities under the recommended transportation plan that are anticipated to operate above or near capacity during either of the peak hour periods. The facilities, shown on Figure 4-6, forecasted to operate above capacity are: • Bridge Street—Yosemite Street to 4th Avenue. _ • Bridge Street/US 85 interchange. • Bromley Lane/I-76 interchange. • 120th Avenue — Quebec Street to Peoria Street, and Buckley Road to Tower Road. • 120th Avenue/E-470 interchange. • Yosemite Street— 128th Avenue to Henderson Road. • 4i°Avenue—Southern Street to E-470. • Buckley Road— 136'h Avenue to 120th Avenue. • Westside I-76 Frontage Road—Picadilly Road to Bridge Street. • Picadilly Road— 164th Avenue to I-76 frontage road. • Prairie Center Parkway— 132n°Avenue to 136th Avenue. • 136th Avenue—4th Avenue to Prairie Center Parkway. There are three major reasons why these facilities have not been upgraded in the recommended transportation plan: 4-6 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. tb O x —�S en a u — J U U ce log a 1 < 1• iii LL _ Harvest Rd. I County _ Rd.37 Gun Club Gun Club Rd. Rd. r r %caUly Rd. ad $ i t < A g Hmobya 4. Za N S W Count' Rd.3I �� Tower Rd. se t relulde St. \ q o + i Z of _ ti 2loamyRd. Ave. t .�_..._.,` Buckley Rd. £ ta 2 2t' y 3 Z ♦ d Ur Li ei I9th yes ♦ a. 0 2 li ~ 2 = £ .bombers 0 e� < 1 Chambers Rd. < o IS Ave.uNW- . Rd. m - �i Ct y III .bb Ok. y, to 2 _ Ith Ave. .� ,v ?`� O o -�- : . I Potomac St. 1 Potomac S. N a Tucson St. u. St. ed ^ ^ /' 1:.Paula St. 4ti %Crt _ � n ^b' acyd,eN _ 'tent. d g a ^ aid.S. % s ^ Havana•® €3 i# A • ^ Yosemite St. it < Yosemite St. 1(!l C 1 £ ` '1/4... o pi a —,_„_ ^ Quebec St. / \.�. l ZS C 0 C C EL o C s O o eR C an cv BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • First, on some facilities, only short segments are overcapacity and it would not be cost-effective to upgrade a long segment to a higher functional classification. • Second, on some facilities, it is anticipated that additional right-of-way needed for a higher classification cannot be obtained. • Finally, at some locations the forecast exceeds the capacity of the highest capacity classified facility. For roads, it would be a traffic forecast exceeding the capacity of a six-lane Major Arterial. Construction of eight-lane arterials is not recommended due to the difficulty pedestrians have crossing such facilities, _ the difficulty of left turn access in driveways, and their negative impact to adjacent land uses. For freeway interchanges, there are no current plans to construct anything other that diamond interchanges at the identified locations. The facilities depicted as being over capacity are over the capacity of a diamond interchange. Other types of interchanges, such as those with direct connectors, could be considered in the future if the actual need for these special treatments is deemed necessary. Bridge Street remains as a four-lane facility consistent with its classification in the North Metro Major Investment Study. Facilities that are depicted as being over capacity should be carefully monitored as traffic volumes grow. As not all streets that will be constructed were modeled, it is possible that future parallel streets and roadway networks internal to developments can distribute traffic in a more efficient manner. In some cases, auxiliary turning lanes and access control can help alleviate forecasted over-capacity conditions. 4.5.2 Air Quality After the passage of the federal Clean Air Act in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency designated the Denver metropolitan area as a non-attainment area for several federal health-based air quality standards. Over the years, the region frequently violated the standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. However, in the early 1990's, air quality improvements resulting from federal, state, and local air pollution control programs gradually began to bring the area into compliance with federal standards. The Denver metro area has not violated federal standards since 1995. According to the Regional Air Quality Council's (RAQC) Blueprint for Clean Air, with ongoing implementation of current or equivalent programs, and further federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions, the Denver metro area should remain in compliance with the federal standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10 through 2020, even with the significant increases in population and vehicle travel expected during this period. The RAQC indicates that motor vehicles are the largest source of air pollution along the Front Range. Not only do gasoline and diesel vehicles emit a number of pollutants from their tailpipes,they also kick up street sand and dust from the region's paved and unpaved roadways. These pollutants are responsible for approximately 70 percent of 4-7 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. OTY OF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan the Brown Cloud and can lead to violations of the federal health standards. Coal-fired power plants also are significant contributors to the problem. Other sources include wood burning, restaurant grills, construction equipment, and commercial and industrial sources. Congestion and delay that occurs during the commute hours on our transportation system can exacerbate air quality problems. The recommended Major Thoroughfare Plan reduces the total vehicle miles traveled during the peak hours in congested _ conditions by nearly 13,000 vehicle miles, or a roughly 8 percent reduction over the "base case" previous transportation plan. The recommended plan also reduces the daily amount of vehicle hours traveled by over 2,400 vehicle hours per day. 4.5.3 Traffic Noise As traffic volume builds on highways and arterials, local and state officials can often anticipate an increase in noise complaints. Land uses that are particularly sensitive to increasing noise levels include residences, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,parks,motels,hotels,schools,churches,libraries, and hospitals. As a rule of thumb, traffic is not usually a serious problem for people who live more than 500 feet from heavily traveled freeways or more than 100 to 200 feet from lightly traveled roads. Land use planning should require that new developments are planned, designed,and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. _ Highway noise impacts may be subject to federal noise mitigation requirements. General requirements for planning projects subject to federal requirements include: • Identification of existing activities, developed lands, and undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed and programmed, which may be affected by noise from the highway; • Prediction of traffic noise levels; • Determination of existing noise levels; • Determination of traffic noise impacts; and • Examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts. 4.6 Functional Street Classifications The Major Thoroughfare Plan is based on the street classification system of Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Collectors. City-adopted cross-sections for each roadway classification are included in Appendix 2 to this report. It is recommended that the following street cross- sections be used for the following street classifications: • Major Arterial, six lanes. Major Arterial Revised Cross-Section, Page 13-B, 130—foot • right-of-way/easement combination. • Minor Arterial, four lanes. Minor Arterial Revised Cross-Section, Page 13-A, 110- foot right-of-way. • Collector. Any of the applicable collector street sections(Pages 12-A, 12-B,or 12-C). 4-8 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. ptt 6 BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan Rights-of-way in excess of these standard may be needed at intersections between streets depicted on the proposed plan to allow for addition turn lanes (dual left turn lanes on minor arterials and exclusive right turn lanes). A traffic engineering analysis should be conducted prior to the design of these intersections and dedication of adjacent right-of-way to determine if additional turn lanes are needed. 4.7 Downtown Parking and Circulation _ Both parallel and angle parking configurations are used for on-street parking in downtown Brighton. Locally, as well as nationally, there is an ongoing debate about the merits of retaining or expanding the use of angle parking in downtown areas. Proponents often cite the increased parking supply afforded by angle spaces, while opponents we express concern about the safety issues associated with the restricted visibility for backing-up movements. Angle parking is best suited for low-volume, low-speed roads that have adequate width to accommodate both the wider parking area and the through travel lanes. Angle parking stalls must provide for adequate corner clearance from intersections, driveways and crosswalks. Since restricted visibility is a concern with angle parking, the volume of bicyclists in the through lanes should be particularly considered. Parking-related accident rates have been used by some jurisdictions in evaluating whether to _ retain or remove existing angle parking. Using this measure, elimination of existing angle parking is warranted if the parking-related accident rate is greater than the rate on similar streets that have parallel parking. While quantitatively the overall parking supply in downtown Brighton is adequate, the quality and convenience of many of the spaces is perceived to be low, leading to a daily competition for the best parking spaces between employees, customers, and other downtown visitors. Additionally, the downtown park-and-ride lot is also too small to accommodate the parking demand. As discussed in other sections of this plan, RTD is actively looking for addition park-and-ride lot capacity. The street network in the downtown area is primarily on a grid and posted speeds are generally 25 or 30 mph. Residences and businesses directly access the streets within the grid. The locations of many of the stop signs within the downtown Brighton street grid follow an every other street pattern commonly found in many communities with similar networks. _ A grid street system provides ample capacity to the areas they serve. Therefore, roadway widening is not warranted other than on the streets previously mentioned (Bridge Street and 4t° Avenue). However, the City often receives complaints of speeding and cut-through traffic in the downtown area. These complaints are common in other communities with similar grid street networks. While members of the public have a right to use public highways without obstruction and interruption, this right is subject to the power of local governments to impose reasonable restrictions for the protection of the public. Residential streets should be protected from vehicular traffic moving at excessive speeds (greater than 25 to 30 mph) and from parking unrelated to residential activity. 4-9 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. ATV a BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan Traffic calming measures have been implemented in other communities with grid networks to deal with these concerns. Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through volumes, in the interest of street safety, livability, and other public purposes. Some of the more commonly used traffic calming devices are street undulations, chokers, mini roundabouts, full or partial street closures,turn prohibitors, and chicanes. Before any traffic calming measures are implemented, an engineering study should be undertaken to determine if traffic calming is warranted and the appropriate locations and method of traffic calming to be employed. Consideration has to be given to the legal, access, and public safety ramifications of implementing such a program. Stop signs are persistently requested by citizens with the expectation that they will control speeds or reduce traffic volumes and accidents in residential neighborhoods. Although there may be some effect on volume and accidents in certain instances, there is little effect on traffic speeds attributable to stop sign placement except within about 200 feet on the intersection controlled. Indiscriminate use of stop signs and multi-way stops signs should be avoided. It should be noted that there are warrants for stop sign installations that should be met before they can be installed. 4-10 TumerCollie t@Braden Inc. amov BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5.1 Cost of Needed Improvements The recommended transportation plan includes an extensive list of improvements including: • 53 miles of arterial roadway construction/reconstruction • Baseline (WCR 2)/US 85 interchange • US 85/Bromley interchange • US 85/144'"Avenue interchange • US 85/136`" Avenue interchange • US 85/120'"interchange • Sable/E-470 interchange • Grade separation of 120th Avenue over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks Concept-level construction cost estimates for these improvements were developed based on year 2000 unit costs published by DRCOG (Regional Roadway Cost Estimating Program Unit Costs,DRCOG, March 16, 2001). The aggregate construction cost to implement the recommended major thoroughfare plan is $418 million (year 2000 dollars). This figure is exclusive of local and collector roads, which are generally assumed to be constructed as part of the final plats for individual developments. This figure does, however, include the cost of arterial roadways that developers will be funding. For comparison, the 1987 Brighton Transportation Study identified the thoroughfare plan cost as$71 million,using lower unit costs. A tabular summary of the concept-level construction cost for individual projects, including costs for collector streets and local streets,is located in Appendix 3. 5.2 Funding Sources Primary sources for transportation funding in Brighton include property owner/developer contributions, city capital improvements funds, state and federal grant funding, and the City's discretionary "fee fund" administered by the City to mitigate off-site impacts created by new developments in the City. Current City policy is to have developers build all local and collector roads, and half of any adjacent roads, including arterials. The city funds local matches for constructing interchanges, traffic signalization, and construction of arterial missing links that will not be built by developers. Using these criteria, it is estimated that developers will be responsible for approximately two-thirds (67%)of the cost of arterials. A formula for computing the City versus private shares of improvement funding for arterials was developed in the 1987 Brighton Transportation Study. The City share was based on estimating future travel demand patterns'in the City as compared to existing travel demand. The City's share would be computed by dividing the number of future year daily trips by the number of existing daily trips. In the 1987 study, the City's share of future arterial improvements was computed to be 14%, with 20% of the cost borne by the discretionary "fee "' 5-1 TumerCollie1Braden Inc. art ... BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan fund." Using the updated travel model, the City's share was re-calculated based upon the estimated number of 2001 daily trips generated within the study area divided by the number of study area 2020 trips. The calculation of the City's share (19%) is depicted in the table below: (1)Total Daily Study Area Trips (2001) 208,377 (2)Total Daily Study Area Trips (2020) 1,115,496 Percent City Funding (1)1(2) 19% For interchanges on the state highway system, State and Regional funding will typically provide 80% of the cost of interchange construction, with the remaining 20% coming from local sources. It is not unusual however, for local jurisdictions to exceed the required local match in order to accelerate the development of state projects. 5.3 Near-Term Priority Projects Table 5-1 summarizes projects that were selected as near-term priority projects. These projects are also depicted on Figure 5.1. The list includes interchanges on US 85 classified as "Medium Priority" or "High Priority" in the US 85 Access Control Plan. Roadway projects selected for inclusion in the near-term priority plan included: • Roadways that are currently nearing capacity or are over capacity, and those expected to do so over the next 10 years. • Roadways needed to serve the fast-growing eastern portion of the City. • Roadways needed to serve E-470 once it is open. The total cost of the near-term priority projects is $167 million (year 2000 dollars). Of this amount, the calculated City's share using the previously described cost sharing percentages is $50 million. Of this amount, 19%, or approximately $10 million, is the share that should be borne by current residents and businesses. The remaining 81%, or$40 million, of the City's share is to be financed through a common, discretionary "fee fund." From the near-term projects depicted on Table 5-1, the City has identified five projects for inclusion in a"fiscally constrained plan." These identified projects are depicted on Table 5-2. The total cost of these projects is $26 million with a City share of $7 million. Of this $7 million City share, $5.8 million is expected to come from the fee fund. To construct the Bromley/US 85 interchange, $9 million of federal funds, or 80% percent of the total cost, will be requested. 5-2 TumerColiieJBraden Inc. 4 z---..,-4-. 0 z s ' :8 32cb 0 to mrs 300 3 ll Harvest Rd. " dill le County Rd.37 Gun Club Gun Club Rd. Rd. d Pica df1V Rd. O0 d \ A HknaCyo S. \dEi ... .. pp County Rd..31 ii Tower Rd. �t7 "Muria,St. ® `\ a x a xi 27th Ave. < Buckley Rd. < Z Coun y Rd. ` N � ` pe Z • I a LL k'' d 191n Ave O I K 1 Chambers Rd. .15.. A_ Btb Ave. Rd. m 4 WaPI � able BNd. 4th Ave. --^'"-"N... .. Potomac St. Potomac S. adl Tucson St. `1/4 Tucr St III \_ 'od•4 -< Paola St. ip _. N. < ® III -�_ \- Havana A .1 ( \N)„ Yosemite 3t. Yosemite 3t. C I pisi - t Quebec Bt. I �' ,_.•�� O i L a. saa Z o c o >_ Blre ^ no,V OF .— BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan Table 5-1 — Near-Term Priority Projects Length Total Facility Description Limits Miles Cost(1) Roadways within City Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes City Limits to US 85 0.45 $2,285 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 27th Avenue to Tower Road 1.10 $8,712 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Tower Road to 1-76 E.Frontage Rd. 2.00 $16,564 Bromley Lane Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Platte River Road to US 85 0.21 $1,999 Bromley Lane Widen from 4 to 6 lanes US 85 to 4th Avenue 0.47 $1,861 Bromley Lane Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 4th Avenue to E.Frontage Rd. 3.70 $29,786 27th Avenue/Buckley Construct 6-lane major arterial Bromley Lane to 136th Ave. 2.00 $16,920 '.. Buckley Road Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 136th Ave.to 1-76 0.47 $1,861 Picadilly Road Construct 4-lane minor arterial Baseline to I-76 Frontage Road 0.70 $4,396 Tower Road Construct 4-lane minor arterial 164th Ave.to Hilltop Dr. 1.00 $6,280 — Tower Road Construct 4-lane major arterial Bromley to 150'" 0,50 $3,140 Tower Road Construct 6-lane major arterial 150th Ave.to I-76 0.50 $4,230 13.10 $98,034 Interchanges within City Baseline/US 85 Interchange Single-point diamond interchange $11,500 Bromley/US 85 — Interchange Single-point diamond interchange $11,500 $23,000 Projects outside the City — Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Yosemite to Havana 1.00 $3,960 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Havana to City Limits 1.75 $7,433 120th Avenue Construct 6-lane major arterial Riverdale Rd.to Brighton Road 1.20 $14,172 - 120th Avenue Grade Separation of UPRR $3,015 Himalaya Street Construct 4-lane major arterial Baseline Road to WCR 4 1.00 $6,280 120th Avenue/US 85 Diamond interchange $11,500 — 4.95 $46,360 Total of all Improvements 18.05 $167,394 — City Share of Improvements(see table in Appendix 3 for details of cost sharing) $50,363 — (1): All estimates in $1,000 (2000 dollars). All project costs based on year 2000 unit costs for project planning developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. 5-3 TumerCollie0Braden Inc. AY OF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan Table 5-2 Fiscally Constrained Plan Length Total Facility Description Limits Miles Cost(1) Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes City Limits to US 85 0.45 $2,285 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 27th Avenue to Tower Road 1.10 $8,712 Bromley Lane Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Platte River Road to US 85 0.21 $1,999 Bromley Lane Widen from 4 to 6 lanes US 85 to 4th Avenue 0.47 $1,861 Bromley/US 85 Interchange Single-point diamond interchange $11,500 Total 2.23 $26,357 �- Federal Dollars to be Requested for the Bromley/US 85 interchange $9,200 City Share of Improvements(see table in Appendix 3 for details of cost sharing) $7,203 (1): All estimates in $1,000 (2000 dollars). All project costs based on year 2000 unit costs for project planning developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. 5-4 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. or!OF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 5.4 Transportation Plan Monitoring and Updating Process A major goal of this study was to create a dynamic planning tool for the City of Brighton through the creation of the traffic model and the near-term priority improvement plan. The study products were structured so that the plan can be periodically updated to reflect actual experience in development patterns, funding availability, and the implementation of transportation improvements. Principal planning activities necessary to maintain the accuracy of the model and integrity of the transportation plan include: • Maintaining database integrity • Revalidation of the travel model • New planning _ o Land use and network forecasts o State and local policies • Project reprogramming based on revenue availability Specifically,the following items should be monitored,evaluated, and documented: • Actual changes to the existing transportation network, as well as significant (large) changes in population or employment, should be monitored on an ongoing basis.. • The base network used for forecasting and planning purposes should be revised to reflect actual changes on not less than a yearly basis. • Significant changes in current land use should be noted for ultimate input to the current land use database used for revalidation of the travel model. Such land use changes should be assessed for potential impact on model accuracy and a revalidation of the model should be conducted if a significant change in the traffic forecasts is suspected. • The travel model should generally be checked — and revalidated as necessary — every five years using then-current, actual land use and road network data. • Additional planning can be conducted for any horizon year desired. New planning to verify or modify the recommendations in this report should be conducted at roughly five-year intervals. • Changes to the 10-year near-term priority improvement plan may occur if significant changes in projected costs or revenues are identified. Such reprogramming may require additional planning analysis to determine if other changes in the nature and timing of recommended improvements are needed. In the absence of significant deviations from cost and revenue forecasts,capital programming should be checked in concert with the five-year planning cycle. 5-5 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. an OF BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan In addition to keeping up-to-date records of land use data, the monitoring of road improvements and traffic count data is an important aspect of the model updates. The facilities on the Major Thoroughfare Plan should be divided into segments for traffic counting. The segments should be bounded by the beginning or ending of a facility, and by intersections with major and minor arterials and freeways. Twenty-four hour counts should be conducted on each major and minor arterial at two-year intervals with counts on collectors conducted every four years. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintains a count program for roadways under their jurisdiction. In addition to the CDOT and City traffic counts, developer conducted traffic counts submitted to the City should also be included in the database. Periodically, the model forecasted traffic volumes should be compared with the most recent traffic counts. Several factors may necessitate collection of traffic volume data in addition to the schedule described above. These could include accelerating the collection of traffic count data in areas that have just undergone significant growth, or in the area of a new transportation facility — recently brought on-line (such as E-470). Additional counts may also be needed in support of the design of new roadway facilities. Turning movement counts may also be needed to determine the need for auxiliary intersection turn lanes and for traffic signal warrant studies. In some cases, the collection of traffic count data by developers in support of their traffic impact reports will alleviate the need for the City to conduct a count. 5-6 TumerCollie1Braden Inc. pH Cr - BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 6.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION As an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, in 1999, the City of Brighton completed an updated Recreation Master Plan. Major elements of the plan include recreation programs, trails, and open space. Key elements of the trails plan are summarized below. 6.1 Public Input: Trails The Recreation Master Plan effort included public outreach efforts including surveys and focus groups. The outreach effort found that trail connections and a new swimming pool were clear favorites. "Participants seemed happy with the way parks and recreation facilities were placed throughout the city. Biking/walking trails, (the single most requested amenity), could be used to connect the neighborhood and community parks with one another. With an off-street trail system, residents would no longer be forced to walk or bike on streets, improving community safety. Many felt Brighton should consider constructing a large park, such as Washington Park in Denver or Civic Center Park in Broomfield. Some noted that such a park may not be needed if a trail system was implemented to tie all the parks together." (pg. 32, Recreation Master Plan). 6.2 Existing Trails The Recreation Master Plan inventoried the existing off-street trail system in Brighton. The Plan notes that while the inventory of recreational trails has tripled since 1990,the result is still a fragmented system. Existing off-street trails include: • The 3,600-foot long Brighton Memorial Parkway is an asphalt bike/hike trail that extends from Bromley Lane to Southern Street in the southeast portion of the City. • One mile of the South Platte River trail has been constructed from Veterans Park to Bromley Lane. Trailheads with parking have also been constructed in Veterans Park and at Southern Street. This trail will eventually connect to the Platte River Trail and Denver. The Platte River Trail now extends to 104'"Avenue in Thornton. • A half mile of trail connects Benedict Park to Bromley Creek Park along the Fulton Ditch and continues through Benedict Park to Egbert Street. • Bridge to North Outfall Trail and to Recreation Center. • • A half mile segment of the North Outfall Trail was constructed from the Fulton ditch west to Overland Trail Middle School. This trail will eventually connect to Brighton Park. 6-1 TumerCollie5Braden Inc. pT6 BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • A number of smaller segments have been constructed along Fulton Ditch with another segment scheduled for construction this spring. 6.3 Future Trails The Recreation Master Plan (page 81) notes a number of factors which will help the trail system grow, including: • New residential developments such as Bromley Park, which includes an off-street trail system. • Recognition on a regional level of the importance of extending the South Platte River Trail to Brighton. Opportunities for trail construction along the Platte River will increase as gravel mining is complete in the corridor. • If the channels and basins,called for in the Drainage Master Plan, are built as planned, it will be possible to construct a large system of trails in the areas southeast and south of town. The extent of the drainage system's grass-lined channels and basins is shown in Map84a. The latest(July 2, 2001)Trails Master Plan is shown on Figure 6-1. Existing trails are shown in orange with the Platte River Trail shown in blue. Proposed trails are shown red. Major destinations such as existing and proposed parks are also shown. The Trail Master Plan was developed to take advantage of a number of opportunities: • North/south trails are shown along the entire length of the Fulton Ditch and the Brighton Lateral Ditch Company. • East/west trails are shown in the flood plains of Second and Third Creeks. • Drainage Channels are used extensively as trail corridors. The trail plan also coordinates with Adam's County trail planning. The goal of the County's plan is to connect trails into the City of Brighton, thereby providing an opportunity for bicyclists and hikers to travel on trails from Brighton to Denver. The proposed implementation schedule for future trail extensions was defined in the Recreation Master Plan as follows: Near-teen: 1999-2001 • Construct the next segments of the Fulton Ditch Trail and an extension of the Benedict Park Trail. • Add path amenities such as benches along the existing trails (trash receptacles, dog waste pick-up facilities,etc.) 6-2 TumerCollie5Braden inc. m 0 cn 2 1 c C) 8 fi O LL \Nil \ 0 J 011 I ifi aillainlaPillaill IMIIIII-Ill me u f-i ct O > > ... j ill a aa blade] .■ v co ro Ill -, �e •�. . II qpi • i •1111 41,5 _ pi, .. a • , Z MP d • • r xins . \\ a K Q e ••• . t,II Aisr • \\ • la rz n• IP •_ 3 .is , -----N a 3nr xl� lit • ib- a N . .. • •1111 taut{ et a t,- �_ • ..„1 R :.. \ . „.... ..., . ‘ ,... ..... , A , Pa .„,_ ,..,, _ • „,,,,k_,,,z,s ,.tit 4 a c. "Nall , \ 11 t s �' �'' li�TiF[n!t•• • 3nr w _ ---- f s a * '�7 -• Ill Iin • rR � ,�1i1 __;, X y to . r.w�w.x4•1 ...' • o.�lt • •••• -_ lirell.'" 1 _Ir. .arm..t r .u. • tom— smi �'y'\wr._ar-rrao liffell `.. .,mow_ ,.r•1 J, -.4 � N \\\\\114•.1 a at ..., I. a F _,o w`,.a_ -... \\ \� ,\\ \vim �i1.. �tl \\\\�Q\�\ ^\ ��, 4 {, O amen, .\\\ ‘, e...re ' \ \\\\.\ CL It \\% t\ k .._ , Cam. It II ii t , am; _ ... o ...cr , , ,,‘ 0 heillirSIH\ ‘A ‘ \ ,_. , f ' 0 IV \ 0 ii,1/4,lik x � c� \1 ax CF ._ BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan • Work with Public Works/Engineering to incorporate space for trails in the grass-lined swales and basins of the drainage master plan where trails are designated. • Also to develop standards for on-street bike lanes. • Revise the dedication ordinance to require that development set aside linear open space to accommodate designated trail corridors. Complete key trail connections: • Fulton Ditch Trail: Benedict Park to North Outfall Trail • North Outfall Trail to Brighton Park. • An off-street trail connection from the Fulton Ditch to the Platte River Trail. Long-Term: 2002—2015 Continue to implement the trail master plan. Priorities include: • North/south trails along the Fulton Ditch and the Brighton Lateral Ditch Company • East/west trails along Second and Third Creeks (respecting sensitive vegetation and _ wildlife habitats). • Connections to major destinations such as neighborhood and community parks, recreations centers, sports complexes,etc. "- 6.4 Trail Specifications The Recreation Master Plan provides guidelines for trail materials and construction (page 82), including: • The primary trails should be 10-foot to 12-foot wide and constructed in concrete. • Three to four foot wide crusher fine trails are best suited for naturalized areas. • Five to eight foot wide bike lanes should be included in each direction on all major arterials. Striped bike lanes could be added to streets in developed areas of town (where there is adequate width)to provide connections to key destinations. • Amenities such as benches, picnic opportunities and lighting should be provided in key areas. The trail system should be grade separated when crossing major arterial roadways where possible, utilizing under passes or overpasses. High volume collectors may be upgraded to signalized cross walks. Pedestrian crossing signs should designate cross walks for collector streets and below. 6-3 TumerColliecBraden Inc. Al OF BRIGHTON V Transportation Master Plan 6.5 Integration of Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities A goal for the Brighton community is that the overall transportation system provides safe, convenient and comfortable access within the community for pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation of programs and projects to meet this goal will require consideration of pedestrian and bicyclist needs in the planning, funding and construction of individual transportation projects. The existing and proposed off-street trails system was described in the previous sections. A complementary system of trails and walks adjacent to the city street system is required to provide connectivity to and integrate the off-street system, as well as to encourage walking and cycling as alternative transportation modes in the community. Integrating specific pedestrian and bicyclist facilities into the community transportation network requires particular planning and design attention to users of these facilities, including persons with disabilities. Current City street cross-section standards address the need for incorporating pedestrian and bicyclist needs in the design and construction of new street facilities. For example, the arterial street cross-sections require the construction of a 10-foot trail, separated from the roadway by an 8-foot lawn buffer strip. Recognizing that flexibility to respond to site conditions is essential for the planning of specific pedestrian and bicyclist facilities, as general principles, facility planners and designers should: • Plan for the interconnection of specific pedestrian and bicyclist facilities to other local and regional facilities (eliminate or minimize gaps in the trail/sidewalk system); • Accommodate pedestrian and cyclist access requirements at signalized intersections and at transit stops; • Design for uniform marking and signing of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including wayfinding systems; • Assure continued smooth, clean and safe operation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities by programming ongoing maintenance,and, • Encourage community programs that address pedestrian/bicyclist education and safety. 6-4 TumerCollie(Braden Inc. Anti BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan 7.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Existing public transit services to Brighton were described in Section 2.0 of this study. In this section, ongoing planning efforts for improved transit services to Brighton and the surrounding areas are described. Y g The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is conducting a North Metro Transportation Study. The study has been presented to the RTD Board. The study's focus is on mid- and long-term transportation improvements. The study is evaluating three alternatives for major capital improvements: 1. Light rail transit along the Boulder Branch tracks(east of I-25) 2. High occupancy vehicle lane extensions on I-25 (north of US 36) and on I-76 (1-25 to US 85 or Vasquez) 3. Highway/roadway improvements. — In the Brighton area, the study is evaluating the proposed roadway improvements including in the DRCOG Metrovision Plan as well as incorporating the projects proposed in the US 85 Access Plan thru Brighton. The study is also considering several right-of-way preservation corridors along the rail line between Denver and Brighton and one will be selected. Mid-to long-range transit service improvements could include: • Enhancement of the Route R service(between Denver and Brighton) _ • New east-west cross-town service along SH 7 • Extend service along 12d2further east • Expand Brighton-to-Denver International Airport service. — Potential near-term service changes include adding an extra bus or two to the Route R service. RID recently purchased a 5-acre park-and-ride site south of Bridge Street between US 85 and Is t Avenue. RTD also wants to construct a park-and-ride lot along 1-76 in order to start express service into downtown Denver on I-76. Bromley Park has dedicated as site for a park-and-ride lot at the northeast quadrant of the 144hAvenue/I-76 interchange. 7-1 TumerColliejBradenInc. ow CC BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan .- 2 The North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (NFRTAFS) was a Major Investment Study sponsored by four public agencies: • The Colorado Department of Transportation; • The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council; • The Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission;and • The Denver Regional Council of Governments. The study's purpose was to develop regional solutions to safety problems, traffic congestion, air quality issues, and mobility problems between the northern Colorado population centers and the Denver metropolitan area. Solutions recommended by this study were aimed at falling within projected funding constraints and at sensitivity to community needs and environmental regulations. The recommended Vision Plan for the NFRTAFS study area includes several major components that are of particular interest to the City of Brighton: • A revised "hybrid" rail alignment focused in the I-25 right-of-way, generally a single- track alignment with passing tracks where needed, using self-propelled Diesel Multiple Unit "regional rail" commuter rail technology, with branches to Greeley and Fort Collins, and using the Union Pacific Railroad Branch south of its intersection with I-25; • Combination general purpose-HOV/bus lanes on I-25 from SH-7 to SH-66; • The North Metro HOV lanes on I-25 from 70th Ave.to SH-7; • Inter-regional bus service including service on US 85; and • Regional Transportation Management mobility improvements, including miscellaneous roadway and Intelligent Transportation System improvements on I-25, US 287, and US 85. No funding decisions have yet been made by any entity involved in the study to implement any portion of the Vision Plan. 7.3 S RTD does not normally install bus pullout lanes at most stops given the difficulty buses have leaving them and entering the traffic stream. They are only considered in congested areas where there is either a time transfer-taking place or at the end of a line for staging purposes. 7-2 TumerCollie@Braden Inc. pTYW BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan APPENDIX 1 Model Land Use Assumptions TumerColliecBraden Inc. Model Land Use Assumptions 2001 Model 2020 MOON .e. Employees by Employm by Traffic Number o2 l%es111ng Unite Em rloyment TYYe Number of Owelli9g Units Em`loymata Type Analysis Low Middle MIg5 Low Middle High Zara Acreage Population Income Income Income Production Retail Service Population Income Income Income Production Rebell SeMce 5,901 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 528 0 976 a� 560 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 672 42 126 112 0 0 509 21 0 3 5 0 0 0 825 32 155 138 0 80 597 171 3 23 40 42 0 0 1,975 123 311 329 4 0 250 1,142 e8 2 7 15 to 0 100 2,121 229 419 323 10 0 100 313 1.340 54 300 202 19 303 283 1,448 az 327 210 19 303 263 154 2,484 175 447 333 14 105 157 2,458 167 400 332 14 106 187 524 2,387 196 442 227 24 323 603 3.100 264 590 300 277 32 557 634 251 15 43 53 7 3e 9,341 776 1,649 1.485 26 7 257 1 1,410 9 0 3 1 14 0 11,119 810 2,634 1,289 280 82 130 1 2509 432 17 85 60 1 19 1,024 44 251 174 5,00 242 I 611 38 3 5 7 0 2,001 1,167 0 0 16 0 1 649 115 7 m 24 1 0 2,454 1,035 0 0 18 0 1 034 432 18 78 88 7 1,224 77 229 204 28 0 1 509 211 8 39 39 1 869 54 163 148 0 OM 1 647 720 41 148 III 28 41 120 5,755 138 581 409 m 41 120 1 306 4.502 34 047 672 41 14 549 4.e10 350 8558 673 41 14 551 1 453 4,652 25 739 067 14 1 981 4.064 256 518 553 14 1 981 t 934 2,235 24 433 314 11 5e 157 10,632 2,025 1,457 918 1,00 70 189 20 896 15 3 9 0 4.451 1,237 341 zee 4 13 198 21 252 0 0 0 0 4,740 296 ee9 790 e0 22 576 9 2 2 0 3,038 190 570 506 100 23 003 55 7 12 0 869 54 163 145 0 24 470 0 0 0 5 859 e4 163 146 50 ds m 1,459 1,066 13 ie1 130 152 29 1,467 369 473 291 44 1 505 m 360 as to 13 164 304 953 ea 174 122 164 82 0 27 985 152 21 30 5,916 882 995 588 510 0 28 645 7 I 2 8,185 964 358 316 2,41 172 570 29 350 0 0 0 886 0 369 0 2,77 1,387 120 a. 30 1,345 b 4 6 3.700 160 013 910 24 61 42 31 597 72 14 14 146 10 29 25 0 0 0 32 150 13 3 3 90 0 19 15 0 0 0 33 592 167 37 34 2,400 334 333 313 en so 0 34 906 171 20 33 26 2,026 844 0 0 0 609 120 a5 440 102 23 9 874 0 193 171 4,668 428 1.840 36 4.304 121 13 24 1 003 93 159 135 13 189 23 37 5,532 218 1 25 38 1,260 133 240 188 473 645 876 b 960 0 2 1 1 I 283 32 60 99 0 17 10 ar 39 647 77 12 15 2 2 1,331 122 234 in 259 40 464 40 460 84 11 13 I 337 18 54 05 10 2 6 41 1.189 331 1 41 59 22 1 2,604 163 488 434 5,411 5,913 2,319 42 986 250 43 43 17 7,550 280 1,575 1,555 80 0 122 e . 43 323 ea 15 7 27 1 3 60 3 18 8 725 163 1.334 44 601 235 1 48 45 38 4 782 38 144 130 506 41 1,557 45 618 150 1 29 37 725 4 07 153 3785 0 0 48 454 56 6 33 8 28 79 7 11 081 89 1,565 47 740 77 12 7 149 1 20 22 77 0 135 b 470 110 1 21 0 110 13 21 70 1,308 130 49 201 14 2 0 33 7 5 70 3 143 50 1.2800 0 5 56 12 8 5 0 0 51 1,891 5 1 0 17 3 3 792 152 1,408 52 1,900 602 20 83 121 57 1.954 94 299 457 57 1 4 53 1.933 417 20 52 73 1.131 127 1 1.901 11 272 390 2,259 135 2,101 54 90 34 1,533 92 14 19 1 1 2.26) 8 506 2 400 10 55 1,290 61 32 17 22 63 3.127 105 871 401 22 191 53 56 315 33 4 7 162 15 29 27 2 0 3 57 740 a5 10 15 1,502 56 232 356 247 24 458 58 1,240 272 I 30 45 1 502 41 76 70 230 92 421 59 1,389 5 2 e5 5 13 12 347 27 643 60 437 72 1 17 9 144 10 23 29 III b 50 61 1,803 52 1 5 12 3 64 2 15 7 1.022 42 1.073 ma 82 1,021 79 1 IS 4.628 230 800 1,029 5 200 0 03 036 25 6 750 75 153 114 0 0 0 64 035 2 I 414 39 a0 64 39 3 73 55 1,081 37 4 781 47 104 85 5,714 618 10,009 64 2.919 45 8 1 1.891 119 305 415 3,541 18 0.548 k 67 36,629 3,562 20 77 465 336 1 ree 10,620 622 2.374 1A29 367 132 56 88 7,422 1,347 15 245 180 1 5e 144 4,158 481 760 495 54 131 224 totals 115,883 30658 2.07 5,58 4,853 4,25 2.076 3,454 158.494 16,264 26,357 21,479 48.923 17.987 43,115 5387 ORCOG Table 30,790 1,991 5,550 4,670 4,17' 2456 3,384 121,679 6,607 24,207 19,756 25,902 9,301 0,741 %Change .0.4% 4.0% 0.2% -0.4% 2.1% 9.0% 3.0% 30.3% 141.2% 9.0% 9.7% 0.9% 93.4% 44% Sane: Denver Regional Council of Governments Sketch Travel Model.Please refer to affected map for the location of those zones. Note: Households grouped by Income. Lowe%15%are lwHncome with the reed 45%combing mbdledncane end the highest 40%as high-income. Sources for Land Uses rasa Slack•DRCOG Blue-Adjustments made by TC0.9 Green•Adjustments matte by Brenton p1.100 0q department. Magenta-Land uses per traffic study submitted t0 the city. pTY OF BRIGHTON - VTransportation Master Plan APPENDIX 2 City Adopted Roadway Cross-sections TumerCollie0Braden Inc. _ Y ` — Q It z w r ^ m WQ w 5 = F — Q O , W W o Cr) I 1.- in ° • m Q ? O .— OZ ai CC CA LJ Z� tfl� un w U p Q I— § N ej U W O 0-dIn Z Q Q 0 Wi-. t0 H J z O �� • W 30 Q Li Q o W UI' CZ W N �� N a O 1 o ✓ W o Q M > O 0 2 p a W ~ ^ Ncc z J O 4 W I-- co w p w w ON W W f Z CO tom H-- Yl-CC tCl� t'1 U) Q� NU 2 ? CI-J1:„......../r. J U . J � Q Vi a 1 v b_ Li z • J W z + 3 Z w )- vi C a V W L..1 ( �_ STANDARDS (Revised: 7-12-00) PAGE 11-A • • (../1 Y J _ e i— Q i z i W N W k N Q • to a \� W Cr) \ I — 0 z 05 ��• (3 • a1— Q a in F— O 0 w z Q O m t w(N N2 b\ c 2 T a _L v w n -�� 30 dS CI In W O b Q r") > o E v cc D 0 LI N \, < — I z N J 0 ,a la W CV Q 1 I- d w —D 0 a cta N C�� Y ZO I-- Y I- a0 o - • a o J c7-1 o Q = U cri l_ z O 2 I- Q W - w Z O M a w d a (../) 3 W W. 9 1 STANDARDS (Revised: 7-12-00) PAGE 11-B w , z _ Oz i3 0 O0 Z = w Z II- Q < Z M M - I.— oa>o o / a6np QdO Z0 I- o z z O U� 3 � z - — Imo m U U O CI) Z W w C__) O 6� 0 W O V / O N z d f > zp < I N = moo J m o 0 Q a d U z = Q ES' i . Z N CC w _..1 o Jo o Q ol z o z 0 O W Z I- Z I 4 O • STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) PAGE 11-C y • I 1 1 in N . I w r Z o.. w in in O J NQ W Z l tv w Q H W • I • > / Z 1O Z • I-Q Z w I LLJ > 3 U Q) O Z O O O N -1 � t Z . Q N ?� O U N • • o a In 0 Q 64.3\ w ¢ Z CL Q IN JLAI in Q cc I- Z - Z Icc � c) o Q w w J ---D io a' Z Q r r = 0 H. iisi La" F- O Z i a ¢ Z = W ; ono n s gj a oce 0 in _ N x• N I- x 0 (/) v w Zr — N re z w O — l w Q M U — uJO w J Q 1-- 3a STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) PAGE I1-D • • i • • Z I '_ O Y J Q i I— W F- N _ `) 0 I Lai Z ¢ /��.L ' ^/'�I VI N W O^ NN N ZNO I O 3 o z J vi• — ,( ) N v�. •• •••.0 0 c. / J ci O N > d'i d� a � 0 L/J_� Q N W _ U , • W W Z N O Q N J J CO O E� 00 Z (n - } Q N O N in 3 O z ~ N • Z I— O _ r— _ d N ooao Z I— > N N tNi� p Z O W ^^ W NI a Ja } ( / < N WWJO NQIi N V) I--- D » w } vi O L��d/ z % crr 3000 p:: J Q of v� O N O Z o Iii_ • � — W o � � z J • I w Op Q `- C N W N Q 3 D • O• ~ .c. ,,, cc N _ i w pOwr- S o Q Q \ O N N IJ I 4 Li I— r� O O. Q N 1 f — VI ) N L . • • STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) PAGE 11-E J I — W J i- z w Q o inL J N in Q w Z IX in 'so D O � — � x z W N D U J'r J I— a Vw o w�up �. Z z (t jN LI_IN U O �- w w= ¢ O C N Z Ow W~ I- O O zz 3 Ial 11 2 a-CC Z N w ¢ O w 3� Lhe w UJ J m NQ w. Q �>- � w UUw~ N O 3 O wU � N o _ _ - O H < O J Z K 0 O O Z Q • Z m O Z 0- 1- 2Z O L-Ito to U UUO uj Y D 0 -JJ O Z J N J QU 0 Li- I N F- w0Z JO —.) NJ 0 \r H 2 Z z n LU .('-c)O } O I- I 7 la- Q 22 Q O m fV M 4 tri in cem — Ni U O in r I— O Co I- U z W w ri s r- a J J ' w 0 U STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) PAGE 12-A — CD B Z io i Y - _J - Q F Q O . In W J 1 nn • W O LJ� N ¢ u7 W co N I— in b5 - o o �� ' i— VI CCa U- ---I - O iw w ¢ a CO CC m w IX 5 ..- Z W 1"••• � •N = J UN Q O > • Z . U Z O Z J O O z2 _ N O ~ z 3 Q � � L.L N N j 9 U WC. LI W O_ W N a Z NUOcn H }- F p W L�11 — I — m U ZZZ LL) - Li a Ij o mw Z 0 j NI 3 oUo — Z °° C cnoa I— w U NZI O m H Z 2 — — ^ - N c W Q OW Ni U I- Z I"- _I I ...../ Z ¢O r I I-- I N n 3 O mCC I O i- W C N • - I- ' NI W V) Q W ^� ' _ 1O J �^ -J O U • STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) PAGE 12-B • • z - a c _J r- J Z 4 In m . — z o I- e ow a CCQ W D I — CC In *ca I- L.I Z 'vy w w U z v) ce i-_ i S w z • 2 N Z OW U ~ O z z `` J N cW.» a m o 0 0 Q o z o i z } � � o Q N ? Ir, 03 o coo m z. 3 J O Q J 0_ < 0. \ .....- cn P b N I=- Z W ...... I— - NO J O w cc 0TC 2 cr i— • — I �i N M In O 00 CCsir O Z to W — a; W U _ I a L1J �' J • — J O U . • STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) • PAGE 12-C C--- . 1 i 3 N • 3 3 1 ] • 3 • 1 3 3 3 -I o - N CO U N U O1 cn 1 wnI , V I CD N EC a o Cr) ~ N a Cr) oo 0 Z N se. f CL Cl. U p ID J rm m W Q . E2O ^ U U Z w j o CD U O U D , \ �J V J Q in L w • N 11 Z . O W N 7 Q K Li CO O N U F o O 33 3 3 J . Q ce O HJ 3 f.-. 3 3 STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) PAGE 13—A ^K K. 3_ , - N _ - ; O In 3 _J .cc N C) i+7 U O , Cr) N - 0 — V..' i isi W • N a O D z z - i a m a N o d z n U > O • J O O Z Z O N � m Y Lli o • w a. M W N o O O nu Cf) >_- — — \ ce Z w W < Ins o cc z r1• I� U m 3 lsl J in Q < d O IN o Cd W o D 0 O W W. CO • la Q Z N O H Ts U W in — O • N M Qln cc CC N U U 1 1 in Co 3 3 I- 6 J W a M CL W in O J a I/ W . O d In j STANDARDS (Revised: 07-12-00) • PAGE 13-B / BRIGHTON VTransportation Master Plan APPENDIX 3 Project Concept-Level Cost Estimates TumerCollie5Braden Inc. 08060 U) N0aS00 . caaW WWWONWWWWWW WWWN00WWWWWWWW0rWWWWoWg00000Woaa 00 0 fV N N N N Oi yy N ld Co p_ a N rW W N W W W W W N a W W a A C N• N a yp M O aN�. mp O A 0 , N p o o O p O p O O O o O O O O O N O O O O O o O p O O m A O O p p m o V O i0 O O O m O O O� a1A W W W a Ay N m 0 W W M N v w W W W W W W W N N N W W W W N W a WNW W W W W W W N w N N N W W a W a a W g N N N O W N G ao m Wa9WNr a Td a ra a NN N om�{{ N d a W W N 9 m p t _ q€ AWSWWWWWWWWWWSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW r € e • B O a W W W CO) N � z N K N = O•`Q�Oj p p tpp WWWW 8.y 8 �p p p m 3 a N OWW r Nt NN NNNmN M00 “N 0 wI? tvJ NNNO N M N NNN(N 0aO M 00 % Ny n-Nm l+f N �NN ONN 000 GAO a NNN0 a00 nm 0 —. a .. N W dd H NAW W wAN W 69 NNW W�O Ww W wN W NNOO w W ' VVQ1 t� y p tt�� ((ppyy {{pp o pppp p ppy py l� N NN T r-OWNNGODMM0g00MW V N WNO WW @NW ioNWWm002aaggp mm lmOMfO2YNJM W t00010OMm W Npppm OtNOS tAD L O t A srs�� m W MM VpNCJ NO) F-- (N� N A lO tM� GOpO fl - -fO N fOhm MNOMmr NMrO �wr fOONN AN O e 2 X N N 9 NN N w— — v - - R W W W m 0 V rN r p (Na m H N w H N r 0 w lr N w w r N w N r W O W 0 w N H r w w ai N r N O U a 00 a N N a N N W W a N W 0g CO Q m p((pp O pp pp p o O O o p o N d O W S W W W W W W W W W W el m W W m W W W 8 W W m W W G00V W a W W W W KR— W W W W W WNW W W W W W W W W W 0M W W 0V!W W W W W > GT a �Ny O C y•g W a a N WK N E9 N 2 X aW O N A O M 0 N O C) 0 r W 0 O Op N O N A W N A O O NW m N O A O m A W O w w 0 N r 0 lop p0 M M a00 0 0 M oo) N O GOO as 0 O - pp V W W {fly m m O W W N W W W W N N pC fl g p Z g N g N M r N N M m W N N A m a� m O N 1� Q N 0) YI b O A Y!N TY O a N Y) Q O Y) OI_O N O V OI M 01 OI a0 m M r CO is`_ a0 W yy l+l f`N W )O yy CJ 1p {y N N d N a} W V r M d a d• {Vlyy YI N t+1 y r N N r r W d A N N d Y V' yp 1_ 0 --N N N N VI N N N N N N NTH N N N N N N N N M N N N H N N N N rN N'N N N N N N N w N.N - N m U - N N • 5Os 3 as tnH NES w d c a t. p W • c 2O Oy OQ aO_ d �((JJ -b W rN � LL d 3 � EN EOM N lw dqd g E OatG pamp 0 MO N OyOy Mo 00 0 sm� O N yOy O 0 yO 0O m8 �HW �N 1.4. 1° �M tl! M WN a W a a aw yr m W ci 81Z2;Mo r8 r M «F w rW CI co cc�� C CD 0 w � .� mB OmNrAm O0-t n �R N 0 0 0 E 3aE �'Aa Ww«,19a Y, rN� w �w NN g w ;ww� CO w w a c0 MI C cp O .� d p " N U V m e 'E T T o m c (3 Z% 2w w '% $) z d O ` mad a agE - N r UCO N a m O z aN A • a W N W N W N H $. a c W c y m O A O m m ' N m 0 p0 pp y0 0 a applpp 0 p O pp N N zC = AiN M Ow A m O C0m O lN raDm ld > ; c EE -W wlYi IYiN V; N wN �ww N� c c c p pp m p pp pp r0000 0000N00 pp0000400000004 d C o g . r 0 r 7 O N r N V N 0 0 0 N M N M M NON N M 0m 0 0 0 0 T O O V N O N N )0, a mm r O r .- 0 T N G d o o M N 0 N d M O N o r r r O Cj r r M r o r N o O r O r O O O r o N O o r r N a K 0 0 m 0 o i $ 5 a) 9 a x p] C Q 8 9 yy tm �. 3ry m p m Qy 0) y Q > 0 N N v O Gj J d > KlLL (L m d O £ Yp R O C > C > l0N C 12 mam bm dui `m �_ o d c y m d > M m dr £ Q £ a'�£ 5 QD l� ¢ K KQ E .N O D E m. ^ m `• C LL x F 7 `o c 9 7 a . - J O 4 C 2 . £ S d ee 00000 3 3 3 3 C N J m F- a > JoF- _ F- N 9 d O ' W" O OJ d Y C E rr m — s ... r «M n gom70 Doc > ui d3 « c t2 sm $ d28 Q E8 o = Em aE o0oN m x ._ S -- -• m Qo o)ao 1p 000 o— Em 0 , 0 — m0 d3 e « mm d O 00 O000D0 . L -' 9 5 — > � m _ c C p d "' m y — 01d om a ._ 9 0 or T ?: CC 00Coc Gci2 a � 2Km mm 00 m _ rnm cm d �'£ 3ai3 � s �c�ppsciclpp � ais3ai ... « � � ¢ � 0 0 > > - m E > W > > a' 0 a T C 3 ° C O X c N d E m 0 T > T N GA T > m J > > O o 0 > 0 E Q Q E c — Q - Q Q d m > N d B U) O d o 0 E o d d 0, e y d Q d c d a) Q S 0 c a m 0 Q c c N c c c c Q m H t £ udi ≥ y,£ 3E £ � G° Q m 'Sa a - a G° $ m'pcp GEi ryryEa Ea£ Ewv Ems £yE y £ Y Em swwudiyc a 0 (X 000 _ ,.. 000a m £ 0 . 0 00 0c N 0 'c d ? d 2 'c 2 y e m 'C 2 1p 2 m a 2 a m m 0 m m m m S 2 > v ) x O N f M r a 7 * J00 7M m m D a m a X K L00 .- 0000r0 m 2 m r m m m o m m r 8 .c 8m c c c c 8188 c w ° d 0 0 0 d d d 0 0 bb o c l o` o m m 00 m '' m m `o o o o m c m G�c m c - 0 d H AE 0f 0 c c g 0 o _ i d_ a l3 _ l3 !� _ _ 2 cc m m l3� l� y§'a 'mrnt ._ c $a 8 $ a v a m m 8 H m m m 8 E V OW e VOW 8 a E MC * * * 0 $ E a E 0 H v E a E � E Ey 8 8 E H _ u £ 2222222220 so 0220 3 $ c 3 '{.3 8 2022 = 0000020 0 000000— wQ C rd C C C C C C C C C C ON N N N N N At N a N o N BSSSSS N a d a N N d a N a m d m N N N N m m N w a m m NMNMMMMMMMMMM 0 D E NNEEEEE4 E EEo)N * E5E %lbEc EFc4s4oca4EEEE ? E0 NN E4E4lae4l� NN4NN o g ttggflgtfg ggm2tgo.gg zg0g8tott � � 2gegCgttgt to gtgtt ttttttt c c c c c c _ c c c c o c c C c c c c o 2 2 2 20 po d 7 C C o 0 9 9 o 0 C 9 7 d 03 03 9 o 0 C ms 00 d d E d d m d m Er G) d d N d 0 0 N 0 0 ry r/) d m r/1 h N )n N rA N a o d O '- a p O a m v a 2 c 0 m a a c q Cd c m e c :c730 :0 9 9 0:1"c Co 0 C a 0 o CCCd CCCCC c c 300633333oo30333083533383o3383o8bo833330838388 383888388888 0 0 d 0 a W m c m 7 • Z yw l� m _ _ m 'E 26 a m l� 7 P 0 D Ac LL m m o O « .. « yt 01 m d d — d U) d m 0 d d d G� O a CC A CC c c m D J o m m O J c d > > t a > > > l d d 0 % . X 0110 2i 8 c m 3 � 33i Gci yc m m i vlo me Gci yc ,G1 > > > c' c' C' 'c mtoy 'p (ap 1 ryc s0 o E 008 > 000) 00E TTT T!. > > 1�( > > A > > d Nd « L OOOgm C a ?n d o 0)£ 0) plm0) Old d woo o < < QQQ Q — QQ Q dOQ Q Q 29 > > « < < 308888828w < 82¢ g m Kmm u: N H lG 0 0 m. c 0 009r'SaEEEEE.S a£Wp5 £OVa£� yS.;c t£tod £ 5 £ 9c grcQQ £ £ £ « "� = = 0 o3 d5 aa mm � Tmcmmmamm -im m mmm P O V � aa7 NMNmr- -- mma ammrN NNmI F N F- F- F- Fo- F- a� A $ 2 Ea - . _._ Hello