The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20033008.tiff __ Z er L �- , 25 t *ay N x Weld Countyh ,i..„..ti.,.....,...>„, _ ,...,...,„±„., y _....,,...„:„..r . � �:. � /-25 Parallel Arterial Study . 4 .,... . .. _ _ .. ..... ... , . . a...„.„:„ err'+ v .., rl a = � -siot 32 141.1 �`uOf OUR 7 =: E ww c2.4 ar 25 W'�_ .ftQgbl � �lat September 2003 7 I • IllFELSBURG lehn&Associates,Inc. ('1 HOLT & U L L E V I G Professional Engineers&Surveyors 2003-3008 WELD COUNTY I-25 PARALLEL ARTERIAL STUDY 4 Op Prepared for: Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 1111 "H" Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Principal: Robert W. Felsburg, P.E., C.C.E. Project Manager: Jeffrey W. Dankenbring, P.E. FHU Reference No. 02-211 September, 2003 FELSBURG rII H O L T & U L L E V I G Jahn a Associates,Inc. Professional Engineers 8 Surveyors fik J 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Page Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Figure 1. Study Area 1 Background 1 Figure 2. Future Plans - South 4 Purpose of the Study 1 Figure 3. Future Plans - North 5 Study Process 2 Figure 4. Environmentally Sensitive Areas - South 6 Public Input 2 Figure 5. Environmentally Sensitive Areas - North 7 II. EXISTING/FUTURE CONDITIONS 3 Figure 6. Study Alternatives 9 Land Use 3 Figure 7. Study Alternatives 10 Environmental Issues 3 Figure 8. Evaluation Matrix 11 Transportation System 3 Figure 9. Segment 1 (West) 13 III. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES 8 Figure 10. Segment 1 (East) 14 IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 11 Figure 11. Segment 2 (West) 16 Segment 1 (West) 12 Figure 12. Segment 2 (East) 17 Segment 1 (East) 12 Figure 13. Segment 3 (West) 19 Segment 2 (West) 15 Figure 14. Segment 3 (East) 20 Segment 2 (East) 15 Figure 15. Segment 4 (West) 22 Segment 3 (West) 18 Figure 16. Segment 4 (East) 23 Segment 3 (East) 18 Figure 17. Segment 5 (West) 25 Segment 4 (West) 21 Figure 18. Segment 5 (East) 25 Segment 4 (East) 21 Figure 19. Segment 6 (West) 28 Segment 5 (West) 24 Figure 20. Segment 6 (East) 28 Segment 5 (East) 24 Figure 21. Segment 7 (West) 31 Segment 6 (West) 26 Figure 22. Segment 7 (East) 31 Segment 6 (East) 27 Figure 23. Segment 8 (West) 33 Segment 7 (West) 29 Figure 24. Segment 8 (East) 33 Segment 7 (East) 29 Figure 25. Segment 9 (West) 35 Segment 8 (West) 32 Figure 26. Segment 9 (East) 35 Segment 8 (East) 32 Figure 27. Segment 10 (West) 37 Segment 9 (West) 34 Figure 28. Segment 10 (East) 38 Segment 9 (East) 34 Figure 29. Recommended Alignments (South) 40 Segment 10 (West) 36 Figure 30. Recommended Alignments (North) 41 Segment 10 (East) 36 Figure 31. Typical Arterial Cross Section 42 V. RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENTS 39 Figure 32. Roadway Through Park—Weld County Road 7 Arterial Concept 43 Alignments 39 Study Implementation Process 39 APPENDIX (SEPARATE DOCUMENT) Arterial Implementation Process 39 Evaluation Matrices Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Design Criteria Local Agencies Comments Public Comments ppFELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE STUDY BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to establish preferred alignments for parallel north-south arterials on both sides of 1-25, extending from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 and connecting to roadway systems in adjacent counties. These parallel arterials will improve local connectivity through the project corridor, Because of the visibility and the accessibility that the Interstate highway offers, significant growth has thereby lessening the demand for traffic to use 1-25 for local travel. By identifying these routes at this time, occurred in recent years along the 1-25 corridor in southwest Weld County. As this portion of the County this study will serve as a guide for Weld County and the municipalities within the project corridor to continues to grow, the need to coordinate a plan for future roadways is critical. A successful transportation preserve rights-of-way for the arterials so that they may be constructed as needed. Planning for these plan, in balance with the land use plans anticipated in the area, can only be achieved through the joint roads now will allow them to be implemented in an orderly fashion and will allow for minimized impacts in efforts of all of the communities. The comprehensive plans of the communities in the corridor indicate that the future. The study area as shown in Figure 1 extends for 24 miles along the 1-25 corridor. the higher density land uses will occur in the 1-25 corridor. This growth will bring substantial demands on l- 25 and on the local road system. Congestion is currently experienced on 1-25 and on the east-west roads 60'� providing access to 1-25 because no other reasonable choices for travel exist in the area. 1-25 will be ��Johnstown widened someday, but previous studies of the corridor have suggested that, even with widening, 1-25 will iE[≥s 6o continue to be congested in the future. Recognizing that it is prudent and responsible for government to I^■ W t plan for the future, Weld County has taken the lead to bring all local municipalities together to work on a 66 key element of the transportation plan. WCA 2 In 1997, the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Plan prepared by Weld County recognized the growth in the area adjacent to 1-25 and recommended two 4-lane north/south arterial roadways (one on each side of l- weA a Project 25) paralleling 1-25 between Weld County Road 20 and State Highway 119. These arterials were proposed Limits to relieve the pressures on 1-25 by providing more continuous, efficient and safe routes for local traffic in the area. Subsequently, in 2002 the Draft Weld County Roadway Classification Plan extended these "`" parallel arterials from State Highway 52 to State Highway 66. Most recently, the 1-25 Regional Corridor 66 Plan also recognized the need for a system of parallel arterials and has recommended this concept for the I®', 2�I area from Berthoud and Johnstown north to Fort Collins. The concept for the parallel arterial roads is based on two principles. First, with a majority of the intense JCR 4 development expected within a mile of 1-25, arterials likewise located within a mile of 1-25 could best serve -� the traffic demands associated with the growth. Secondly, if these arterials were continuous, they would be a PI"'""" an appealing alternative to using 1-25 for relatively short distance trips within the corridor, thereby allowing 1-25 to better serve its intended purpose of interregional travel. C " ` 1 352 . I W Ai G'ItI WCR�f®I Iri®, N _7 Brno Figure 1. Study Area 41FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 1 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study STUDY PROCESS The study began with an extensive data collection effort to better understand the opportunities and the constraints presented by the study area. Comprehensive plans and transportation plans from the communities in the corridor were compiled and reviewed; parcel ownership information was collected; known development plans were assembled; environmental data compiled by the County were mapped; and other relevant information was also assessed. With this information and with input from the public and from representatives of the local entities, a number of alternative routes were identified in each segment of the corridor. These alternatives were then evaluated based on a number of factors, including: transportation effectiveness, roadway geometry, impacts to the community, future land use consequences, existing development consequences, environmental impacts, safety, construction and construction costs. The results of this evaluation process were then discussed with representatives of the local entities, and "preferred" routes on each side of 1-25 were preliminarily identified. The "preferred" routes were presented to the public for comment, and additional refinements of the "preferred" routes were made. After the "preferred" routes were defined, the results of the study were assembled into this report. PUBLIC INPUT Local entities, including the Town of Berthoud, the City of Dacono, the Town of Erie, the Town of Firestone, the Town of Frederick, the Town of Johnstown, the City of Longmont, the Town of Mead, the City of Northglenn, the City of Thornton, Larimer County, Adams County, and the City and County of Broomfield, have been actively involved with this planning process since its beginning. A Local Agency Advisory Group, comprised of representatives of these local governments and other agencies, has met three times throughout the study to provide input on data needs, the identification of alternatives, and the evaluation of those alternatives. In addition to these meetings, County staff and the consultant team have conducted additional meetings with other affected groups such as Colorado State Parks, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) and the St. Vrain Valley School District. Input from all of these entities has been important in the selection of the "preferred" routes. The general public has also been an integral part of this process. An initial open house for the project was conducted to receive input from the public on concerns, issues, and opportunities for potential routes through the project area. Over 70 residents attended the initial open house for the project. Two additional open houses were held prior to the selection of the recommended alignments. In order to ensure maximum public involvement in the final open houses, notification was sent to the property owners adjacent to the preferred routes, which involved over 1,200 mailers; advertisements were placed in three local papers — the Longmont Daily Times-Call, the Johnstown Breeze and the Frederick Farmer & Miner; and a notice was posted on the County's web site. Over 285 residents attended the final open houses for the project. Numerous phone calls and letters have also been received from the public on this study. Comments from the public for this study have been compiled and can be found in the Technical Appendix. pFELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 2 0 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study II. EXISTING/FUTURE CONDITIONS LAND USE The information that was collected during the data collection process served as the basis for creating and The existing land uses within the project corridor vary from warehouse and retail uses to residential and evaluating alternative alignments. The sources of the data collection were Weld County, local agricultural uses. A majority of the study area is low density or rural in character. However, there are municipalities and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Existing land use plans, dense residential developments in the Frederick, Firestone, Dacono, Erie and Mead areas, and commercial transportation plans and specific development plans were compiled, as well as aerial photography, right-of- developments exist adjacent to major roadway corridors such as State Highway 119. way and parcel ownership information, environmental considerations, railroad crossing information and USGS topographic information. All of this information was assembled to help the planning team better The future land use for the study area, as shown on Figures 2 and 3, was derived from the communities' understand the characteristics of the study area. plans as described above. The majority of the communities' plans show industrial and mixed use business activities directly adjacent to 1-25, with residential areas located outside the planned commercial areas. As part of the data collection effort, numerous comprehensive plans and transportation plans from the One area that differs from this is the Mead area on the west side of 1-25, where residential areas are communities in the corridor were collected. The plans include the following: planned directly adjacent to 1-25. ► Weld County Mixed Use Development Plan (February 1997) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ► Weld County Roadway Classification Plan (June 2002) ► The Broomfield 1-25 Sub-Area Plan (November 1999) Existing environmentally sensitive areas were obtained from the County's GIS Department. Areas of ► Adams County Transportation Plan (April 1996) environmental concern include the following: ► Broomfield Master Plan (1995) ► Flood Plains ► Dacono Transportation Plan (June 2003) I Bald Eagle Areas ► Town of Erie Transportation Plan (July 1997) ► Burrowing Owl Areas ► Town of Erie Development Plan (October 1999) ► Duck & Geese Areas ► Frederick Comprehensive Plan (1996) ► Great Blue Heron Areas ► Town of Firestone Land Use Map (January 2003) ► Town of Mead Transportation Plan (Currently being updated) ► Mule Deer Areas ► Northern Leopard Frog Areas ► Johnstown Transportation Plan (August 2002) ► Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan (March 2001) ► Peregrine Falcon Areas ► 1-25 Corridor Plan (May 2001) ► Prairie Dog Areas ► Town of Berthoud Land Use Plan for the 1-25 Sub-Area Study (currently being finished) ► White Pelican Areas ► White Tailed Deer Areas This chapter summarizes the information extracted from these plans and the information received from the ► Wild Turkey Areas County's Geographical Information System (GIS) Department. These areas are shown on Figures 4 and 5. Most of the environmental areas are concentrated around the Barbour Ponds State Park, Boulder Creek, St. Vrain River and Little Thompson River areas, as well as some isolated pockets around Mead and the Highlands Lake area. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Most of the communities' plans within the corridor depicted the location of future major and minor arterials, regional arterials and collectors. The proposed roadway networks from all of the communities were combined into one graphic to determine the continuity of the roadways within the project corridor. Figures 2 and 3 show the roadway network as it was defined in the communities' plans. dFELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 3 I) 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study i i FUTURE PLANS-SOUTH I I-25 Sub-Area Plan: 1995 Broomfield Master Plan: Town of Erie Transportation Plan(Updated July 199Th 1996 Frederick Comprehensive Plan: Town of Firestone(Land Use Map-01119103): ---•Major Arterial Mixed Uae Commercial MinorArterial 41Z 2020 Laneege\Bulld-Out laneage Principal Arbdal Park •;•: sensitive Wildlife Anus. Residential ••••• Minor Arterial Regional Commercial Rural Arterial •••••Arterlel - Future investigation Required Commercial Collector Regional Arterial ColbUw Rural Residential a RaiEmployment Collector Residential Mixed Use Buelnuallnduetrlal Regional Trails&Part Parcel Information collected from Open Lands Principe Artedal Commercl I Weld County GIS Department 'gp • �. C "1 � e r •yyip� si fryy,� ^TI`'l~�p�•'•� v C i r— i Z-...., .' r J •� `� -.1!"1“r*- L7.- V C.. � �x ---. d° GM iu -...�I�1�'3,.7 ��1 �, l '.� • :.S 1 [J fir ' ! C "'i �...... i�'r"e *.y( .' t,..,- �. ) t Ot V :r -Y,i Q Yn}.i Rk J' ..�� ' Teal VA `d n r v_ ...WWR�/L•••4 rila Y .n ` � 'Qg _ .y Cl ,_ Pc�� YRIi Y 'S Y� T• { � _� y�y� + ' .r A �,y 1 { Y �' - itj, �` 6.r V •; '• r 7 • � i ;t:..,' 'j V T� '!.v�. h v� ,�� zx� t CR? a :,.� Lz� . 4 �► ,�. u�._ k L1.d1 wk.* • i � s m • ti •[ �� _yv + oa ` :11P.--11 ::F "� x rs r 1 � ^"r �'' �' ^• i ' 1 /�"ad�R-.rai Ya 1 ,- n 'i . v . r r y N� �q i a �-..` $tk i'. � r< •F ::-.7_,,,,..._-,- r 3 /,! tm ''!: ,d4fl lid i.n .^i,`-.--4...-ii �. 1 . a �I � 1 �a� e'Sr A� �. o ,. ur 9.r•. 'Yro4 a o o ® , P J'� ryl lc i•LFT g r;sm v n -e j 1!vv'a a t -.y G a�jV A,' Siw- y.:� Ry B( _ aliFkrr ' ,, j moo .. .h ,�.,.. ce, s- ii °�s ;<:. seai ' 'T • 25 • �t 25 v ! i`Sr ' c `s 4 tY'' iaa�: r C tt jt aii logstl .tat "—�,, _. Ma- L - �A fit a c� - � . Tr r a xj[` HI-j \--4''''''''' j1,,,,,,..,„4,,„_,,,t-,\,, ,,,-, .,--, x '1[.., c e r I new �� '. -_.„,„„i S-'`._.a I -1 ^' i" +'I-2i 3 v a--. I �" ✓$1 x"I - ° k _. '� ' ,e3: 4t 7 - --+ ! � � " .- 1'111.)e xrt 4 ""72'2 +'- � +`/ A ::?!.;:itiira ye r + .i3.� / ',' C , yyV ". ,� u_ i �l�l x� ,. � cif-� ,sx •d.mm 4.4 a r 1 4 ,• tp 'tFF7.' �7 _ iii / ''�l .LI 1 .. "�' i ttedixal!tn ``f': . 1. eAe.,., f f'V ice' r_• lx P. . '. w i>.c \ �, : `.Z r^ =w >s' �'-"u t " svl �°i` +V ' u. ,..,„ ,....� Figure 2 FELSBURG P CII HOLT & UtLEv1G Page 4 ) . ' 4 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ) ) ' FUTURE PLANS-NORTH ) Town of Firestone(Land Use Map-01118103): Town of Mead Transportation Plan: Johnstown Transportation Plan(Revised August 2002): Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan(March 14,2001): ) Residential Existing Commercial •••••Minor Arterial n 2020 Laneage Build-Out Laneape MinorAMdal Light IndusMel Commercial Existing Residential •••••Major Arterial ••••• Major Arterial Reh1llCommercial Parcel information collected from Regional Trails&Parks Planned Residential Subdivisions Four-Lane State Highway Weld County GIS Department _ i� Planned Commercial Collector i .t1 '+ � r (. z�r oaf,r`' iji1Agn y r im' �., ")j IpissImmo,y—y�� ► "® _ �-! `iai 8 � ■ _ 18 � E 5 �1EAD s.►�� At , N . 0 tip '� .�• � .'. r-.P. . " OE rG �y0 o gam, 1.• r t ,�t, .- .. W►.c �. I ,�' • - '. _. 0O E4% 9-* 11 I , r t �4 v ` " ::':'.Yl sEpY •� � :t.�.��g WCR ( a9 �""�'.� ' � psivi — _ *Ail, NJI>S^GIG z _ s r �lit' r ,� �. � j s x L�rti'iIR °Irr+JCJ 1 'iatig �Jt Yy; ►' O '-h� L �� -mil r l ry� N \ `- z 1 r J �'.�/�t " " A'I ^, Dr2-�LSf fS r• scam P, t.* 't u'.'. - i , '1 • '� 131 8 Iw A D JaJ Y rl' p Y: y }'+' 1 filar ,. w. oa �.. �''+n2 I 14,...L7' ...ill i Ss' �. - .< o far ` .- �q om_ S.y^' ,;_.I .e. 3 a® ��a .... ._. m0 .€.:... 1 • P� / .. - :' :.J.COYOTE �3 � Y I p® I!'t.( 1 _ LL mm _l`c 02 .c..wi RUN ..,:^'`�? K. ��1� a.� _. ® of 1 exsesa'�is - "P ‘II� ' ' �:` an m' '.... r o girl ry 1 [ m : Ye' a - Aviii _ 25� hi ealINI 1. riii _ os-�g \1 ... , ,— 1 25 r.isidf •Pct. ti— _ —s— ° 25.�- ra.s Ott{! C .Y� y 9i e f"' ©,�[� J .�UeMeF.6 Y ri C� f4�r � ) Ada , is , I. , �`4 w 11M\ fz3 ( , 'C"1 i_, "^tea �� 4.'�� 1 6't '�"i r °r='ciaa i ' ,: y- .- .+` r I �/ �i t� 4• � � w _m.n•na. {' li� �' aRe� !eACp .F"' op"'C -.:,,J n ',-.r. ,':{c _l tc^": .t.. f/ j c � ,-ii.A {S b,-,-.4:,:.-...-,--,7›.... ,�i��. '` 1 �. x ;SW.� V� _ �+ ` a : [ _::"f 1 ,� '''&1; — t `ar�. t" '. .tr`t r571sih'ei ?a" da'`•� I I °,i �ad , `af7;"S //S I kV a liAi; ..%- .�" 1T� "�� '�c =ma IN. '.t ,� ' k c :em;t ., -_ �. E- _ '. r7Ira .x- T . te_y .,I •. .. � ai,3A:.' .'c' - �.i+'>. .� a$ rr Pry,. s�.<f kgC 1 a _ it f 9fd r � 9. rl4. �i�� .` y ^G- - illtlr—h.';g tr r � h rid s:n �..'-yt-�: � Y rAXM R "ry ",yit r�-:z cirri 'r" M'+ �. .4lih� . "r„ (1.C'e a'4 t .r fs� "4 j.,itI� i _mgi1 Y �. /, .. a. w' L �.� , r `�� V "� r e'� .�, ) " „rl-- Rd ., i { _ h r �'"a '�' 5: a �.I �`r. S,''' t I� �kz J Figure 3 ,- 4 FELSHURU (Ipi! ii0LT & ULLEVIG Page 5 I ) 11 ='r" ;, 4. 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ) ) LEGEND: ENVIRONMENTALL YSENS/T/VEAREAS-SOUTH ) M1 Flood Plain Gnat Blue Heron Aran Prairie Dog Mu ®Bald Eagle Areas F~ Mule Deer Areas White Pelken Areas ) rdils Burrowing Owl Areas E''-Northam Leopard Frog Areas While Tailed Deer Areas Data collected from Weld County J I Duck&Geese Areas Peregrine Falcon Area Wild Turkey Ann sGIS Department ) •71 - .e . >lt^*44.„,r w.- .. C 5tr t3 Fie ,�e� max ® 'Ii� a ty /t CR5 .. r , .-------',-.1-, - t{. ..yy�� lO :..Y Q"�Xa 1i-'). r J AR S,, 1 .: a a _ t ' I�1 Z 8� i$y r e Ed� .4?I - ' . , •@.i r m3k., ffir .L-rx" �L i'•r g$ 8 €� 4 {wte4 ai ya, 1 6 4w 7„ �ki ! i i' .� 6r I ''.•"..R.:: -et.G-:.W " a:Fa- I d ' * iti L'..`e� ;4'`xs ,1 7__ iv% la rSs,- s'..t.- y�i`' _.eL _ � � e?, • � t � e \ X1 � 63 vor$C r,r � a { �1 ..titi R i �Tl, tl -.. 4 I t. �< S•'^" "A �r ,-it _ _ ! �y •• . 4 ▪ / :' air ' �` a ,�. to i" `9-,:s f[�eral I;411; 'c z: )sb� 4_. IAN ,may n. - — I.� - r; `'� _. . .r s--,__ rt. y'�a�d. i �, - '�- • ;�f,�,- � �ee k€!:�)�, r f3 itz I, F8 iii,„---.,, t,..1' .� I,vAz r.,- CR7 . „ ffi � _ -4 r� ® w� t. a +t Aa�..'.xL.P.__ •',en::-55,,,V 5.13)1:-.'.'- 4.1 of Lr&R* 11 1 ..4at a c ., d� ≥ ar - dL9 f '� F+, ate' �&i.'egQ } n Sv ta eggpyy t Iff = , it- .,9 i L �a ,) - W 1 X'R',`' _ g 'd' qi. rr.-, p ate -a_ € Y.•r f:tot'+lri'fani '/FPb! qt r. i 'Lit' "�_ . `.W4 r I `yy (t i „A ,.k_ aSa S �:1�4 y r -_: �Aek I ,}i �KiV'�:e*{,,Nl•)))Y f ,' :� a ,.. s zo , , .,# 44":"'- PT' ,...F r t Y .. I � - -'Lnr.`-- „' - y .t.._.r>' ' _.g'�R A f .,-� ..�� '. �y ID a r 1.f ri BPS r._.... �' [ �� i , !�an 1 ,r* _1 :Iatri hilliglims !isfk LETro4ins sr- , s& ' �"• � i s.w.: -,- tf 0 Y • J5 ${ ;)s - cs s \r�� x., "G � z. .T Ina a, ` ratat' � �. I1� �,ea .,a ' rs _" _ r SOi� Jf �i ater -ec� ^ti i -s ,;is) 1 ' t5,5 ii fr f , : �•_F -. f .�1l ` i ■ , 2 4 §7 'Y :.5 a - '^ a ` < , w."� d� y. of D . Sr R_•. CR 11 �~4yayy a, t9... " `,�. "�.,. S.. df . , .. 2� ` ! _ C r .. ispie,i...b3l7dt5Ri 1 - - �� .„:„..,,,,,,..,,I.:,:-71F;1 w^�� sa< F1 1 � 4 :4 4 r — 'wn '"r ''`yi ° P �c ,y_— Ct..' 541 4 {� 5�7ii1i °) 1 � , It 1I F. I :-- ,r' al ;r- qtr :a - .� T S(� 4 ` Tr21� $} 't t .1 Syel, $ -.. T3 3 ''' ^, '� p / ax 2 i t-,_.;,it - s+j 7 ._ 1 '1 '' l'a5 •F •'rim- J1 I'� $'rsi s .4: >x - ,, � 1 „'1� . piR �' \[ '_'=lS�� ..ill 1 �{s...+� yy ..I `*.`� Phi T(: � .;w ,-a E•+ - t r..- d alimor� _ '!_ I'''- i s,.t ll,, E 'f^� t , s r, A. °ec p� z. .4,-4,4- ., � 7.tofill,-7;I'X41- � s kat :V741:07. l . �, , , `2,'L.,t , a t.. y a a :4 v;iiii r -4.- -..� ]6it cave n • �'-" $r1 .'\ `� R a ! ,r y d 1u f F .k t�.. :"f.�. Lf✓- L. 't-41471r f \ T.;a ��s-� Y � $1 J ,srle n_rll!c.'Y 144 :S�...� :. ��ds rll r. 'CR�93�� RiniiMilimi .. Figure 4 PI FELSBURG CHOLT & � ULLEVIG Poge6 ,.��-ti . tole 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ► ► ) ) ) ®Floal Plain Mule Deer Wild Turkey Areas ENVIRONMENTALL YSENS/TIVEAREAS—NORTH Bald Eagle Mae i Northern Leopard Frog Area ,. 1 Duck&Geese Areas White Pelican Mu ''''"I'. Groat Blue Heron Areas White Tailed Deer Mn Data collected from Weld County ..-- GIS Department ' WCRbb .r Pr. aim .n ;a� ,�. NYCRS e,.P[rh +ry..ti,o?: t r � t # ,4 .in ::�... Y . , _ , _ ,,Wyk • � � � � ®® G-,. ;�; �� . � �- , i �! r:� -i �� ': it � :+'yk.'a - �� ay...._ ... . . MEAD li � i. a1 ilr_7 ,.a« � _ e:i „a;� x .. ,_, sue ,. 2- .� ,.. "s y. �� E, r ,d it w. x�;. '�. .,.Y-, � WESTERNr_ OPjN 3P I�'.c ~ t a' 1 + a � 1.. .._ "„. to,,,, -MFJd'iS / Ill g})- �. ✓ SEE % ,� ,}}�`-`:.s �, r ! ''mit m ' st, -. lti' 7`IYg... 4 .,$g we :1.Y. 11 - ,,, -. r. 4+1.1 Wier" �'_ `.,.. `� , ^ E , ' ': ' qD RN .' ., A � _ - .,.. at V:'{. :_xLr:�'A .4 ¢A WCRP i a ..}}7 7+ # _ _ V oE- m 4 W; i 1 1} e �- oA, ..-:`. y .(pr , ' t 1 �a . r ®+er t a " �� a 11 �d�'a.y..}gg"1 r .,I - f ri. Stt F.i- - SO rte al Avtl ... a �' Pb}1 rek3 t t- ■� <,S' + .. 3 ;o- - t !�v`�¢1 .�� mee Y 4u',C ..M� (�.. .A ( city 3( if*f7tqq' pet:.eu `4, =, 44.1..t- rt rg c',, p9 FP ae G1}I l/!r tr.�,:� 1•e. :t�.� _...0r _ 1))v GL%j3{�5 �i mC O_or �r '.�. r .91J FQ�. :. = �.!�^ c.i� 1 a I O, tomesLl = _ y ,.. � � ;4't �'_. .', oo AT OF m� - 4;-',•A—r mo '-4,1— t : _ r _�.. �(..� A �m�: � '; + P ra-� ic3T 111ty, : �/�� k z- a z+ �. :ar.� " _ .�, i o.� : e,.. $�: - y 1 �ti 1 a„ p m0 <O �.Cer..z.g w t r -a mm: _ 3°�a. . \4, I a♦ < _. dam. ",}. GI- ii: to ia' • OD . ma. ,a' �COYOTfigot v -1 door •- + m 1 e _ S x �- ' _..... rT` ;:,bp OSO sus Az _�6�� yyy/ � xi. RUN �-\�_ 'r, 4`P�Ci � .J !�, �� y zlar ; ,3 rr . .., t lam Ismd':me'rir.. ", aA Pa" ._� . it-. _ ,_ mx� T -Sr � n & _ IBIOP�WM _� ♦ • r y* eO1s t., . O $,a a;:;., �, +.; �aayPG .E�. pT V, F : Ca'�✓ t- a '►tia.- r� I2Mi1I ' ) ,°f� a, +a6>r g - 'o [eJR F r ` . ,ir. 9 • g �P - 0'� r1Iii ivy,, �� 9!'' )CG d �l t - - - .a (aT_i S� 3, "'Fte �.., . -s® ..i €tc$crt +91t;r 1 - r r 0SF9�1- _c,....;_ Y `a. �' �.,`' 7i -r I l >! 'nr,, u' } �,. Ii:f p'i� �`l " .�� -� er _ t�'3r��@tl ‘ , "` e( rTJ ' "!J' i �� . �i� �', ., , , rte' .. h. `iiiiTtJ ti� ® "4 t _ 5 e c :.. :.a + ��. ><" �a � a'^t.$311k14 rE A'te 2 . ri , . '/Jla'Tf v_f / a S - CO� T�( 111 L�` p ti F _ ,r.. ! ° 51 Z AEr t f`t r/ / x 1. k Lw -, 1 ��v .1,1"11, 4444rte, •�:a��'. iP_._ __ A 0,,..1�mil,�1 ,;•,', E I g# IS i r. ., 0. } nr &v�ax r ��x ` `� 'r 41:Tv fr<s - � v®� N x 'o- 0 >C<. ._." ' !ae:t-!. .,..;fh "'_�f_aP � Fmi .. .++ate" ,is- FA\ ' aliiii i „ii�A e= t c4½ neE �_ i :, " ■._. _ ::� \ 1— •-s- '. i Figure 5 01 EELSBURG , II (I HOLT & ULLEVIG Poge7 ) _1` 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ) III. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES This report defines two alignments (one on the west side of 1-25 and one on the east side of 1-25) where arterial roadways should be planned and right-of-way for these planned arterials should be preserved as development occurs adjacent to the proposed roadway. Before the alternatives were defined, basic design parameters for these roadways were established for purposes of this planning study. These parameters were discussed with the local agency group, and it was noted that these parameters should be flexible for certain areas within the study area. The right-of-way width that would be preserved for these arterials would be 120 feet. Additional right-of-way may be required for auxiliary lanes at major intersections such as State Highways that run east-west. It was determined that an urban typical section would be utilized for these arterials; however, a more rural section with shoulders and ditches may be implemented for sections that may continue to have a rural perception. A raised median separating the two twelve foot through lanes ) in each direction was proposed for the typical section, along with a bike lane adjacent to the outside through lanes that may vary in width from 4 to 8 feet. It is anticipated that these arterials will have a posted speed limit of 40 to 45 miles per hour and should be designed for 5 to 10 miles per hour above the posted speed limit. In some locations, a lower posted speed limit may be appropriate. Construction of these arterials will be dependent on new development and may require that half of the typical section (or two lanes) be built first, with the entire roadway being built as traffic demands increase. ) After the data collection process, numerous alternatives were generated for the project area. The ) alternatives were developed based on the data collected and on input received from the public and the local agencies. Due to physical constraints or planned developments, some areas precluded alternatives; e.g., the area between Weld County Road 11 and Weld County Road 13 in the vicinity of Weld County ) Road 20. The alternatives that were initially generated were sent to the local agencies for review and were refined after comments were received. Identification of new alternatives and refinement of existing alternatives has been an ongoing effort, with additional input from the public, developers and the local agencies. The various alternatives that were evaluated in this study are shown on Figures 6 and 7. Weld County Road 13 was not identified as an alternative for this study. Weld County Road 13 has been identified by the County as a Strategic Roadway which will function as a high volume arterial carrying traffic from State Highway 7 to State Highway 14. This is a function sorely missed in this part of the county. Hence, it will remain a separate, but complementary, project to the parallel arterials. NIP \ HOLT & ULLEVIG page 8 is1-25 Parallel Arterial Study i STUDY AL TERNA T/VES-SOUTH i el-,n ysx �, ;,7A. wiFn� _ �#r.^3 ;"/�T AL R y �B "� Y b+ /� ! '_- .'� • 1 FIIralla w _r-a-Pf A\ ''''i...• V t at r» , .� a ». - " m " p pvnt�. . '!. 44 j E �" ,L .7'444 P ki; re° �it r -rii-i1 774;4747-704041.71`,— �YE$T ALT , 'e Ot I • - - + r � rr . mss. 5 p y�nat,t �'�1,q J�`- • ,� e. ixs^- r1. •� i ,,,,,c__.25 .., r � :; ,I. > s % $�'3 ` s' p 4-:25` —"� - �"+ ' ! 'oY.ciiiii ^ rrwi+ 1'4 4, 4r urewo"x Bri aouuv. aC'y.2 r �J�yy''pT X04'. ee•`4• { .€ t R F 'G_S .�� a- y11 � �y �' - .:_=.1..„r '}! '�-'-� a�a � o-ral 5 .;1„"' �, p_'4 #� s C. ,`.. I.F Nr � a.,.:'aV3_ WC WEALT,&1 `�'�•°y �JES}'4L3'-8 p. .t: ®�� IWES - C 'F',.' � •- �WE T y:j.._. �- a- . - �•. .. - miser.; f!✓ moo L " " 3�4y- u!p:a, GE is xu"ox smear ,c € 9.a , � > _ T',. -' `` ¢ li! a ° ® ! i t - IMEST+1lT @ `� L �.9. ■.� YG ►r i & .ia 4':," . � -4 t -,F � '2 e -e `:.) u��Kcc a ry i'. ,�,it."`z�4e i` y e� �-�.gTi1. O 113G f- s 1 to = s t / `a - \ .% 9t At 'VT LT"'Fa .t � -� {.s+a14n �.:'Ir' ' 5\, ! , WS�f�iTl� -P� e� �� - y` I 4 Sl ti 1 of �4!& z'"L. Di III t 11 1 i �.4 ® ENID T -- 5 mt y�.., pTT ! " n ,,.- f" • �Y U s.ar- # uLpi 3 ' re e s !Y !1 �Q': is. " *r lFE.I i a&i'• I Cs## eh ?. a� _ sr 3.14.7.-,04 �?'` _ SF m �R s:!�..r- �.,18! �s�'"" k'' �, r six. , fs 1 r 25p w.:It -� a �z} \Ca'�./� 'Sa" OP �b� IA, r etdt��.s. n un�ot'L tick- --c;1. _ _ ..toy ' N. �` EAST ALT$` . - t " - " :fit � e1! r^, =. °�a -` r 3 , .. �, tr� .. { y ' wilt 4s� fg. � ,<., ,a: n T '�.w . .' - 1' 7 - , . . - . « 'so L rY �•o a�a+.a TAL1U,• ! WCR11 �r.ir rawcem�r r� 1, l � •�.y'Ai}��K]'L " ..E i"04-C �RT �mn^ 3 �.�a t art,. 4'4,- �5 : �G%: .� � �� GI4 '" 5. 7;. • illnial :4_ �w aR / _ ; '�. -: m e,ai '.. .„ A , , I:mss`.: t I ; � . , I,.. 74 'Q +M14 v. r ..Ctr. ,rr n a - .. �ti..�.— ,� �' a �° z b -c. �a� i ®! it u. '' -{ � �_ } 'k- $ ,.--,--c7:41—,..•` ' i �s 3r. 2°'.."..1 s .va� py�. a I! a *e�.a. aw.,i ®.. ..i r - « .,�- ., T . hfa. ' rD j11 xlAfi 1 ' .'S r� ' -pi g n t. r'a'4"r?na s w _ r ).r t � •. ' - -.� aoar l w L ,��; _ if .gel-.� : 5 -,1 i^- - t Y , r ��-. �" :• 'k rd�rr1"el ,t + a • „b � .ki. r `.� »d�"`;`t..t< �i *CI,. . .rt -•` t s. ;,I4 44. ��__......�. �ml�`—!�� ,.� , J_�� .��1- ad_. .17n■ mr-�� }v ,�„ . 111lG`-"Y':_ �. SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2 ItSEGMEN SEG 4 Figure 6 FELSBURG rd HOLT & ULLEVIG Page GP 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study la STUDY ALTERNATIVES—NORTH ` r ea.'"k '.. il" -`� .L 1 '•U " C" " " ri'v u'lC:ri a-...' �M `Gr f • i ( �ESTA t s a1 F � -at .- * Wei E�I9l�' 1� 5♦' ��? ai� �1� f.I WCR I 451t E! i ,a6 i i.• �. • \{1 +:• _ , ' , • ! i• �• ileim • ," A j� * s Sr t 4 F ( Y air • mod.. a �k\ • e�6?e ri:. ` . :'�-'�r�ae ter. '. s W eon ?� 1 re • --..� F ' • `a\ e..._sn�- v !7/i• ` /i _ ^ rr. p ,� r /��®� • y°� s'u s �l = 441. e �q 9 4frff .ese4,s, e'e >b ' ��t _x \i• ,� R_�IriA«* .... r ,.•;�._� ...iy. . _"it 'a'` •' - .itt `.L4.1¢f4 '� �r' 27 a a•a.. ' - •.� mil e• ,. ti �r `' J.� x t `"SY "'!,K• 1 4- _ 5 ♦. - � P el‘®i 25 j:54 4 srR �" tier \ f `• of -ti4 .'`�"a Y ens r B � 1st ` R .. �i I ii.': �" _ .. y .r 1 yg 'IJ - �d(L �r � - � : P 'd' ..: I � - `.. � 'i , � �'+ 1.;va. .� � � v '� • < �. r �" e��Pi ,.; '" � 'P8 ♦,... ' l EAST ALT B .. •_.. , .> -s`4f ® .^,.1� ifs - ^?a. '$ . , f: T T a v B'nt3; y e� vcrifir = t4 / ls� ' \\ e *Yeti,,...�.: e.S{A4L r "Atli �, a� • .� 1 i 993 xr. 111) e4. .'STAiger :4h\S l �C EAST F y 7A \ d. "!r' 1r^ L ��`.. .E w• fir t) ' 'A'^-..-x - .^,u.c�py � - '' lT'. a `a. ,rey a :.u// E. ;,,�1 :L.: � � , .•E§ �i ""'ne.. t d�Ai F.`'b-...". +.a� 't� t� t%, C C ®1r` .:r w = —rill -;a elf i l _ '!��ant, - pia m1 ..tl�—_��r1� r 111 STa`En5 resh - ' J . ,*A F` �£ 'X 'AP i h SS I I,.. . `f •" i� AP' g - ,... g . .r9 �. ? ', t1�.+ . e e v,f<ei �' KANNE t • '�' 9M" _ _-� �-j .. . . -," w w r,y 3� l� Iv aeee s:.s., .a - J px v r e ' l i,.i^'t =GI4l'° "yt ..z :.I1L:J • `4 s' ,c �,Oks !g' AYI g F'a" Fi: .t € +� 1 flj% r /+ > y� ' .I r x.®4:,�R.$au ' L.' '' n r 1 'e� _.La i r1pm.„, d4- d '� n•„E•;"a tl �i' ��.1 �� Lan r d . w.. +..a ._ ,.� \;Yf 's.0 ..r•s _ r " _ • .t SEGMENT 5 SEG 6 SEG ENT 7 SEG ENT 8 S MENT 9 EGMENT 10 Figure 7 . Fl LSBURG C� HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 10 Am `� 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES These criteria were incorporated into an evaluation matrix as shown below. Each alternative was then 1 evaluated and compared to the other alternatives for that segment to determine the "preferred" alternative f In order to evaluate the alternatives, the project area was divided into 10 segments. The alternatives were that scored the best for each segment. After the "preferred" alternative for each segment was determined, 1 Ine order for uch segment using the following acrea : that"preferred" alternative was then combined with other"preferred" alternatives from adjacent segments to ensure that the arterials were continuous throughout the study area. 1 ► Transportation Effectiveness This chapter describes the pros and cons of each alternative in each segment in greater detail. I • Out of Direction Travel—a measure of the level of directness for north/south travel 1 • Continuity between Communities—a measure of how the alternative connects each municipality Weight Weighted 1 and the existing and proposed developments Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness i ► Horizontal and Vertical Geometry— evaluation based on the design criteria shown in the appendix Out of Direction Travel Continuity Between Communities I ► Community Impacts Avg. for Transportation Effectiveness 2.0 Aesthetic Impacts—a measure that assesses if the alternative impacts the view from adjacent Horizontal and Vertical Geometry • Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry 1.0 I development Community Impacts 1 • Access Impacts—a measure of the level of convenience and clarity of access to existing and future Aesthetic Impacts I developments and adjacent property owners Access Impacts • Right-of-way Impacts—a measure of the impacts to existing and future developments in order to Right-of-Way Impacts I construct the alternative Average for Community Impacts 2.0 Land Use Consequences I Land Use Consequences 1.0 ► Land Use Consequences—a measure of consistency with future residential and commercial development plans Existingevelopment Consequences Exxiisting Development Consequences 1.0 I Environmental Impacts ► Existing Development Consequences—a measure of impacts to existing residential and commercial Wildlife areas directly adjacent to the alternative Floodplain Air& Noise Quality ► Environmental Impacts Safety Average for Environmental Impacts 1.75 1 • Wildlife—a measure of the impacts that the alternative has on wildlife areas Traffic Safety 2.0 • Flood Plain—a measure of the alternative crossing designated flood plain areas Construction • Air& Noise Quality—a relative measure of the air pollution and noise to existing developments Ability to Phase ' Constructability ► Safety Average for Construction 1.0 Construction Cost • Traffic Safety—a measure of expected conflict points and improvement of existing problems Construction Cost 1.5 Total ► Construction The Criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. • Ability to Phase—a measure that assesses if the alternative lends itself to being constructed in phases or if it would need to be constructed as one project • Constructability—a measure of the feasibility of construction based on rerouting existing traffic, Figure 8. Evaluation Matrix utilities and drainage through the corridor ► Construction Cost—a relative comparison of costs associated with constructing the alternative erp iFELSBURG \ HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 11 • r • { 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 1 (WEST) SEGMENT 1 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A is shown connecting to Huron Street south of State Highway 7 and extending north on a Weld Alternative A County Road 7.5 alignment. At Weld County Road 6, Alternative A shifts to the west around the Carol Alternative A is shown as connecting into a realigned York Street south of Weld County Road 2 and Heights subdivision in order to minimize impacts to existing development. Since Alternative A does not extending north along the existing roadway on Weld County Road 11. By utilizing the existing roadway, utilize any existing roadways, this alternative would require right-of-way for its entire length and would have this alternative would benefit from some cost savings for right-of-way and construction cost. Alternative A a relatively high construction cost. Since this alternative is proposed on undeveloped land, the roadway would cross the flood plain near Weld County Road 8 and would impact the east edge of a duck and geese would be designed to current design standards and could restrict access locations on the roadway. Traffic area. Alternative A would benefit proposed development adjacent to Weld County Road 11, and this control for this alternative would not be a concern except at the cross roads; however, this alternative alternative would benefit the Varra Companies batch plant currently located at Weld County Road 11 and would have to be constructed in full between the cross roads. This alternative does not impact any Weld County Road 6. This alternative could impact the few residences at Weld County Road 4 with a apparent flood plains or wildlife areas, including the prairie dog area north of Weld County Road 6. This decrease in air quality and an increase in noise. Conflict points with the driveways of these existing alternative would serve planned commercial development on both sides of the alternative. residences would be introduced when traffic demands increase. Traffic control with the existing roadway would be an issue during construction; however, this alternative lends itself to being easily phased with the Alternative B existing roadway. The design speed for this alternative could be reduced at Weld County Road 4 in order Alternative B extends from Huron Street south of State Highway 7 and proceeds north on a Weld County to introduce some reverse horizontal curves to avoid the existing residence and irrigation ditch. Road 7.5 alignment. North of Weld County Road 4, Alternative B shifts to the west and continues on the existing Weld County Road 7 roadway. By utilizing the existing Weld County Road 7, this alternative would Alternative B impact the existing residences adjacent to the existing roadway. Air and noise quality, as well as additional Alternative B could connect into Washington Street south of Weld County Road 2 and proceed to the north visual impacts, could be a concern for these existing residences. The driveways from these residences on a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment. This alternative would not utilize an existing road and would divide ' connecting into Weld County Road 7 would create conflict points as travel demands increase. This proposed development in this area. The entire right-of-way width would be required for this alternative, and alternative complements the Town of Erie's Development Plan north of Weld County Road 6. Phasing the ability to phase this alternative may be problematic. This alternative is not consistent with the City of could easily be done with this alternative with the existing roadway, and construction cost would be lower Dacono's Transportation Plan that has recently been updated. This alternative would cross the flood plain since there would be benefits of using the existing roadway. A portion of the right-of-way would already be between Weld County Road 6 and Weld County Road 8 and would divide a duck and goose area north of available with the existing roadway for this alternative. Traffic control would be an issue on Weld County Weld County Road 2. This alternative could be designed to current design standards and could restrict Road 7 during construction. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain areas. access as development occurs adjacent to the roadway. Traffic control would not be an issue for this alternative except at the cross roads, and this alternative would not impact any existing development. Alternative C Alternative C could connect into Sheridan Boulevard south of State Highway 7. Alternative C utilizes a Preferred Alternative Weld County Road 5.5 alignment as it extends to the north, where it would meander to Weld County Road In order to complement proposed development for this area and to coincide with the City of Dacono's 5 between Weld County Road 6 and Weld County Road 8. Alternative C would impact proposed rural Transportation Plan, Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this segment. preservation areas that are defined in the Town of Erie's development plan. Alternative C would also have to compensate for the existing and proposed landfill areas located between Weld County Road 4 and Weld County Road 8. This alternative would benefit a proposed high school that will be located in the northeast corner of the Weld County Road 8/Weld County Road 5 intersection. Due to this alternative not utilizing an existing roadway, relatively higher construction costs could be incurred along with the need to preserve the entire right-of-way. Traffic control would not be an issue for this alternative although this alternative would have to be constructed in full between the cross roads. This alternative would impact a prairie dog area adjacent to Weld County Road 6. Preferred Alternative In order to minimize impacts to existing development and to provide a thoroughfare for proposed commercial development, Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this segment. IP FELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 12 1 Fr^ • s:� 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study )1 1 Preferred Arterial Route Alternative Arterial Routes SEG-ME/V T 1 (WEST) 1 ��. ' Evaluated r Ark Jr:jtitillit ler ors �t allu r 3 r �_y� 1 n s"' ..ttir \iglil `�A"/ to t a . ;k.r,t ' '' "'l9t �.,. R ':,,,:i41101"4.444/S} a r� 7:-.1,- .� ulj '.44-t ti .'+..... o f 1 1. WCR.�^ �+.> _ 2- B z0ia m ...14 !i-i r,3 1 4 'a...,=,._� "� 4x44 ,1.4.,:-;",A.< Itl tr .silt xix i+",.� lip...n s G Y 1 k ` 4H1, - 61\1 '. :iC ' ; . . _ -s /::717.41:4 �'€ _ _ • ° '+ !`' a '.sire .sir.: 3�.....,s'... . ₹. a 911llttltt tt316iy..`\11t, 3,,.,;,„„, ,..„ • ,i0: ( Js tt 1 t'V Th�� C.• 8 . -. �`, a.. rxS 4y - t s t t' ttyt.. �'-fHt YI n.I rt _ w wy ( �. ,. .. ... . ' .' t E' 'v` _v-,. • —_x .L* \�'6 '�^z #� IEF sy�(ttr}. _ 1 1 a ,-"y�+ "'�' :'""t , " � .w .* x*,3=:5>t 1 " '( '"- SHERIDAN BOULEVARD ,n,-, 1 1 '�'I/ -'34- ' 't ; I 0kt .3,41:•" q .n .a- aT. - - ` 'i.r +a z"%..•` .+- �_- ¢ ' moils.S>� s"} ¢ _ !" j y'$ -,- T.s,. •,-' � '-'`�. 44,4*---_ ,- .y__I 1'e,. 'It �iJ.= �.' , '` - s map -" Y t t -. &-..„4.;;,,,,,,, wa4Y ]y� t a Sit - 4 vi-,,i.. v;.: 1 ' i , [„>I t 4 t #� .i+ �c R 's ` X`^ t 1 I s t t c .: I Ir e 1 ,s ' i i $ i?500D' _ ,� jsi " • 1 t t ,r ' ', i .C+ . I2R ',-., L!— 1 r--- .a- 7 ' a. ti '" V'.q. =r.Pt r;•:,.,171..;;•-•-7V- at' i n '. g�� 1 xJ r �.t a, .,,.,,,,;�.� ,�.yJH7 &22 :1 7,114417V: _ .;. ---k y.e r6 ;' x��..�JJ �I - _ , , G e F x rl fi 1111�1�'a '1;:,;,:. \ =-,2,-- yam? -- a '₹`_I '3L .1C I};: C-r ,f.T.'-"- P yy q 'y� p� ON. VA - 'i h'1�' -4! n._.� $' - ri1l.T. joil aN-`• It < P _'i ; �''' P t yy •• T F Y. ';.7,-.,,,t . _ �Y s4`S' tt U'ix - F,Et trejaw! t( 9,est.� yl +vs �'xip Rye+\ _ w - ,s,`` r_ i",;;•23:•31741 v � >, '4 ' iii t Rta , -- . i '2'Si $" > I i a .... �. � �#.` •"_ .5.. �. �.'�..•5d`^. �Fik. e.� _ ��.�'�� t �� , r Gam� +W� [ � I '.\ � , ,� 1 "s` r' „e ',.` ,, '''1ri a-z -2.-,--1. ,. s - _ `€ t '�, 3.4,-*;,-- , 't_ 1a � x 3.. � _3'_I • p-e ', > ', t'�C 'Ft �!-a3ia S �*A j1r � { a t`, c 4i. M4C , „ •. i.,,pttf, „,., • � ,J .- 4 Y• AT • i�nh' ,,-x_...-...1?-..e", ` 4'1 I L. _,Y. -- - _�,-fi�tt' l� 1 F -'''N.\ ,4 1 -.. - ..�� ♦rf. ".'y'" ``a .itriti- ---,, - .' *{ae pp FELSBURG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 13 114 s ;-) I-25 Parallel Arterial Study I Preferred Arterial Route Alternative Arterial Routes SEGMENT 1 (EAST) ' . Evaluated fr 4i 1� ;, a .A k _ - �,.,c14 0 ti 4 - 3 _ t 44 ip r '6 �Ee "" f `r]'v _ �` t. { i ._. J I c TAWS _ FE , _ n -'1,=f--"as e� ', �I ° , DI5�' " , `N r l�� 1 t •e z -,� n a- b,Y. '� x `` f /` s* ,c ] ";.-174... � 3 3 t -, LS ra i Af° �;... ." ` r yoY -' j. .may 4 e. ' w, ' ° /`�F',� s gr � . .e } 1�t� . it !# x to a *.,.K YE �(��{�`ffi F :111:: I-�\ZO-r > _ sk u 3 'Fc : eC — �'`� F�O]"' -v �i "d R 9�0' lj 1:7::1-411,131:::;14:4-1;:11, ' -.gm it ,' xuy/ PADS-50 mph \ _ :,,,,c‘A,5,‘",`,44'l �,s� MiYi] l r 3 -{ ri.. R '. C „a ;'_ r..e. t .a - 'i�SEa`, „ t �- x` :. F�:nt_; � r ' �� '.e. +'x+r• = ie? 1 � . . wz ii r4 '77 70,77. "'",„_,.‘L- e -- m�F'�r °at-.�3 x ..U� w. ! s ..�. .� - sta:. -�fi r a'S 'Y` '' d4 at-4,,:- , s�r 4` Y7 still,: v Figure 10 4FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 14 "r 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 2 (WEST) Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative for Segment 2 is Alternative A, which shifts from Weld County Road 7.5 to Weld Alternative A County Road 7 north of Weld County Road 10. This preferred alternative is reflected in the Town of Erie's Alternative A is shown on a Weld County Road 7.5 alignment from Weld County Road 8 to State Highway Development Plan and complements the Town of Frederick's plans north of State Highway 52. 52. This alternative would cross an abandoned Union Pacific Railroad line near Weld County Road 8 and again between Weld County Road 8 and Weld County Road 10. This alternative would not utilize an SEGMENT 2 (EAST) existing road; therefore, the right-of-way and construction costs would be relatively high. This alternative is compatible with the Town of Erie's Development Plan for this area as it would serve a planned Alternative A commercial area. One aspect that was discovered during the public process is that there may be a need to Alternative A is shown on the existing Weld County Road 11 alignment. This alternative would benefit from investigate the existing abandoned coal mines that are located underground in this area. This alternative the existing roadway with relatively low construction cost and with less right-of-way needs. There would be would be designed to current roadway standards and could restrict access as adjacent development several phasing opportunities for this alternative with the existing roadway. Traffic control would be an occurs. Traffic control would not be an issue for this alternative; however, phasing opportunities for this issue for this alternative during construction. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife or alternative may be limited as this alternative would have to be fully constructed between the cross roads. flood plain areas. Alternative A would benefit the proposed developments adjacent to Weld County Road This alternative could necessitate a grade separation over the Union Pacific Railroad just south of Weld 11, and this alternative complements the City of Dacono's Transportation Plan. This alternative would County Road 10 if it were required by the Public Utilities Commission. impact existing residences adjacent to Weld County Road 11 visually and with more noise and poorer air quality. The existing driveways from these residences onto Weld County Road 11 would be problematic in Alternative B the future by introducing conflict points along the arterial. Alternative B utilizes the existing Weld County Road 7 alignment, which would assist with the construction cost and the amount of right-of-way required. This alternative would have aesthetic, air, noise and access Alternative B impacts to adjacent residences that are located in close proximity to Weld County Road 7. Alternative B Alternative B would utilize a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment. This alternative would not utilize an existing does not complement the Town of Erie's Development Plan for this area, and traffic control for this road and would divide proposed development in this area. The entire right-of-way width would be required alternative could be an issue during construction. This alternative would have several phasing for this alternative, and the ability to phase this alternative would be limited between the cross roads. This opportunities with the existing roadway. Wildlife and flood plain areas would not be impacted with this alternative conflicts with the City of Dacono's Transportation Plan. Alternative B would cross the flood plain alternative. Alternative B could also accommodate a grade separation of the Union Pacific Railroad just at Weld County Road 12; however, this alternative would not impact any apparent existing wildlife areas. north of Weld County Road 10 if it were required by the Public Utilities Commission. If required, this grade This alternative would be designed to current roadway design standards, and traffic control would only be separation would impact the existing residences at this location and may require rerouting driveways to required at the cross roads for this alternative. The construction cost for this alternative would be relatively access at different locations. high due to the cost of a completely new roadway and the cost to accommodate for the drainageway near Weld County Road 12. The traffic to the Colorado National Speedway would benefit from this alternative. Alternative C Alternative C is proposed on the existing Weld County Road 5 alignment. This alternative would benefit Preferred Alternative from the existing roadway by having a relatively low construction cost and less right-of-way needs. This Alternative A was selected as the preferred alternative for this segment since it would have less impacts on alternative would have aesthetic impacts to the existing residences adjacent to Weld County Road 5, and developable land and it also complements the City of Dacono's Transportation Plan. the driveways to these residences could introduce conflict points with the roadway as traffic demands increase on this segment. From coordination with the St. Vrain School District, it was learned that Alternative C would provide easy access to a proposed high school that will be located at the northeast corner of Weld County Road 5 and Weld County Road 8 intersection. Traffic control would be a concern for this alternative during construction; however, there could be several phasing opportunities with this alternative with the existing roadway. It does not appear that this alternative would have any impacts to existing wildlife areas or the flood plain. Alternative C complements the Town of Erie's Development Plan for this area. Since this alignment is two miles west of 1-25, its ability to serve growth adjacent to 1-25 would be reduced. IP FELSBURG HOLT L T & ULLEVIG Page 15 » 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ) ) n' Evaluated Preferred Arterial Route — Alternative Arterial Routes SEGME/V T 2 (WEST) Ep� Evaluated•'r )' •r•.. -C. 4 .3Y k F .. •� a_ £a • _v ��i�� 1 4y 4,..,.L ' +jet ' t}T Ar �C'h _ .i A .F.l ^f-�' % ^t J≥' ' R +.4'.T°}+E1+:..E,,y ,Sn4' .Y✓� 1'1. '�. I l ((� 1'i til R^'.ST� �,' ' ft ` i% .-z.. ` k -' I�.k, F :- r .w 1 �i 3 r .a .q �1 .,,,k "'e,.'0. - j :' a t r - till iii ,'-, t� * x !v . fiat t Y .. Y dr 3 a^ 'd:: _ arot f I .� v �'s,',.a7i r sv i t _ y gt +,,,st,, k Oi �l y i� y -"epALi' 40-7-4' 4 r < '.htlir� 1t - a„ , : A 1 k_. ^ s s9 x,. 0 'y(^bye . , -.e � i y7...'�`, I _ ' i' tee.*i v )dart M-Y /A'f:"✓ .j - '' t a.a-+ x t '( �'�fl•� aK � 4� R'„�, 3 ,A!ttttst> I` \ � K1,- - i.., 'Y ,-.. y�` ) � ...'{ It s, Y ¢ 4'a 4 �� ` t s .4 , x° 11) -4-4-r,.. r r S ; k tl/ \ AF !a �i '4 kX 4 �` i, ) K - ',e. -,M _ Mils { t .:. ` 't # AY' I C , - ;*-'411-:- ?ti .J�"i�,s' 4:. , s �M'3`:it, +c!' IF :b:i. eFili_.d 3 • =f `•o-+.- to ,. i�e [ '�' :�f i- MOS i5 ,fl0.So5 1% } x n rs "7`: is Yi' ".7 ' .411 ,,,n ,, �i _ z 'si. • i yin, .y. sv' " V 61 ygT� :�9 .. F! 1'{ii.`�i it,`5 + i" 9 6 : rya '� 9!' 4. ,_,_44, _...' ■k-....-'.�' -�� y fly ^" - rl '�s k '� 1 � `'SY. n;�Y,0.y� "1 Its. ,,,y-, -; ‘ , '4.,�I r - Ii! L. ' • is F ..: �a"JI ' — e v r.�6. iE khr, R�� .- * r„,"k _ - ' - `F°' Ti� - z �-z"' a.ar .A i - I Lass.a .� I . •P,.,.. •,«- � � `'n®r� sr' 1_�_I\R �� +�a. a 4 '^ . " - y...: e ^ t S,AY '1 _�iE'°' ,.....17. . '��1�U ®iw _9[ 7� =�}^ a Lr�g ' Ti .4,,_ yr.E'!" :4 >K' �e�}as ` .ci .a'£t;• �• c,� ' L 1 ' k ,-ate '� y,1 £ A� 0.TY `rimitte; al ��. '�' • ' �k � ` .. §- tia s ♦ _ -",, g4 7 ' I q .s', , • n r N•• 2 , fi s....s-rr n a',, I 1 ,� 7 � � fJ: `+ i xini ®6 ��_a�� /// �� ,s 111 IpI £' > it 1 s is 'k..,�4 (1yy ,fie/`' '` > e. ^��M_ _ - a. ' }! { � '� F^{;, yk �iiSY xf t yM _♦4 sltlt-'✓y. t 91.—nom - - - __ _ - _ `.mpy, �'ti'�._.. 1 .aFi . _ rte?' JaFf._ ��..��' _- - 25,, , `y gip✓, - L ; Lam . Y :.i'x � - '5� l,l�y ¢ 4 t —_„ a I �•a \ . Figure 11 hL. •41,1,t4 1 - r—'T` 2we, .- nM ,a E +�4a `a ' t iF /a , pi FELSBURG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 16 I • 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Preferred Arterial Route Alternative Arterial Routes SEGME/V T 2 (EAST) 1 �� Evaluated 1 .: \3! -b"",� 3' A \ 'as,----AVM's.- Ff m " . s �,,y s � rr✓� lizt_ s � - ,p+t: vs, " 7V / :i'i - ,emu a. 1. iii _ ': - r w rte_- _ - - G,'. ':_ _r� i 25 € _ tse—�._.� 't"r' ..,_. M��-�i it t r ^n - ! ₹ - { �ON �, 1 , _ _ '� �. :- ti - '�� r a ' . I DJaw AY t e t<` 1 Lh R=1,_ t • - J '-a - e� `ta"" MD Ai .� { '. - 1 O r w % t ' do t, ?�' L ,... `-- s' ti 3 e 3F.3'4 t • 1, , + y � }_.. rGr� ,' II 7 .. k�` R ' _-. x y- if r r I kl₹'jje , ,\‘‘L4 ' .•••-. * T '''- ir,„IT 7----"- i _ -„,-..a, na. --. „, i I st 1 .3aA�- . �l' ,I --- G.' #. e.. t_ - _- 'Sac 4'_,. '1. ,. _ - i . t l f�/ b --, s� .a�.� ffi�"s £ s -" ! ��55m � � �ae { `�4 � � cS� `a 'Ir.. �;R�'llir iirt '� +F' ._ti_ �_'44! t a -, k t_vx scarfr. e �— - t 4 I" � t-'...3t-'...3 _ . i`?i A1f7P `ief�Fc6 �! � -A A masa% IF 8p il Tr' sk : ' :. ,..e.,y„ aa �-. £s1 ! : liann._ar\i. :It, 1 3 e \ 44,a . a : x 2 y� t"$ '� k t! f zkr .£ u I a Y„ l iIp� cr 1 - S C`°z \.�� IcN _p�ryyk + FDA u.` q IM." ....., ,3 f-f. _ Figure 12 4FELIBT URGIIO & ULLEVIG Page 17 r : • few 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 3 (WEST) SEGMENT 3 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A would utilize a Weld County Road 7.5 alignment where there is currently not an existing Alternative A follows the Weld County Road 11 alignment which would benefit from the existing roadway roadway. By not utilizing an existing roadway, this alternative would not receive any benefits from existing with relatively lower construction costs and less right-of-way needs. This alternative would also benefit right-of-way and would have a relatively higher construction cost. Traffic control for this alternative would from planned residential developments north of Weld County Road 18 already preserving at least 120 feet be minimal since this would be a new roadway; however, there would be impacts to existing residences for right-of-way. Construction phasing for this alternative could easily be done with the existing roadway; north of Weld County Road 18. Impacts to these residences would be associated with higher noise, worse however, traffic control during construction would be an issue. This alternative would not have any air quality and visual impacts. Alternative A would not have any apparent impacts to existing wildlife and apparent impacts to wildlife and flood plain areas. Alternative A would complement the Town of Frederick's the flood plain. This alternative would conflict with the collector designation as shown in the Town of Comprehensive Plan. Existing residences adjacent to the existing roadway would be impacted by this Frederick Comprehensive Plan. Access could be restricted to this alternative as adjacent development alternative with poorer air quality, additional noise and a visual barrier. The driveways from the residences occurs, and this alternative could be designed to current roadway design standards. Phasing opportunities adjacent to Weld County Road 11 may introduce conflict points and a traffic safety concern in the future. may be limited for this alternative between the cross roads. Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B meanders along a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment. There is not a roadway currently at this Alternative B is proposed on the existing Weld County Road 7 alignment which would result in cost savings location; therefore, the entire right-of-way would need to be preserved. The construction cost for this and less right-of-way required. This alternative complements the Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan alternative may be relatively high due to this being a new roadway and also due to drainage structures that which shows Weld County Road 7 as an arterial. There would be several phasing opportunities for this would be required at Godding Hollow. This alternative would impact the flood plain at Godding Hollow alternative with the existing roadway; however, traffic control would be an issue during construction. between Weld County Road 16 and Weld County Road 20. Alternative B would impact the residential area Alternative B would impact residences that are adjacent to Weld County Road 7 with poorer air quality, north of Weld County Road 18 by introducing a roadway parallel to existing residences. By being a new additional noise and by creating a visual barrier. The driveways for these residences may present an roadway, this alternative would be designed to current roadway design standards and could restrict access access concern in the future as traffic demands increase. This alternative would not impact any apparent as adjacent development occurs. Traffic control would be minimal for this alternative except where the wildlife or flood plain areas. alternative intersects with cross roads. Alternative B would conflict with the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan which designates a collector roadway along the Weld County Road 9.5 alignment. Alternative C Alternative C is shown on a Weld County Road 5 alignment and shifts to the east at a point north of Weld Preferred Alternative County Road 18 in order to avoid existing pond areas. The north portion of this alternative would impact Due to impacts on Godding Hollow and to complement the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan, the existing flood plain; however, it would not impact any apparent wildlife areas. This alternative would Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this segment. benefit from the existing roadway by having relatively lower construction costs and less right-of-way requirements. Alternative C could be phased with the existing road, but the connection to the north could be problematic to phase and construct. Alternative C would impact a few residences adjacent to Weld County Road 5 by increasing the noise level and decreasing the air quality. Conflict points on this alternative may also be introduced with the driveways from the adjacent residences. This alternative would complement the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan south of Weld County Road 18 and would contradict the plan north of Weld County Road 18. Preferred Alternative Alternatives A and B were relatively close in the evaluation matrices; however, Alternative B is the preferred alternative since it would complement the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan most consistently. AEELSBURG H O L T & ULLEVIG Page 18 1)`u 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Preferred Arterial Route Alternative Arterial Routes SEGMENT 3 (WEST) Evaluated \ F• f i,__ I i , t1 , . ... e` TALT C 3 bfifk \ ,,.,...„ It. ""� gg 1 _ �fis �. A r i ? Ip 055 4P k 1 t Y$ yam p MmP 1 l 3 i s . i '" Y ,i„ // ' I ' } I Y�, ,,--, •\ '` -}jl� ` n� r i %. J * .`• 1' �: :> . ;'� 1 � i r �, �z s 1:22. « i ,y..,y ' i - \ 1 x trn s vim.h i ` T,j * ',i*,„--, .I < i ✓, :$�� ap- , n rx k < Fla s 4. qje I S• b-‘24`1/4, f Yi �D . ,n' —' r,• ��y rlAc r+ MW \ y "2;.:22'.c.,',-. ^fiek a; '�'� t 4 rr , 'ems` r„`,_ p i ,r ',-", r- n3!^ 'fir, ,t• _ , - z- i t...; o9:211,,,,,"' 4'Ae �.-. 'S _ � .gam<. � �� i x'li k ri 'T , ' NEST ALT 3 ' eft // �, - � i a ` Sall,Iv f tf• ty t d{ '\' \ •1R ,. pp"if ice- v y 4. ¢•Yk:,,A� a+r '' rp i i � ' ice ''-__. -_�f - z - F JIt•'- moss Yi &- R at• IR/ e �rh».r - pJ. i.i.i- iki tog ilitiTit_ tv-taihs.Z( ot"--ti.iliffriaiwttli6;:,„ at .6IIIIIti i..t x ®��IMW �_. •} i._{s• --i--- �. I oft. a' � ��iL8 N 3 , •- `� s { '•v7 i i ✓�-. ,x..025 - ._- _ - o � I — � �/ �� l ' I A rr—'sa_ It ,\� " t r �}8 a el v JR J k sit, �r�f , �.e ,..� �'' Fes t 9'1,. ",r( k ' '1 � y.. Figure 13 v IPFELSBURG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 19 ) " 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ► — Preferred Arterial Route Az. lternative Arterial Routes SEGMENT 3 (EAST) 1 Evaluated 1 ..cp T.,1 a ��+1�� -'y�� _____—________,--my �w:M�Qv env° {1 i g� ,.aft II \itetk yy Sr 1 - �'J+ i / .iI L. r- r; *rb i ,j t�� lv ^�' �n [ •J I,� IT inial 1 ex �� .. �� a 1 ® AG • 1 �i1fj lam? — 11 . .. A- ✓, 1 ' ft t r v g s , a a -,-*,., •5. - . .S ,n''_ "' —__ -/TrAsLCD tilt +� * '- ; I k, xa ' w f . ., c 1 _ . ..IX �� CO �� ,v s 4� I 1 L. � sic. � � .- - 1 .=-5mph V1/41 . C • I .[�gJ /r4r F. • ��f �� §t• e, r _F,. a-i0000• + -iiii \ f, ,446:V smPn 4. I[Z¢�ST i,r.c. tEll of ibiLiiiG & pi`s_ �/;.j„ivx'r, o't 1 -- . '1/4,(1 �v [ .. rte ® -. .,.S '; /E�5'�3,uI9A ..tc([1 a °Gv ..:Rr Vet a 4. 1AI - Y r' Z " �° 5�L, ✓a t '""�.Rf °'.m.V.I Mir.Ila.� '_"[ry(11rT6". f/[rf� ��I �rer�'! �� I•�� x : v � - : -�, r 9 .e• f- - � Is � SL`.':3aSal d. t-,:,. N R , [[ l•[lir.�a�-41 �''�ma-a. .:.. h ._ 1 rv.G dly ," v 'r k t Y, QL'- ir.k w e„. I 1 aq/1.. \ O��I01111�� A ![ J ,M- z f 't `..ri8' pun Irrlll l�<< HI om fir ¢} y, g a - t — '.� C ,. F es°'p'T. la ti y ._ 3+�:mai , i ��i:442441 1111111►\� ,Q 1111 " an �_r 13 K 92 ffeE i � si �uw►A�O� ' ®°�� x`« .: .; ' .°' ) � �I �sll �,I , " v(� ` `1` ®ll�.` , `, E ®r [ "1i •M .+> - . . �A 61 a�1Ii11[I�vl EliVII 1 Y ,, IIF '� .K+e:, ti . •tlj1 I :� a 4 c.. '4- 4 .�'.3. '4,1 two ��iJis t= .1.•glus mi I • r ' i.'T [ isdaS i1i. ; [ .[ n .qIC Jx :.y� g . ! 41 IIMIL k� ` #473.1.• I. �_ :-� $' �, •rae IiLi�TEE ',� r In FILE .--‘,4 _ s.a S � n r.z. {0 '1'[' �-x1779'' . ; ,y. titer e `.. ..:�r V. ..k->r $) L Q,� aAs-{ , . . 1 r i' §A• s aF ' �JIR+i _ r� aas '� �iIa_", s a — Figure 14 ir 4FELSBURG& HOLT ULLEVIG Page 20 feitb `,_.. 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study r • SEGMENT 4 (WEST) SEGMENT 4 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A is proposed along a Weld County Road 7.5 alignment and shifting to Weld County Road 7 Alternative A is shown utilizing a Weld County Road 11 alignment which would benefit from the existing north of Weld County Road 20.5. There is not an existing roadway for the majority of this alternative, which roadway with relatively lower construction cost and less right-of-way requirements. The planned residential would contribute to relatively higher construction cost and greater right-of-way needs. This alternative developments north of Weld County Road 22 would benefit this alternative since at least 50 feet of right-of- would complement the Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan which shows an arterial at Weld County way has been preserved for the west side; however, if 120 feet of right-of-way is needed, this would put Road 7.5. Alternative A would have minimal impacts to existing residences except for the portion which more burden on the property owners to the east of Weld County Road 11. The existing residences would be on Weld County Road 7. Traffic control for the Weld County Road 7 portion would be a concern, adjacent to Weld County Road 11 would be impacted with a decrease in air quality, an increase in noise but the rest of the alternative could be easily constructed. Phasing opportunities would be limited for this and a visual barrier. The driveways from the residences adjacent to Weld County Road 11 could introduce alternative since the majority of the alternative is on undeveloped land. Alternative A would not have any conflict points and a traffic safety concern in the future. Alternative A would not impact any apparent apparent impacts to existing wildlife; however, this alternative would encroach on the flood plain north of wildlife or flood plain areas. Construction phasing for this alternative could easily be done with the existing Weld County Road 20.5. Access could be restricted to this alternative as adjacent development occurs, roadway; however, traffic control during construction would be an issue. Alternative A would complement and this alternative could be designed to current roadway design standards. the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan, but it would conflict with the Town of Firestone's Plan. Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B is shown on the existing Weld County Road 7 alignment. This alternative would complement Alternative B shifts from Weld County Road 7 to a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment. This roadway could the Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan which shows Weld County Road 7 as an arterial. By utilizing be designed to current design standards, and access could be restricted as development occurs adjacent the existing roadway, this alternative would have relatively lower construction costs and would require less to it. This alternative would bisect properties, which could be problematic with future development plans. right-of-way. The existing residences adjacent to Weld County Road 7 would be impacted with poorer air The entire right-of-way for this alternative would need to be obtained, and the construction cost could also quality, increased noise and a visual barrier with this alternative. The driveways from these residences that be relatively high for this alternative, especially for the drainage structure that would be required at Godding access Weld County Road 7 could introduce conflict points with traffic and present a safety concern in the Hollow. This alternative would impact the flood plain at Gadding Hollow, which would require some future. Phasing could easily be done with the existing roadway; however, traffic control would be an issue environmental mitigation. Phasing opportunities for this roadway would be limited between the cross during construction. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife areas, but it would impact the roads. Alternative B would conflict with the Town of Frederick and the Town of Firestone's plans, but this flood plain in this area. alternative could be a compromise between the two. Alternative C Alternative C Alternative C would extend on an approximate Weld County Road 5.5 alignment that meanders through the Alternative C is proposed along a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment which complements the Del Camino PP 9 9 P P 9 P Boulder Creek and St. Vrain River area. This alternative would have severe impacts to the flood plain as plan for this area. This alternative would conflict with the Town of Frederick's Comprehensive Plan to the well as numerous wildlife impacts, including impacts to a bald eagle nesting area in close proximity to south of Weld County Road 20.5 but would complement the Town of Firestone's Plan north of Weld County Boulder Creek and the St. Vrain River. A bridge viaduct would be proposed across the rivers in order to Road 20.5. Planned commercial and residential areas would benefit from this alternative and would be minimize the impacts to wetlands and wildlife migration habits. The construction cost for such a structure responsible for preserving the required right-of-way. Access could be restricted as development is would be extremely high, and the required environmental mitigation would also be expensive and intensive. planned, and the roadway could be designed to current design standards. Phasing opportunities could be Alternative C would also impact Longmont Open Space that is surrounding the Boulder Creek and St. Vrain limited for this alternative between the cross roads, but traffic control would be fairly easy. This alternative River areas. This alternative could be designed to current standards and access could be restricted to this would not impact any apparent wildlife areas; however, it would cross the flood plain at two different alternative as development occurs. locations. Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Alternative B is the preferred alternative for this segment since it would complement the Town of The range of alternatives shown reflects the challenge of merging the Town of Frederick's master plan Frederick's Comprehensive Plan and would minimize environmental impacts. goals with those of the Town of Firestone. The dashed line shown crossing from Weld County Road 9.5 (Alternative C) represents the best concept for fulfilling the objective of a continuous arterial roadway while also balancing the needs of the Towns. However, it is designated as "still under consideration" because further coordination with the Towns is needed to achieve resolution of this alignment. oil \ HOLT S. ULLEVIG Page21 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study v ' SEGMENT 4 (WEST) >� — Preferred Arterial Route Alternative Arterial Routes � !�� Evaluated �_ . J , I ill a L-_.._ _ 1w y�t_ . - _. I ivar ,yt� 1 i-�. , -cits,. t ,* : ` - .. k \{'' '- 14`a Drat ti �4a'�I � � --v-1- It gyp.'* ,s.�f�e. r{ i '6 I ) �A SO �r I 2 �1 I +ti ,r >t z,/ WEST ALT. a; Y ® '41 t ka lik , C.1-, ; >.. ; x‘. __ 3 :>x' - :. � I r , ri . ..., .... .. , ,,, ,eill ^ - u... , . �- �\c-si. -__ ,, �1 f4.1-4r,.. 4a 4 .,,Yla=.�yri. ► re"� C'4' 1k�-"' I . _ "'k�.iG' 4 E.GL. .... w r ad hils ay. Ali. 4. , I- \ N •••• I k ,- - (�i I pit '41 .: .' Mt q ' is713 * WAGY`,j .,, .q.,Vs` .- p r 'a `' ' .ri M L '1 ;+3g ��A� + T r \ -. > & i!`if ,�/;i� T 9� 04:,A1-„, y,F• . e,t'1I. - - it }. 'Jo; �y/f 'I `s = I". 9 s-,e' 1 , c '� �F" rI�� `.1T_ / \ \-`1t �= t ! I��® fir \ If' �' II ?§ �f ! . `�- R +4000, .' fir.\ter +� . Pi w .) x , " 'toll tr9 z fiso ,r r 1" ,,,, • t.IkI� --"`rye roleluirt-tip® ��- 'E. 4 a 25 �--m I v 1 —�. a, •� a�4 I1'.. •`a I 6' _�`� it j Figure l5 4 FELSBURG iHOLT & ULLEVIG Page 22 • • ...) • 4 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study • • • "�'�°�""�` SEGMENT 4 (EAST) EwlulM • En Salo Under Consideration • • - - .' 25 T • • - _"l F " R fie• y�1� y,�1,1p �Il i ya 3...r __ - 1 p,�/Mllf.�, • (Fl l,•li,_. J r� .I �F _.� 9tt,lYa1C "Y O LATER S��, �1� 'n f of ,� T .. • ? 4C &'^..E� .� i•NFA BM 1 „ If i' lr}Ir_ Fn 1 l' y'1� tt yy • }y�. r s a ,Far- ------...• �.L—C4 .Mb „- air:41. I r'+� '71111,4 a •• Imo.., ..r ..�t / e-i0 '��.. illit " (�+' • a . (:,-;;;;;;;;;;;;.>„....1__: • .# cc . :v` if � R+liFs. .r • .d ,,, 0 MDS=55 mpta ,,RRii �,0•f : \ um lll`11111111•••I�1�1'\ ,I� ! `i -A=411- i , 11111111-p rff Y • _ �'' S .11111111 r. \Or- at.- 119• - ` [yr 1 ril • -� �� .e 1 tat "a'-^ ' ...,,,,.f9�y/ tI.I...,V 11.it J1„1 ! . ` Via.; W jY.vy . ff `��' �� i 3 111 11t1t i 1�.,5.: • i _. � 1,eK"'. $�. 1 ^,J� �l l.alna �► %I NI ai .d' L `I iFffi _'a +a • '1� pI 4 L� .' a � r a A • y Ii1 •Pi. "i d `..g i ' A 'ii • 1fr 6i ° 1. `,'A.r r. n `a ,g 9!"."'"' ay �IILC o 0 S� rl / 1' r 1 • fletl 453. tll�.. -ti ,li 'A raj. P,,�I a �Y} ( 4J k 1._ -. a t a 1 917 r +' '( 41 ek\\\ 111 Mini ' �a ' 7.. ►utOt ya . fil �,b , _ -.al" :lfi ail) - - . _— , i w IIIIIIS r �� i k ..' V r ill Illt 1 an..474• I ae 1. `- R$� . - MOM 7 • et** 4 �'ftaK R. • eollno/�qut e. e� :1111111' 111141 : • r l �b C9 bs , �s-oil { - pry r4# 4t "!n anlp Cf cf. ,: ......... /1'4�„ �..�. w1.ig Ae! Fir s .n Ih ruu\` r":6* 44 c,':r� - - _ -: aY it III M riiiiMPTsirl Figure 16 pi FELSBURG �� ( HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 23 'e' 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 5 (WEST) SEGMENT 5 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A extends along the existing Weld County Road 7, across the St. Vrain River and across the Alternative A is shown as a Weld County Road 11 alignment that meanders through the St. Vrain River frontage of a proposed high school on the east side of Weld County Road 7. Use of the existing roadway area and continues back on Weld County Road 11 to the north. This alternative would require a bridge would benefit this alternative with lower construction costs; however, it would be expensive for this structure over the St. Vrain River and may need to mitigate other water resources surrounding the St. Vrain alternative to cross the St. Vrain River with a bridge structure. The area adjacent to this alternative is the River. A majority of the right-of-way would need to be obtained for this alternative, which in combination proposed St. Vrain State Park, which would require intense coordination with the Colorado State Parks, the with the bridge structure could have a relatively high construction cost. This alternative would cross the Division of Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers to mitigate impacts from the roadway and bridge flood plain at multiple locations and would impact several wildlife areas. The roadway could be designed to structure. By working with the St. Vrain School District, this alternative would highly benefit the proposed current design standards, and access could be restricted as development occurs in this area. Alternative A high school with access, especially during regional sporting events. The phasing opportunities for this would conflict with the Town of Firestone's Plan and would bisect planned residential developments. alternative would be limited by the bridge structure and required mitigation. This alternative would complement the Town of Mead Transportation Plan. Alternative B Alternative B is proposed along Weld County Road 9.5 and would make its way across the St. Vrain River Alternative B and other bodies of water in the area. This alternative would have a relatively high construction cost and Alternative B would shift from Weld County Road 7 to Weld County Road 5.5 as it crosses the St. Vrain limited phasing opportunity because of the bridge structure that would be required to cross the St. Vrain River. This alternative would impact an existing Heron rookery that is located in a grove of trees west of River and the water resource areas adjacent to the St. Vrain River. The flood plain and several wildlife this alternative and would impact several other wildlife areas. Some out-of-direction travel would be areas would be impacted by this alternative. The existing street system adjacent to the Southwest Weld required for this alternative as it shifts to the west, and phasing could be limited by the bridge structure at County Services Complex would have to be retrofitted to this alternative. The roadway could be designed the St. Vrain River. Proposed development north of Weld County Road 26 would be divided by this to current design standards, and access could be restricted to this alternative as adjacent development alternative. This alternative would conflict with the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. Alternative B occurs. Almost the entire right-of-way would have to be preserved for this alternative. would impact the proposed St. Vrain State Park and would require intense mitigation and coordination with the Colorado State Parks, the Division of Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers. Alternative C Alternative C extends through the Del Camino area on a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment and shifts to the Alternative C west at Weld County Road 24.5. This alternative would shift back to the north at the existing frontage road Alternative C is proposed along the existing Weld County Road 5.5 alignment. As such, it would benefit and would utilize the existing bridge over the St. Vrain River. As the frontage road reaches the Riverdance from the existing roadway with lower construction costs and a portion of the right-of-way already preserved. development, the alignment would shift back to the east to Weld County Road 9.5. Impacts to the flood Meadow Vale Farms and the Elms at Meadow Vale residential developments would be impacted by this plain and wildlife areas would be minimized by utilizing the existing bridge for this alternative. Construction alternative with increased noise, poorer air quality and a visual barrier. The existing right-of-way width for cost would also be lower by utilizing the existing bridge. This alternative would require a lot of out-of- this alternative is 100 feet south of Weld County Road 24.5, which would benefit this alternative; however, direction travel, but commercial developments in this area would benefit from this alternative. Traffic entire parcels may need to be acquired with the right-of-way north of Weld County Road 24.5, which could control and access would be a concern for this alternative. The Riverdance development north of the St. be very costly. Traffic control would be a severe issue for this alternative during construction, and planned Vrain River has planned for an arterial as shown for this alternative. The existing frontage road would have developments north of Weld County Road 26 would be divided with this alternative. to be realigned to a 'T' intersection with this alternative. Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative In order to provide continuity between the segments to the north and south of this alternative and to In order to minimize environmental impacts and to benefit from the existing roadway structures, Alternative minimize the impacts to existing residential developments, Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this C is the preferred alternative for this segment. segment. Special care and coordination with Colorado State Parks and the Division of Wildlife will be important in the design of this segment. di FELSBURG H O LT & ULLEVIG Poge24 1 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study 1 �� E—— - SEGMENT 5 (WEST) �� „-.oa,.�e.Yoret�.�.,,ned Medal Route n . SEGMENTS (EAST) 1 t�' .'..f - .+.. M s-. I !f �r�r .. Likkgili X * �� - �'$ :`� r '8`l Ckl a _ sooa ��Aav'�'�4 �• �acacra[•aa i'r? ,_ ..--,,= U - ,..-s,. , �. " _ li 1 i i� a ® ` O � 'IC A!E] . a�• AT P , T.., 'R�C� �\ _.� wY • _ - Mm5"-'EO+apN _.. 25: (Aga , .c.lY• it ,a ia 4 .. s ` ill. :.r -- LJLL� a9,4„..„3.,., L. Fa. r im 4., 1 _ 'rt �Y c F n [i ■ �'JsS xn. “ Vt - -- Ri` Rr [.. ,.,• ' ,. n• r lit/TRIM ,- iii }�.. IL + "_ate f l y • ,.. . 3.,., , .LL ,s. - -f � j�t{.- jya., „.q-.. er F `> i p� 5°1' a f <[[D♦ nr1 ttLapa �:' Yty: • 1 —I-'. •-��' 9 s �s MDS- k amp li �:\a� "TX she o 3�fro : � 'off? "T�'Is - ' ,.�'`".i ,a"+ *, a.v. � it' &Ai♦.441- td lir .arto peer ''•�I..` R` ''. R. . .ham -�� ,.I , trert at { , ��, ��. �' ku �.' .r . � ijl *ws j ,. �I .n ' r ® r , 1 kJ � i, i ' - !i It S :. :y .---, pply �i i x�� .. Y� .1! 14 oo: ' �. I ill'," . altr +4,,. tr 4a r��ag. NM+= �{1 i � i� is I, '1 V;' �ti '4R s • s' `� W r.. \\`' tall .tea. - `L Sh 1 r � " ''` "° 119 .4) 1�` -- �.,. _ii ' n `1 A 'ate V :r.. R, f y . ,� ^M .•*Sk` R=600' n - g - . . ,� 13- . r ._. 3 `�-'OC1�sn '� a=OA% i ®� .1 MDS=4Onph ` � � ', Y��rrJ ni tl �. ... .* Vf�� f�xa ' : •: . r� . ¢Yi � rte` �� 4 1i - _ - R�3000' �' a ��.1 -• ilih ., _ _ , , eima�.,. '� . -- `6 ��F.:" .® - 5 . i y5 ii, 1 - a _.� � aer. YI0.5=55m ��. s �� y,... .y----„,, it._..%...,[ r+ y if `. '' '�.' --a1 :`�-�`_'°r' ai-,:.i 1�,Yr ,t�'". f`' -,ze+# . / Y ' u. �. .T 1� I mot` -, SR1'555 \ ', #� v t _ /{� , ...7.i ,r c . I { 'A4 .•' ,i ._ ip � Ti .o 1 !^� I x_ -._ i rye ., [ ' tor\.- ( 's ��' 'o_44:., ` ' j 4 . �� It Y L �'T j • it El Nil -� ' V !1 \ :^ k_.'c' { ' S 1 b b°"r •., �k,«- µti `�'� *r v,w ` \ ♦�. �.,� $ jr ,--Ali. .. lir \ •*,-� '\ a '4E' .F2 �-b' •'\fir. •\4 's jav i itLI' its p�( sq. la1I v 1- Itki4viti:,- .~ % - 1�:.�_. .: vi. - � ' �ni1nnnn ... °i. _ 1_ ..wt !'a. *' : f � i ®iii y Figure 17 w: n•::np��i. Figure 18 � :1Y min.•IIi4 -S . FELSBURG ii HOLT & ULLEVIO Page 25 C • r di -, 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 6 (WEST) and a visual barrier with the roadway. The existing driveways to these residences would introduce conflict points with traffic when traffic demands increase. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife or Alternative A flood plain areas. Alternative D conflicts with the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. Alternative A utilizes the existing Weld County Road 7, which would cause severe impacts north of State Alternative E Highway 66. Numerous residences front Weld County Road 7 with driveways that access the roadway; Alternative E proceeds from Weld County Road 7 around the north side of Sanborn Reservoir to a Weld this would create numerous conflict points with oncoming traffic. These residences would also be impacted County Road 5.5 alignment. Two existing residences adjacent to State Highway 66 would be impacted by with poorer air quality, more noise and a visual barrier created by the roadway. Since a majority of these residences are in close proximity to the existing roadway, right-of-way would be problematic, and this alternative with poorer air quality, increased noise and a visual barrier of the roadway. The driveways condemnation or purchase of entire parcels could be required to obtain the right-of-way for this alternative. from these residences could be rerouted from State Highway 66 to this alternative which would increase This would increase the construction cost for this alternative. This alternative could be phased with the the effectiveness of State Highway 66. This alternative would impact the Centex Homes development that existing roadway and is shown in the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan (which is currently being is currently being planned south of State Highway 66 between Weld County Road 7 and Weld County updated) as an arterial roadway. Road 5.5. The entire right-of-way width would have to be preserved for this alternative, and phasing opportunities could be limited between the cross roads for this alternative. The intersection spacing for Alternative B State Highway 66 would be ideal with this alternative since the proposed signals would be spaced at 1/2 - mile intervals from Weld County Road 5 to Weld County Road 5.5 to Weld County Road 7. Traffic control Alternative B shifts from Weld County Road 7 to Weld County Road 5.5, which introduces several would be minimal for this alternative. If the Public Utilities Commission requires grade separations with the geometry concerns. With this alternative, a skewed intersection would be proposed at State Highway 66 railroad, this alternative could accommodate the separation along with a grade separation for State which would produce traffic safety concerns and potential turning movement problems. A planned Highway 66. This alternative conflicts with the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. development by Centex Homes south of State Highway 66 would be divided in half by this alternative, which would have severe consequences. If the Public Utilities Commission requires grade separations Alternative F with the existing railroad, the skew that this alternative makes with the existing railroad north of State Highway 66 would require a long, costly bridge structure. Traffic control would not be a concern for this Alternative F starts at Weld County Road 7 and shifts around the south side of Sanborn Reservoir to a alternative; however, phasing opportunities could be limited to between the cross roads. A duck and geese Weld County Road 5.5 alignment that would meander to the west as this alternative proceeds to the north. area would be impacted adjacent to Sanborn Reservoir by this alternative. Alternative B conflicts with the This alternative would meander to cross the railroad tracks at better angles to minimize the bridge structure if the Public Utilities Commission would require grade separations of the existing railroad. This alternative Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. would not utilize an existing roadway, so construction cost could be relatively high and the entire right-of- way 9 9 Alternative C way would have to be preserved. This alternative would have minor impacts on existing development; however, it would bisect several parcels for future development. If traffic lights were placed at this Alternative C is shown on a Weld County Road 5.5 alignment. If the Public Utilities Commission would alternative on State Highway 66 and at Weld County Road 5, the traffic signal spacing would only be Ya - require a railroad grade separation for this arterial and for State Highway 66 (if it were widened), this mile, which is not ideal. Access could be restricted as development occurs adjacent to this roadway, and alternative would have a difficult intersection to construct on State Highway 66. Not only would this area be the roadway could be designed to current design standards. A duck and geese area would be impacted by difficult to construct, it would also be costly. Building the rest of the roadway on native land and preserving this alternative around Sanborn Reservoir, but this alternative would not impact any apparent flood plain the entire right-of-way for the alternative would add to the cost. Phasing opportunities would be very areas. Traffic control for this alternative would be minimal except at the cross roads, and phasing limited for this alternative between the cross roads, and the alignment would bisect future development in opportunities would be limited between the cross roads. Alternative F conflicts with the Town of Mead's this area. This alternative would not have any apparent impacts to wildlife or flood plain areas. Alternative Transportation Plan; however, this alternative could serve as a bypass of sort around the west edge of C conflicts with the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. Mead. Alternative D Preferred Alternative Alternative D extends to the north on a Weld County Road 5.5 alignment and shifts to the west to Weld In order to improve the intersection spacing on State Highway 66 and to minimize the impacts to the County Road 5 before crossing State Highway 66. The existing portion of Weld County Road 5 would Centex Homes development on the south side of State Highway 66, the preferred alternative for this benefit this alternative with relatively lower construction cost and with a portion of the right-of-way already segment is Alternative F as it shifts from Weld County Road 7 and meanders around Sanborn Reservoir. preserved. The existing roadway would also provide different phasing opportunities for this alternative. The preferred alternative would then deviate from Alternative F to Alternative E as it proceeds to the north Traffic control could be a concern for Weld County Road 5 during construction, and preserving additional across State Highway 66 to a Weld County Road 5.5 alignment. right-of-way on Weld County Road 5 would be problematic in some areas. The existing residences adjacent to Weld County Road 5 would be impacted by this alternative with poorer air quality, more noise PEELSRURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page26 • 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 6 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A is shown on a Weld County Road 11 alignment which would utilize an existing roadway. Several existing residences would be impacted by this alternative with an increase in noise, a decrease in air quality and a visual barrier of the roadway. The driveways from these residences would introduce conflict points with the roadway when traffic demands increase in this area. This alternative complements the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan and would border a residential land use. There would be no apparent impacts to wildlife or flood plain areas from this alternative. Traffic control would be an issue during construction of this alternative, but there could be several phasing opportunities by utilizing the existing roadway. Construction costs could be relatively low since portions of the existing roadway could be utilized, and this alternative would benefit by using the existing right-of-way. Alternative B Alternative B would utilize a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment and would serve the existing and proposed commercial areas adjacent to Interstate 25. This alternative would provide a buffer between proposed residential and commercial land uses and would also complement the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. The roadway network from the existing business parks would complement this alternative. Existing development would not be impacted with this alternative, and there could be several phasing opportunities to construct this alternative. There would be a cost savings associated with using the existing roadway for this alternative. There would not be any apparent flood plain or wildlife areas impacted with this alternative. Traffic control would be a concern with the existing traffic during construction. Preferred Alternative Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this segment since it would provide a buffer between the planned commercial and residential areas and since it complements the Town of Mead's plan for this area. IP FELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Poge27 ' r 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study s.1 .iii:.) — SEGMENT 6 (WEST) �� . ,' "m ,�. .a � SEGMENT 6.,___:( EAST) r�a�.¢Iw.n.i Routs uwn.w.Medal =Li------ ipr,,- fickv '. -4.,:, ... .c,, ,: ( ,,, .._ _ ft'-'?5:.....0a. i - EnIUW (M p.l ct Ml..4tl� T �� al li- . ,, ,.. •i• '" 11 IsliliM-l sown a.t IRI�lil�llll �,�i► -._-� � '; : / ��E� � �- / _:. / -a i yyr•:.i;t yt—�o,00 �. It ' , 4 i ' p / CL ti it G ff Try od t 1 ,• 1 ak sli- T AL _ ss man. fi1t: 5 !! 41V1 _ _- izitff- i, p, il 1 - -.,�,...,' _ _ Sp t �. Brien h isn. � x lad VI .-,t_---4- :,,,,,,, .. .iii.,,,s x. `'` r. � : r*-zT ` � ' fit '. _ k ,pA4r. &f + '°£ ta AE ...a _-r �[�. \f ✓' 'Qi '$. \ ` ?r ^�e , ✓✓ -� :1442. a^ 'fc * s , - el'1.:),; .c....=:';‘,_ ,air,:: - .. .!.. = 1: if,- 'It, ' „, 1 ii ,. "T ' v`za � �./ '� - n , 25 • - - �..w�► "-- '� r ;;IS( r -ti. L --;,-.‘4.- 4::4.-4A4 �,.i-�� ,'� 7 .r' r 'iy .. �� - � �.�T�. a r% # 'I � q j e .t, . Figure 19 I J� / Figure120 IPA FELSRURU irl HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 28 I _ , 0� -25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 7 (WEST) Preferred Alternative Alternative A The Highlandlake area adjacent to Weld County Road 5 includes several homes that are of historical Alternative A is shown on Weld County Road 7, which would present some inherent problems with the significance dating to as early as the 1870's. This area also includes the historic Highlandlake Church, existing residences and development adjacent to Weld County Road 7. There are numerous residences which is a state and national landmark. The entire Highlandlake area is in the process of creating a that are in very close proximity with the existing roadway that would be impacted by this alternative with historical district. Numerous individuals from the Highlandlake area expressed their concerns for this study increased noise and additional air pollution. Several of these residences have driveways that directly and have requested that if an arterial is constructed at the Alternative B location, consideration should be access the existing roadway, which would create conflict points as traffic demands increase in this area. given to purchasing the parcel from the west side of the arterial to Highlandlake and using it as an open The railroad presents a unique situation for this alternative with the skew angle that crosses the roadway space buffer zone. This open space buffer zone could be bermed and landscaped to minimize impacts to and the close proximity to existing development and Weld County Road 34. It could be physically the Highlandlake area. Such consideration should also be given for the area between the east side of the impossible to grade separate the railroad and tie into Weld County Road 34, and such a grade separation arterial and the North Creek subdivision. would have severe impacts on the existing development surrounding the railroad tracks. Traffic control would be an issue for this alternative during construction. This alternative would divide a mule deer area Since Alternative B would have fewer impacts to existing development and could be designed with some north of Weld County Road 32.5, and it would cross the flood plain at Weld County Road 34.5. type of a buffer, Alternative B is the preferred alternative for this segment. Alternative B SEGMENT 7 (EAST) Alternative B is proposed along a Weld County Road 5.5 alignment where there is not currently an existing roadway. All of the right-of-way would need to be preserved for this alternative, and the construction costs Alternative A for this alternative could be relatively high. This alternative would minimize the impacts to existing Alternative A is proposed along a Weld County Road 11 alignment which would impact a few existing development and avoid the Highlandlake area. Access would be restricted to this alternative as adjacent residences adjacent to the roadway. These residences would have poorer air quality and an increase in development occurs, and this alternative would be designed to current roadway design standards. Future noise from the roadway. Access from the driveways for these residences would have to be rerouted to this development in this area would be divided with this alternative, and this alternative conflicts with the Town alternative, which may cause conflict points for traffic as traffic demands increase. This alternative would of Mead's Transportation Plan. Phasing opportunities would be limited to the cross roads with this encroach on a bald eagle, duck, geese and white pelican area north of Weld County Road 32. Alternative alternative, but traffic control would be minimal. This alternative would border a mule deer area at Weld A would cross the flood plain north of Weld County Road 32. There could be some phasing opportunities County Road 34 and would not cross any apparent flood plain areas. for this alternative with the existing roadway; however, traffic control would be an issue during construction with the existing roadway. The construction cost for this alternative would benefit from using the existing Alternative C roadway. Alternative C utilizes the existing Weld County Road 5 roadway until it approaches the Highlandlake area where it shifts to the east to a Weld County Road 5.5 alignment. Several residences adjacent to Weld Alternative B County Road 5 would be impacted by this alternative with poorer air quality and an increase in noise. The Alternative B would deviate from a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment and meander to the east closer to driveways from these residences also access Weld County Road 5, which could be problematic in the Weld County Road 11 in order to miss existing ponds. This alternative would have minor impacts to future when traffic demands increase. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain existing residences in this area; however, driveway accesses may need to be redirected to the proposed areas. There could be several phasing opportunities with the existing roadway for this alternative; roadway. These driveways could be consolidated and planned with future residential development in order however, traffic control would be an issue with the existing traffic during construction. The construction to minimize the impacts on the function of the proposed roadway. Phasing opportunities would be limited costs for this alternative could be relatively low since the existing roadway could be utilized. Different for this alternative with the existing cross roads, and the construction costs for this alternative could be sections of this alternative conflict and complement the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. relatively high since there would not be any benefits of using an existing roadway. The entire right-of-way would need to be preserved for this alternative. This alternative would divide planned residential areas and conflicts with the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. Mule deer and white pelican areas would be impacted with this alternative, and the flood plain would be crossed south of Weld County Road 34. PIP \ HOLT & ULLEVIG L E V I G Page 29 $r 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study it Alternative C Alternative C meanders from Weld County Road 9.5 to the west closer to Interstate 25. This alignment would serve as a buffer between planned residential and commercial land uses, which complements the Town of Mead's plans. Reverse horizontal curves are shown north of Weld County Road 32 in order to avoid existing residences and the existing pond area. Driveway accesses in this area could be combined so access could be restricted for this alternative. This alternative would be designed to current design standards. The construction costs for this alternative could be relatively high since there would be no benefits of utilizing an existing roadway. Traffic control would be minimal for this alternative; however, phasing opportunities would be limited between the existing cross roads for this alternative. Alternative C would impact a mule deer area around Weld County Road 34 and would cross the flood plain north of Weld County Road 34. Preferred Alternative In order to minimize the amount of impacts to existing residences and to provide a buffer between planned commercial and residential areas, Alternative C, transitioning to Alternative D to connect with the preferred alternative in Segment 8, is the preferred alternative for this segment. IPFELSBURG (4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 30 I .< S_ 7 J '-1 ' 17 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study I a `, I —Pref.rr.a Modal RouteNY Route Rotas}J� -f if Er/Arbil�- SEGMENT 7 (WEST) .� .w.,,a.ToMlmprondas•Weld My w MMYI Wm.PicRoachny SEGMENT 7 (EAST) Mot part of W.study) ' j J . 1 _ _ ' _. ! I� ) '.w ' . _ a 'R�� ,• yy fr I -55 mph i � MDS „%.. 1`y "'1 Kr' r �- - S; 1� .. j N L 9 °i �---, - 25 - MO 1� II �. 7p , r. i -.dot `1s ' 4 i --assn mph /! WEST ALT. B 7 i ' J cT � �' C 3 ! It_ \ ! d i '!Jr i , .mss. ,, , �— ..1 _ ff9q!i4 ' ` liii f sti!ilh a R oaqi iIYY}I r�l E}1 6Utyr�. '!, �. ,� ':-\ �X'4�N .TMM I' \ ..�, e '4' 16,4 IV- , ,.rg�I MD° ifs mot.\F 1�• �t t I'' —� LZi�. ./-1. lV' �P \ &&`�'� /� ` .r "% '[..s I ... gi �.Y� 1 .+ 4, �w' f ��'".p�.Lat lam, f 4- X146 ;'`/� te �_��_�` no ,E - '}.,. ;' 't a, OaUO' ,,.„ ,r, P.I!! [IY�' .T ., - "V_ f .. ?- "' ��- �G)$ ..� _—r 431 ,,M ti 1 �5II n[ it -==== alkiss al, MpC,„�F,:. . �- ss mph _ . Plus tMI rr,. . - AR -E! - ... -- _ _ { 1 Z!! Th3 aav 4' " e� p. ,p3., -% " - gyp - - ,-- - , dal .,y.. �A ''� {- - �„ , .7¢. :a�'�L;L"'. t t '�a ,'Y' _ `_ '� r �f .c 4eill psze „........, „:„., r , ...:,..„,..„...._,O,A 4rA 4 -I ii Ili:2 / r.•,p_. p. ', ►yr ink a. �' �= ` ^5: Altai Lfitil �.nta �iA. - - �'' 1� _ ,5_.. rur 1 -3 .. . >_ ,w+ ,ac, 5:y* i �,,:_ ' �.,f. ,� r �i�� '' I r,,, ;off t s : '^ ___ i x. 4 d . _ 1 >+ ! -w"'' -� • rie. nrurY swit. 4 - .t __d R� F n iimi4 �,Y'r�PK P5 �l .� ' �. k . ! _.. ... '`` ' S 2 t.> _ E- Ma 25 _ } r . .8' . . I _w^ _.� .8"" .:t '- I 1R"I y �. wF',';/Cr. w Aso' Figure 21 Fig e 22 . FELSRURG (d HOLT 6: ULLEVIG Page 31 of 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 8 (WEST) SEGMENT 8 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A utilizes the existing Weld County Road 7 alignment which would impact numerous existing Alternative A is shown along a Weld County Road 11 alignment, which would benefit the construction cost residences in Lake Hollow, Highland Estates and Margil Farms. These residences would experience an by utilizing existing portions of the roadway. This alternative would divide residential land uses and increase in noise along with poorer air quality due to the roadway. Several driveways from these conflicts with the Town of Mead's plans. There could be several phasing opportunities for this alternative residences access directly onto Weld County Road 7, which would introduce numerous conflict points for by utilizing the existing roadway, and minimal out-of-direction travel would be required for this alternative. traffic especially as traffic demand increases. Preserving additional right-of-way for this alternative could There would be a few existing driveways that may need to access the roadway, but access could be be very problematic due to the existing residences, and traffic control and access during construction would restricted as development occurs adjacent to the roadway. This alternative would have minimal impacts to be major concerns if this roadway is built. This alternative would not have any apparent impacts to wildlife existing development and would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain areas. Traffic control could and flood plain areas. There could be several phasing opportunities with the existing roadway for this be an issue during construction for this alternative. alternative, and the construction cost would benefit from using the existing roadway. Alternative A complements the Town of Mead's Transportation Plan. Alternative B Alternative B shifts between Weld County Road 11 and Weld County Road 9.5 as it proceeds to the north. Alternative B This alternative conflicts with the Town of Mead's plans; however, it would compensate for the Town of Alternative B shifts from a Weld County Road 5.5 alignment to Weld County Road 7. This alternative Berthoud's plans north of Weld County Road 40. This alternative would impact accesses to adjacent conflicts with the Town of Mead's plans for this area; however, this alternative would compensate for the residences which would have to be realigned. These driveways could introduce conflict points with traffic Town of Berthoud's plans which utilize Weld County Road 7 as an arterial north of Weld County Road 40. as the traffic demand increases. Several parcels would be bisected with this alternative which would The shift in this alternative would create some out-of-direction travel, and it would bisect parcels that could impact potential development for this area. The ability to phase this alternative could be limited between be developed in the future. This alternative would have minimal impacts to existing development in this the cross roads, although traffic control would be minimal to construct this alternative. This alternative area, and it would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain areas. Phasing opportunities for this would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain areas. The entire right-of-way would need to be alternative could be limited, and the construction cost for this alternative would not receive any benefits of preserved for this alternative as development occurs. The construction costs could be relatively higher for utilizing an existing roadway. Traffic control during construction would be minimal for this alternative, and this alternative since there would not be any benefits of utilizing an existing roadway. the roadway could be designed to current design standards. The existing Weld County Road 7 would have to be rerouted to 'T' into this alternative north of Weld County Road 38. Alternative C Alternative C utilizes a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment that would create a buffer between planned Alternative C commercial and residential land uses. This alternative complements the Town of Mead's and the Town of Alternative C extends Weld County Road 5.5 to the north where the alternative shifts towards Weld County Berthoud's plans for this area. There would be minimal impacts to existing development by this alternative, Road 5. The construction costs for this alternative would not benefit from utilizing an existing roadway, and and there would be no apparent wildlife and flood plain areas impacted by this alternative. The entire right- this alternative would divide parcels that may be developed in the future. Access could be restricted for of-way would need to be preserved for this alternative, and phasing opportunities could be limited between this alternative as development occurs adjacent to the roadway. Traffic control during construction would the existing cross roads. Access for this alternative could be restricted as development occurs adjacent to be minimal except at the cross roads. The phasing opportunities for this alternative could be limited the roadway, and the roadway would be designed to current roadway design standards. Traffic control between the cross roads. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain areas, and would not be a concern during construction except at the intersections of the cross roads. The construction this alternative would have minimal impacts to existing development in this area. Alternative C conflicts costs for this alternative would not receive any benefits of utilizing an existing roadway. with the Town of Mead's plans for this area, and it would not compensate for the Town of Berthoud's plans north of Weld County Road 40. The current design standards could be applied to the design of this Preferred Alternative alternative. The entire right-of-way would need to be preserved for this alternative. In order to create a buffer between planned commercial and residential land uses and to complement the Town of Mead's and the Town of Berthoud's plans, Alternative C is the preferred alternative for this Preferred Alignment segment. In order to minimize impacts to existing development and to accommodate the Town of Berthoud's plan north of Weld County Road 40, Alternative B is the preferred alternative for this segment. FELSBURG H OLT & ULLEVIG Page 32 DI • � t ,3 N ' �{ �? 3 J LL t � F-O tin �� A vim.- Vt Y I Y r� C ry i, co JJ �� If. ,ji I � ,I Y M ,daF is k P� �� ,I�I. 1 , , t ,ar„ ra v x � �� ) q�� il�l� k II ! t _ �^I,. ' III��l�� i�' 'Il1 ' *,k v.. .— A 1tol1! I �� p dl • Ya��i. } s O' --'.1 , Or L 1 •u P I{ di}St {F J Ill w !� y1 ! g /1 ((t uv kl 1�Ip�, 'SF` 9 \ d�� 4 , 01 I t '1µ ya 3x,^v i yPR t \Vlr , F ��ti'f,rl`IA•��I � a�. y q')''c •`. ?5°tF.l", t Ntr'Y�',„` '��v9�,�� M1 41��‘ J. _ 7.-1.10r7---' 10k ..� `-` � 4 t my\\ 4 'if: P r iE% 1/�gll� % Y` :�, .}'..,,'. I �'�:s�f r:��. dr- c gal. _ t - - r� r ,; it g Fr a .`o r, ft. IIr; ' , y "r„ K f Div k ., illki '4- %.I Tom " k ! i! 'J , Y^".ly hAv A , '�.iit Wi I W 1 - t.' +t _ I' C' c Y...itiz 1 k !C .: �i Hi /YI. 1}€ 4r! W mz � M d OI a+ a YF : ‘, , r J t 6 { wq c I p . ..ydr.x 'cy %1444)441T.w f it VW I 4 ae r I kii . 1a5, -r� N m + 4I") - 1 i „In-aL., ril i irk eme..12,twillillr.,:110 tap 4kaltioriatiti :\f,t- --vs ..tr 41, 2 - . , t< 1 r it f< a 1- 4 I N.a+ FI\—..,,. :, .... i �p �., ..�It4 if ',,iris .1! or oroa-N A"1T. u.. ..,..,:.za f $ '• H t .� � ' 4 r'n qO ��I : • y 1E-, ry� II + � e" 1 1fillk IIIIHI il 1111 -)\ '. it.iti ' s - i .— cL 'CaA"fSa i 0.< r s. K _Lilt �- , y �� . ,.. ►y- .' Lc '4,a�' `fix t �. ;fi' � s `!r .— k; $ ». Rt.� ,j. :; � �r,�'�_ t ,iF E4 fC2,'i i1 .;G�—' III I 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study SEGMENT 9 (WEST) SEGMENT 9 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A is proposed along the existing Weld County Road 7 alignment. This alternative would impact Alternative A is proposed along Weld County Road 11, which is an existing roadway north of Weld County the existing residences north of Weld County Road 42 by increasing the noise and air pollution with an Road 42. Use of the existing right-of-way would benefit this alternative. The construction cost for this increase in traffic. The access for these residences is not directly onto Weld County Road 7, which would alternative would be lower since the existing roadway could be utilized. The existing residences east of help restrict access for this alternative. Access would be restricted as development adjacent to the Weld County Road 11 would be impacted when the roadway is widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. These roadway occurs. The existing right-of-way for Weld County Road 7 could be utilized for this alternative, residences would experience more noise and poorer air quality with the added traffic from this alternative. and the construction cost would be lower since the existing roadway could be utilized. There could be The existing driveways that directly access Weld County Road 11 could be rerouted to a cross street in several phasing opportunities for this alternative with the existing roadway; however, traffic control would order to restrict access for this alternative. There would be several phasing opportunities for this be an issue during construction. Several wildlife areas and the flood plain would be crossed at the Little alternative with the existing roadway. This alternative would not impact any apparent wildlife or flood plain Thompson River, but these impacts would be minimized since there is an existing roadway at the crossing areas. The portion of this alternative south of Weld County Road 42 conflicts with the Johnstown location. This alternative complements the Town of Berthoud "Draft" Land Use Plan for the 1-25 Sub-Area Transportation Plan. Study. Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B meanders through the existing terrain along a Weld County Road 9.5 alignment. The Town of Alternative B utilizes a Weld County Road 5 alignment, which would benefit the construction cost by Berthoud "Draft" Land Use for the 1-25 Sub-Area Study depicts this alternative, which was developed to utilizing the existing roadway. The ability to phase this alternative would be good with the existing accommodate the proposed land uses for this area within the existing terrain. The design speed would roadway, and the existing right-of-way on Weld County Road 5 could be utilized. This alternative would have to be reduced to 35 to 40 mph for this alternative; however, this altemative would not impact any cross several wildlife areas and the flood plain at the Little Thompson River, but these impacts would be existing development. There would be impacts to mule deer and great blue heron areas adjacent to the minimized since there is an existing roadway at this location. This alternative would impact the existing Little Thompson River, and this alternative would cross the flood plain at the Little Thompson River. residences adjacent to Weld County Road 5 by increasing the noise levels and air pollution that would Access could be restricted to this alternative as development occurs adjacent to the roadway. Traffic result from more traffic. The driveways to these residences that have direct access onto Weld County control would not be an issue during construction except at State Highway 56. Since a majority of this Road 5 would introduce conflict points with traffic on the roadway especially as traffic demands increase. alternative is on native land, the entire right-of-way would need to be preserved and phasing opportunities Traffic control would be an issue during construction. By utilizing the existing roadway, this alternative could be limited. would complement development for this area. Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Since there are no apparent impacts to existing developments and to complement the Town of Berthoud In order to complement the Town of Berthoud's plans for this area and to improve the safety of the roadway plans for this area, Alternative B is the preferred alternative for this segment. by restricting access locations, Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this segment. pFELSBURG rdHOLT & ULLEVIG Poge34 1 - ) r f4 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ) (WEST) �'�° "�� ° "�""" ' SEGMENT 9 (EAST) .� �PnM1MMn.IROW NbuC.MnNRwRs SEGMENT 9 �1/4073TUMlmpnv dy7. IlfEahevai .69ArlJwe Evaluated ' .. eke+.- %,_ , ' .3 $ 1� ` �gv '� ' bM1 xIi l --�. ` tR=. R.1p.0� -F �2 o C �.. 1 VI 11 �yy�y.J � a •ttlfraio 1 K r v n ALT.B �# ' Y ;�.,-,aa( .. { `� .1‘..: ��.. a k n a e '^4 s'. .r 1 Y ry Y$ 2. 1 11 iii s, _ . • > �� renal TT,, it VA t A( ® \ \ a ern ® G. r++y3Ti1H6F iii IF \ Y , Y erg :#� .a. 3 I • - t'll - - gal- 4'2i 1.+"....—R R J VI 1,} 4 ` � ..' ..> Irif { w hsq ., wt ' �_ et►� . �-t+I .^^`�, Y'fd`-" '�.. a r ., III I' `. r i 4" � '�� es --2 1� 111�� ,L I _ sal ® ice �' � —,tea. L5�,a9',.., �.'k . -C �uI ,.a,y..c49, r _ T IC- it I�. x IC' f „` •4.4'X a i alrf-x ..� ,.- ; I4 It 1' ' 4 -: i - - b 'a ).4 s -..Q.g + :4 4 A F • CR13 `✓ Figure 25 Figu e 26 pm SBIJRG OHOLT & L L L E V I G Page 35 I _ y. p 0 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study I SEGMENT 10 (WEST) SEGMENT 10 (EAST) Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A would utilize existing Weld County Road 7 from State Highway 56 to State Highway 60, Alternative A shifts from Weld County Road 11 to Weld County Road 9-1/2 north of Weld County Road 46. where the alignment could shift to the west and continue through to Larimer County. This alternative This alternative would not complement the Johnstown Transportation Plan and would bisect future planned complements the Johnstown Transportation Plan and would serve planned light industrial land use north of development north of Weld County Road 46. Existing residences near Weld County Road 46 would be Weld County Road 46. Existing residences adjacent to Weld County Road 7 would be impacted by this impacted by this alternative with more noise and worse air quality from the traffic generated by this alternative with more noise and poorer air quality. The driveways to these residences could create conflict roadway. Traffic control would not be an issue since a major portion of this alternative is on native land; points for traffic when the traffic demand for this area increases. There would be several phasing however, the ability to phase this alternative could be limited. The construction cost for this alternative opportunities for this alternative with the existing roadway; however, traffic control would be an issue for could be relatively high since there would not be any benefits of utilizing an existing roadway, and the this alternative during construction. This alternative would benefit from some cost savings by utilizing the entire right-of-way for this alternative would need to be preserved. Several wildlife areas and the flood existing roadway and right-of-way. There are no apparent impacts to any wildlife or flood plain areas by plain would be impacted by this alternative where it crosses the Little Thompson River north of State this alternative. Highway 56. Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B shifts north of Weld County Road 46 from Weld County Road 5 to Weld County Road 7. This Alternative B meanders along a Weld County Road 9-1/2 alignment and would provide a buffer between alternative would utilize the existing Weld County Road 5, which would benefit the construction costs, retail/commercial and residential areas as outlined in the Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan. This phasing opportunities and amount of right-of-way to preserve. The existing residences adjacent to Weld alternative complements the Johnstown Transportation Plan and would have minimal impacts to wildlife County Road 5 would be impacted by this alternative with additional noise and air pollution along with the areas, the flood plain and existing development. Access could be restricted to this alternative as visual impacts of the roadway. The driveways from these residences that access directly onto Weld development occurs adjacent to the roadway. Since a majority of this alternative is on native land, the County Road 5 could create a safety concern in the future when traffic demands increase. This alternative entire right-of-way would need to be preserved, and the construction cost could be relatively high. The would divide numerous parcels, which could be problematic for planned development for this area. There phasing opportunities for this alternative would be limited. would be no apparent impacts to any wildlife and flood plain areas. Traffic control on Weld County Road 5 could be an issue during construction of this alternative. Preferred Alternative Alternative B is the preferred alternative for this segment since it complements the Town of Johnstown's Preferred Alternative plans for this area and also minimizes impacts to both existing and proposed developments adjacent to the In order to minimize the impacts to existing developable parcels and to complement the Johnstown roadway. Transportation Plan, Alternative A is the preferred alternative for this segment. pFELSBURG � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 36 ' lP 10. 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ) ) �� TI •n. Arterial RoutesE SEGMENT 10 (WEST) I it 14 -.- . - .p�I is WEST ALT. Bfio \ FF55 mPh A.v ! 9i i k \ ':=i s , t, J 1 � � ! WEST , to , .41 \ � :r-ten, gr ® - i ter.- 0 — =a^ = sue` S x —€' ,c. i�:: c 6c 3"#yam a,,y.,. p .- i r _ -L \ ` > l� 7 ' • In '1 fr' ) n: j.`1 \ \ ., .x rte.. .... � y.' .. _� ,.- ] I% � - - - - . t.: �i� r a -. F 7 ��[f14 d.a7� ,y • +�„__ ; �_ _ 25 - W V - , � ■ �� Figure 27 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Poge37 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study _ Po.M1mtl Medal Rib -Ere Martel Reines EWerM SEGME/VT 10 (EAST) -YitR1J-TOI.ImPmueEr.YMM CeeMy M.ebyc Roadway ee pen m we.MM) 25 Al—rivAng rof '1j' 1 �! L e leti Ty , i s a' P 1 1 ,- 1 ". J' �� ' - r ,► a 71. EAsT A •A'�y1 s ��F 7 ® wC r kt« 5 em ! � !L-a; r •- n. -�, >r ♦♦� ' . — ,�s . F,$$."; .reuc nnlllnl l�¢ s'. o- - r, rd - _ ♦ R-,zo� --1 F sle �eeluu oleo 1�. 1 �.'. �♦ .-IAY� R iq UI" J 11 11 i- r est , ♦. MDS=55mph . e ` um� 21210'....vllc F tz -. {. - :ft ell o� x . � • a� a ^ p� e! �I ill► clit na uR • l� 1 e G+ f BI , ulmll -.,, v I u } F':-a,� / 3 a saliin rani 6 R , i I wirk„ _.:„acme", its e. _ // w IL 11111id11a �_ � yJ1111"t111 i 1 _iv � E �. .EAST :1111*: /- � K ..,.. _ !e. I., • ' — 91 'y. ' I M e-55mph - 3 P +CMI I-- ii11 /l _a Alll \��Ial�� Fu yp •i; t sn1II n gs. „,.Y e •� Fspl c i RR ■ car .. - i i�iI n . ri 0 - + 2rI �lT¢ eel .cc� 18 - se-o o�'� .i`r IV 1 i e6 f R 0 \iuuucV er .e, —4A---.• "•• I j '""3 :=)17';'—iii:::. a q jf�i I i ,. �a - rim ar . ,'� l,j,^�J 1 tom pad�s�6 ,�ft1�•e't.ja � \�' •...1 J.S. ,,, l :O� IL 11 MI--- ' 'e ll IIIIIn111ra.f {( x �• xv.. y ''4' b.,. --.‘•.;‘,, Y ......�::IIIIS�13 Ye4.rr. '-i'l iYi+ r P N'.. F - AP Figure 28 EFELSBURG CE HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 38 . r 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study V. RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENTS ALIGNMENTS After the evaluation process was completed, the preferred alternatives for each segment were displayed for the entire corridor to review the connectivity of the different segments. By refining the preferred segment alternatives to ensure continuity, recommended alignments for the entire study corridor were established, as shown as green on Figures 29 and 30. The location of the recommended alternatives is approximate in that the alignments can shift subtly in order to better fit the planned developments within the corridor; however, the overall functionality of the arterials should not be compromised as a result of any modifications. It is envisioned that two lanes of these arterials could be constructed as an initial phase, with the ultimate roadway width being constructed when traffic demand warrants a 4-lane arterial. Through coordination with the Colorado State Parks and the local municipalities within the corridor, a vision of how these arterials may look has been assembled and is shown on Figures 31 and 32. Figure 31 shows how an arterial may act as a buffer between commercial development which is shown on the left and residential development which is shown on the right. Figure 32 depicts how Weld County Road 7 may be extended across the St. Vrain River through the proposed St. Vrain State Park area. STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS When the study is complete, it is the intent of Weld County staff to present the findings of the study to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration in a public hearing. If accepted, the next step would be to develop Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) with the local municipalities to ensure that the recommended alignments are preserved for future implementation. ARTERIAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS At this point in time, there is no specific schedule for the construction of these arterials. The construction schedule for the arterial routes will be highly dependent on the growth and development that occurs in the area. Weld County and the municipalities within the project corridor will use this study as a basis to preserve rights-of-way for the arterials as development in the area occurs. Rights-of-way not preserved through the development process may be purchased as needed. Furthermore, as development occurs, it is anticipated that developments adjacent to the arterials will be responsible for the construction required to mitigate their impacts. Based on conceptual cost estimates that were prepared for this study, it is anticipated that construction for these arterials could be approximately $1.5 million per mile. The County and local municipalities in the corridor will be responsible for those portions not funded by developments. 4FELSBURG HOLT S ULLEVIG Pog¢ 39 ffi 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ► ) ) RECOMMENDED AL/GNMENTS-SOUTH I I a tea._ 3 WYR7-t k XI I, isia1 .4 ^'" \O J ®®_ P �."''1l �'yy�� f �C :Lahti- _ ��c.:j l zet' •n�"ev ' ��raya u _ ir a�ceoui BOULEVARD A 4R a.:e. re 4i4 e'' , fJ `4` �' + ® L'+r '-� "'.. i{ � . *' .ia ".Nr' \ .`. WCR7 L� P ,eeli.�a 5Ci r,+.r� i ? �. 'i"1.'+ '�!.- wxoxemes+ �gp 1 3 'p i t. ♦ J e "k 7:LA. � .� i�1Ci�"' !1 a .av a, ■+ k • :1:ri_atil:trf.:74.11- _Lirl- i � � -� G � ,� � ,",y,"". � �� n '� 'a1i �� = 6\� a. > r �,� tg � . P ' 1 �.� Y 1V {,s�� vv _,'tt5 � ,� ., v ..�a �yI _ ,.,_ 4 't [ 9 i N.r 9 s r ii Eel a iii ® 'b3 ay a' t :wi5 `rt41 �, A �R is.� a. i lIiii 25 s `r i 25 : L:471:: 25 -,—' A i .� i o \ a...s; -tw, �,„ '} , , 3! � , � ; I.. � ��L�°EFr „ �. 1� !Q�`°''q ' i �` y ,� J� .'.< �.6 .� ,e �.`w , IAA'4W f 7s -44�1 O.a"W .ry ♦ 0!x. -i� iY , -4. J.e r. n . x;#9xP '}.tia- L rf�s��•[ a 'i r� < a � ; s'b ;loot � - �t .— — -{ice a �` _ ! YY0i'111-'11' .. -Ip ^y _ ! � 3� .(:.` � �.c.'�. r rF+ WCR11 g,"�'r`. ' k1.11 :hi'''. 'V-` µl. � '£ r - ,: ,e: - ^� 4/41011 1�a �► rauvv a. ' ., '.u1 _ - v ' 4. A4411 I �. j; ti s w+ - �'' JLv"' l r ® 1 t. a, 7., dr 6 ' . .,g. �r�..>� � �_S . .+� -----47 8 .''.:t,--1 *--,:,_ .� �. - � s1ry l�� F �g-e- ® � _�4r�.a+ ....J.:, ,��I ' :-. «i1� 'f' !'. --. l6f 1S r " "'�i F AA 1y,. . '^1" '1;•71.- !g 4 4; Y 1¢�'�41.4 i4 w":. {.. 1 n. �.itt i F ,.x b.- \�. g-1R _'Ss�r , IL, , .. .1rirsa=:.'�'-�•4 ��-/ a�.`��MAL,e�.`, � -:1��1�. Figure 29 I I x r. FELSBURG C� HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 40 I i1 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study 1 , ) RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENTS—NORTH ! , t}� , 1��'la -Estill* �I�e�a u 3,. r- f 9•. "pWG9�t (d .<�ir*, * ...-.`- 9 1 �..�, "�5,& ` I �;$r ,..�fr;' t �,®a,. IP ,. .1r v^Y a 1 ^ 1 , f�" J • ` " " � � X ® ' �F i i ". ')!' , L . . - Il , �� _ ®s�fi� Q..� ar ui BII '� � -'0^:� _ • R q-� A.'SIP' ST Wir Plaire< ] 1�� v✓ ; pies , 'o '_ �,if Li '.ems✓ 1 . ~i:.l e ., lis I slr � ..W►Lr� ` E']�eP al I wcn a1 ee� t 7 .,;. ''aS> - �. ., i 4F al i , t• r {� r �e ac ii , 4, _, ii, &.. 1. 1�5 0s/ s OIL � _ -'. i lr t... 1 .,t d► �. Y.' �,7�1 b. IL 5 si . tent riv,i4 � � 9� t WIfya 6 . r#ece - ii ® te ;� T r ( . � m +�� i: - / .'ii sr f- a� ! rt i �. Qr - i .F , . _, • i4 k iiio,six ; y �� v ii,it to ��1 ' `° m ,.. taT - �7IA 1 _ — — , �r— ..�25 ,,�. •.�� •�'w�.�a�', �; ! k2I te, r i :� � i itZi' ,11,1741 125` - A. is s �'-�P'� ."�c 'i�?t'' .ell ��__ ,` `• r��i��.� `�-� <..` �__`.. 3 r Nu.? 1 .-;� Grp �, e.t giltPara. � r w v 1tAliVr _ ycry 447-.4—:'..—). ` nu ,4 ' �� ` rlIn (+ At. .,, h^" .%�`6'�c.t c r;: _ f ! ,u -., 11171 eS!I� .�>III ' i I. ligl �T 'j• (�yr--1445„2124,. ,--,a,e �T rta -,21.1\„0,4,,,,,,,4, #' '6L d A._ �'j7 it 1 t `� ... /R� � ho . ? _{{ - \ T .1 -'.h r9 t.',,.ylq `Y 1 �// i':,,,..c..„ ..„„ ,„Si ` L.,.,'�'� aim {,� . ��i" `�:EI _f�/'Y1. -.yg _ s' F t „Jr ,j9, -01/4,,e linrai .'r.".h"s: Pi11t ''3'`6f_••r L 44 1 791 ro, km_t f uf&,,..� -, "' e_ l �� vi ?"`+i "' „�� "P5 4`"' Y 6A.�' a , .. _ .2-1�1 �' ::ril®a a wl . / . % i it ar� fr .4....T4-4„ y- .^ t„ �.� _'!t +1 x.21.4 ''v' °r'a..T''''' kraa:, ,,.;., ar rF.l n �;�p ®spy' '1 (°� ll�'E41 .` Sy� ask It �..I ,t '. , `I ! � �� §�"; .8".:��Y�� CI ie`�s .`j. i ®" P--1 :1E a J.. � :,� \� _ .�e �...s4 > .M ._ s _... _ �r Figure 30 (iHOLT & ULLEVI'' Poge41 } I , 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study +. ? 'bF -,,,,. .„..-_,,e-,,,-„,.,,,... . ->4n- a5 pi.; :..,4.4,-. " : rA. `w axe✓ i.e -r-----t.',.20/ � r,>- y.A".°`...w,f ..„ 3 _%-„ g,. "+ .- e-.ar4". .tv-' 'r` q.;::.r 'ka ,-.,--_ Tk., - ',.� ,;•1 w � v ,, ti .13• .+ '"' 7 1! ,+'ti sF-twset w w,.- a -r�l- F ' ��'+W w fit wa�`:,- aA 1' a er . '. :ter e', '" •a. 6 . - --:".g 1 ` �_, �s ' } by . � .... w7, - ' ,+ • l �.v L ♦� !j 4.x`97 y}/�''�Y �jTYv + }rJ. 4 �sg �» i•�y� J .i_'La f . f'..'IL,. "'- I / 1 y.:. 4.-imR isasmi . y„ : 'yea 4,-..d. $ i n^ .- - f�r �y �: ' '.t.may?a .ir � i - ,..--.4,4-4;;;--„, l+rC#aa,Y'dam_ .�.. ,T.'aiGeW�i `vt° • ') r .., 1', 44.00604 � a,..-� �oyas,:k$ +�`• - x w3wr •,+'I9L+.y+s+h _- r�`+�MY yn.le '$ ,Cr � �. 1�� i.3fF4f .,,s' .1 'r'� a yr Y� {• .. A 4 :;---- � 2 r w ..:rx s.. .. ! f"- Tr --�—, Y s"t ' it_.., � r F te � '• t • S Wes:= are- - "'r r1 i.., v �y� .3 es.= �.:c ,. I •4 �rt1 � *-' r. r 3- .i —. ..Y` , .- or r'....-4i!'‘'' s 4-, .,4/4; ..< f .� ₹ _ '..c "fs "+ kL-^., } �� Y P � SFr T -. -ma,' -r •. "C F `� pp £ _ L •N= 'F . 27 C -'•1 '�"' ,r._. -1:17,* ::-L %`, ,k4i xt0.r 4fi r y . : - £n 9 .,n yj4` h.:Cd 8 �, iXa .!`' Ys y ,7`'a r ��3,� - �#- "`.�__ ,. ' '•+i' `a'• • x e� t• ant'9 � ..y, + ,--;. ::.,/ #; e.�i t' s� _ `Y , } r ( h•� " w _ _�• f r �,'. t f •"a s �,f.„ ♦ S11 t ---..ist • i i • 1 8 ft wide detached walk Two 12 ft wide through lanes 15 ft wide median with left Two 12 ft wide through lanes 8ft wide detached walkways. g turn pockets at intersections TYPICAL ARTERIAL CROSS SECTION This birds eye cross section depicts the type of arterial roadway template that is being planned. It consists of two through lanes in each direction with auxiliary turn lanes at some intersections. A paved or landscaped median separates traffic lanes. Some',private access to roadway may be right turn in and right out only.Larger strategically spaced intersections will have full turn movements ',Early phases of road construction may consist of only two travel lanes with walkways curbs and medians phased in as traffic volumes increase. £I_aj Felsburg-�Holt&t Ullevig COLORADO; Weld County Arterial Study URNDNSGIPE �`E� Figure 31 4 FELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 42 I stir • l - 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study f f M rC Bridge ridge ove_r SeintVrain River '� x - f :-' tee. r, -•— '~ _ - `" -. 1 • ♦i '..t" • y r ti g g- r Y v r S ~ _. !1"x ft 4111:-- t# Am it d l a l' L- i• Bird's e e view of brrd a area ms Sp' '� •R+' , i.. f ,.�1•''� r} )`.: : , J4-O,e "" w29-7'.. r Aral Iva. ., u( I. f 4A !I IiR /7 (7-#. --ye G .EYilting.WC.R 24.5 t • ✓:_ �_� I .—u ltni .•49.7 .—. �r.: a ro:.:' 'aee Y R mss* I 1 it �L,. L -+=K,. r M }t � ^ 'Lt \t n.-M ^ .-f it. Y_.aep� , A { e• 'a"^„T'�+« 1 .... iey f f ...k �"^ .. ` 4 - r� rp ,,r �.+i am •jj!ta: u4 `ll !./ —''� ..j�. _ 2nd A(a E1I ��' s y. ..fir 'r�.yMrS ..abet .• 4;21/4— '_ \ cr'✓ Cr" iasi -- 7- g A1P" a '_. f xYx. q� g15" :r I w des. trw h fLw q; 4. /1 IC-"el 1�..... .fl I � '� _ t- i ..+ a3r"C�y� �` 1- IG •'r v wG�,o•R 'tl t!":, 'ti.''yr'g y�y+f�!'tT�"� . Y� M1�vi.Y'f. S '1j Park Entrance This birds eye view,looking north across the SaintVrain River valley,depicts a concept for the ROADWAY THROUGH PARK roadway through the State Park area.It consists of two through lanes in each direction with Weld Count Road 7Arterial concept auxiliary turn lanes at some intersections. The existing WCR 24.5 is to the right,to the left is T h the proposed park entrance.This concept depicts a slight reverse curve alignment and a bridge across the river in the distance. -.,iv • • - Felsburg Holt&U ks% 6-18-03 COZORADQ ; Weld County Arterial Study FRANK MILTENBERGER Figure 32 t . . - .: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT . FELSBURG (i HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 43 g.b _s_4$.' a •vat -�� w....+.eo-ram - xss c zt '-1W ,r-t: ay.: 7:S=---H—t'- .s ^ -.. Cr sr Xs " Utz „,41 i 4. 303.721.1440 oil FELSBURG fax 303.721.0832 , I , H O L T �i Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave. Ste. 200 U L L E V I G Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Hello