HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033005.tiff �y g Non�"kt Et Nh G 01�..--cam pi,/-\-C.�G'
d"7ut ''""*g "`�d �`xt ra r� t'xy nft f ,+1 l "'f k+J-'4 .4. ht s d
.Fi1 f at N4ibihry I A-7 `YIDti�B �i + d�°r, 'p,Fu�. i e °3e�� `"ay 'a. "M+ :r z it a
i ti 4 .n h�t 2 I �8 i i hi1.Rin' th tttt ,"h'd ''a. a.r,,, �� Jtts,?.:o-� 'P r
fl
v d t L tv $Ga$' h q vt t, � € �v'y 'Ff i,+n li J_ n n Y '2 ...�, fi
,.:.: � .:y : ..i i 44�j ii
P�
l
W9.
�.,.. B `g4!� b ri jt�jP -+g'ItI"�# iii fIii f� .
t.
.. ! i�a'e Pii�
.�G • • Ni
•
.. .
.. . .
..
..., , •
..:..•
•••• . . .
•. •
•
GrIONL- GOI�IMU NI'(-IN)
May 2001
2003-3005
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
VI. Transportation Element
SUMMARY
As a result of increased growth in the North Front Range,particularly along the I-25 Corridor,transportation is an
important element of the 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan.The purpose of this element is to identify how much growth is
anticipated in the Corridor and what types of regional transportation improvements might be necessary to accommodate
this anticipated growth.
To that end,anticipated development in each of the various communities along the corridor was determined and a
regional travel model was created to determine the extent of the impacts that would result. During the course of public
open houses and meetings with individual property owners and local jurisdictions,numerous transportation alternatives
were evaluated,leading to the development of a preferred long-range I-25 Corridor Transportation Concept Plan.
In 1999,the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study(TAFS) evaluated future travel demand
requirements along the 1-25 Corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. The study recommended a number of
improvements that included the implementation of a commuter rail system.The system would be located along the 1-25
Corridor from Denver to Loveland,with an eventual continuation to downtown Fort Collins and a connection from 1-25 to
the City of Greeley. The TAFS study also recommended regional and feeder bus service to provide connections to the
commuter rail line.
The transportation analysis conducted as part of this planning process determined that even with the proposed TAFS
recommendations,major congestion along I-25 and along arterials and interchanges that served I-25 would occur.
Widening I-25 to six lanes was evaluated as one alternative and it was determined that the projected growth along I-25
would still eventually result in congested conditions. An eight lane I-25 alternative was also tested and though the
analysis found that the additional four freeway lanes might accommodate future traffic,the arterials and interchanges
which serve as access to the freeway were impacted even more so with the eight lane freeway. This was due to two
factors: 1)The lack of alternative north-south roadways shifted most of the north-south traffic in the Corridor,both
regional and local,to I-25—compounding congestion,and 2)The lack of increased capacity at interchanges and on
east-west arterials to support the additional lanes of traffic on I-25 reduced their performance,despite an improvement
in I-25's performance. The I-25 widening alternatives were also problematic in that the ability to both widen the freeway
and implement the TAFS recommendation for commuter rail was not possible within the 1-25 right-of-way.
As a result of analysis,input from the technical team,policy committee,and public,it was determined that the primary
objective of the transportation element of the plan was to preserve the regional carrying capacity of I-25 and to enhance
30
the mobility potential of the Corridor and its supporting regional transportation infrastructure. This objective was to be
accomplished through strategic improvements in alternative transportation modes and through the addition of local
north-south roadways to serve local traffic.
The transportation concept plan recommended for the Corridor embraces the findings of the North Front Range
Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study for commuter rail. The transportation concept plan is supportive of the
development of interconnected regional and local transit,bicycle connections,and pedestrian-oriented activity centers as
essential first steps toward addressing the emerging congestion and mobility issues of the Corridor.
1.25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The resulting plan proposes a system of increased regional and feeder bus service,a commuter rail system,and two
north-south arterials,one east of I-25 and one west of I-25 to accommodate future growth in the North Front Range and
the 1-25 Corridor.
The following discussion describes the process and analysis that led to the proposed recommendations.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
As mentioned previously,the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study(TAFS) evaluated future
travel demand requirements along the 1-25 Corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. The study recommended a
number of improvements including the implementation of a commuter rail system and regional and feeder bus service to
provide connections to the commuter rail line. These recommendations have been incorporated into the I-25 Regional
Corridor Transportation Plan and serve as a foundational element of the overall plan.
The I-25 Regional Corridor Transportation Plan is based in part on a long-range transportation planning model that
examined the travel demand impacts of future development on existing and future transportation networks. The model
examined land use and transportation assumptions for the entire North Front Range including the cities of Fort Coffins,
Loveland,and Greeley;the towns of Windsor,Berthoud,and Johnstown;and portions of Larimer and Weld counties.
The I-25 Regional Corridor Transportation Plan also incorporates transportation plans from jurisdictions within the
study area. Each community was contacted and their respective current Transportation Plan was included.The planning
process also included findings and recommendations from other ongoing transportation planning efforts,such as the
Crossroads Subarea Transportation Study.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE I-25 CORRIDOR
As Colorado,the North Front Range,and the 1-25 Corridor grow,demands for a wide range of transportation
improvements increase,including roadway infrastructure,transit,bicycle facilities,and pedestrian improvements. To
help evaluate the effects of growth on existing and planned infrastructure,current and future development is typically
measured by numbers of housing units,retail jobs,and non-retail jobs for the purposes of transportation modeling. As
residential development occurs,residents of these homes travel to places of shopping,work,services,schools,and
recreation. Retail and non-retail jobs are indicators of economic development,and have the potential to attract both
local and regional traffic in the form of employees and shoppers.
As can be seen on the exhibit on the following page,in 1998 there were approximately 17,300 dwelling units,4,500
retail jobs and 23,500 non-retail jobs within the two-mile wide 1-25 Corridor between Fort Collins and Berthoud. This
exhibit also graphically presents a general distribution of where these dwelling units and jobs were located in 1998,
They were primarily located west of I-25 in the Fort Collins area,with some activity along US 34 west of 1-25.
As part of the region's long-range regional transportation planning effort,each community within the North Front Range 31
estimates how many dwelling units and jobs are expected within their community for the next 20 to 25 years. These
estimates are compiled and used for planning purposes by the North Front Range Transportation and Mr Quality
Planning Council,which serves as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO).Estimates for the year 2020
compiled by the MPO in 1998 are also presented Figure 3 on the following page. As can be seen,dwelling units within
the Corridor increased from 17,300 to 45,500,or 163 percent. Significant growth along the Corridor was also expected
for retail jobs,which were estimated to increase from 4,500 to 13,000,or 188 percent,and non-retail jobs,which were
estimated to increase from 23,500 to 51,100,or 117 percent.
I-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
In review of the 2020 projections,the majority of Mks !! MON h s
Na5 wwwd.Y }.y +'anAwYf:•'UN #1.4W .wuVif-31MI
the increases occur with intensification in Fort ;, %Ram,,,,„, a 4 +®i dpi.,-•=� a ,.,,..atasett 61(t. t.�O4
Coffins and Loveland with a modest growth " 'f LL n
anticipated along the US 34 east of I-25. It is { • 2. j
important to note that as recently as 1998,little = .
growth was projected east of I-25 in Windsor, r T # t • ` n NT
Berthoud,and Johnstown. t ; " t
As part of the I-25 Corridor Plan process,current d- - )4Y4w tr,. *"
development proposals and approved '.e ,'. I I '• •
development plans were collected in the summer t !
of 2000.In the Loveland area,recently updated
2020 projections were used. In the remainder of d a' - . , l -•••.;-•••.; I
the Corridor,adopted land use plans and current •t 4r ₹ , jtiljf t
zoning were used to estimate long-term "1M° "t' Or
development potential along the Corridor. l • r w k , 4‘.4
.'4 {}Y4 �' -9 '
Although there is no specific date defined as to t+ 3 .. -y
when these developments might occur,the ti ,
projected increase over the previous 2020 cc `a
estimates is significant. Dwelling units are u•-1,-- • y
currently anticipated to increase from 17,300 to 1.* • c _
56,500,a projected Corridor growth of 227 Y .1,C,
percent. Retail jobs are anticipated to increase ; air # j
F.
by 355 percent,from 4,500 to 20,500. Non- rye •- - '• . r+-"
retail jobs are anticipated to increase from
23,500 to 95,600,for a total increase of 307 percent. Figure 3.. Antwcpated Development
It is important to note that these estimates,shown on Figure 3 as"Anticipated Projection",do not represent official
projections as adopted by the MPO.However,it was determined that these estimates of anticipated development were an
important consideration for planning purposes,because they reflect actual approved development projects and plans,
and are considered to be more current and accurate of likely development activity in the Corridor than the 2020
projections completed in 1998.
This information confirms that significant growth is anticipated in the I-25 Corridor. The number of anticipated dwelling
units and jobs within the Corridor are changing continually,with numerous new developments being proposed and
approved. As would be expected,the magnitude of anticipated development within the 1-25 Corridor will significantly
impact traffic flow and congestion along the I-25 Corridor. This impact is magnified by the fact that few roadway
improvements are planned in the 1-25 Corridor,as discussed in the next section. _
32
NORTH FRONT RANGE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
The MPO develops and administers a Transportation Plan for the North Front Range,which includes the 1-25 Corridor.A
summary of the improvements proposed by the North Front Range 2020 Regional Transportation Plan for the I-25
Corridor is as follows:
I-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
TAFS Study Transit Improvements
• Rail stops in Johnstown and Loveland
• Increased feeder bus service
Major New Roadway Improvements
• Prospect Road:Widen to four lanes west of I-25
• Timberline Road:Widen to six lanes from Vine to Harmony and four lanes south of Harmony
• Vine Drive:Widen to 4 lanes west of I-25
• Harmony Road:Widen to 6 lanes west of 1-25
• SH 402:Widen to 4 lanes west of I-25
• US 34:Widen to 6 lanes west of 1-25
• CR 7/Rocky Mountain Avenue:Construction of 4 lanes
In reviewing these planned improvements to the 1-25 Corridor,there are several factors to be considered. First,there is
no planned widening of I-25 within the study area. Second,there are virtually no transportation improvements planned
for the I-25 Corridor east of I-25,in spite of the fact that significant growth is both occurring and anticipated. Third,
there are no north-south proposed alternatives to I-25,other than the proposed future commuter rail,which will
primarily serve long distance home to work trips.Virtually all automobile and transit travel along the I-25 Corridor—
both long and short trips—will have to use I-25 or travel through one of the interchanges.
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS
In order to address the magnitude of the problem,numerous alternatives were considered.A total of 27 traffic model
runs were conducted to evaluate the traffic impacts from previous and currently anticipated growth,and the effectiveness
of various transportation infrastructure improvements. Three of these alternatives are presented Figure 4 on the
following page'.
The first alternative represents existing and currently planned transportation improvements identified above as"North
Front Range Regional Transportation Plan Improvements",combined with the development levels projected in 2020,as
identified in Figure 4,"2020 Projection with Committed Network". These development levels were forecast in 1998,
before much of the current growth cycle had occurred.
33
1 The figures presented on the following exhibit contain two sets of information,the amount of daily traffic and projected performance. The
daily traffic volume is depicted by how wide the line is drawn. The wider the line,the higher the volume of traffic is that will need to be
accommodated on the system. The color of the line represents how well the roadway will operate on a performance basis.This is based on a
transportation engineering measurement technique referred to as Level of Service(LOS). LOS is a grading system ranging from A to F,where A
represents excellent conditions and F is failure,such as when the projected volume on a roadway exceeds the available capacity. Asa reference
point,I-25 from Harmony Road to the Highway 56 exit that serves Berthoud currently operates at LOS C conditions,and LOS B north of
Harmony Road. The preferred LOS minimum standard for 1-25 is D,but not to fall below E. For graphic purposes,the LOS is color-coded like a
traffic signal,where green represents uncongested conditions of LOS A,B,and C;yellow at LOS D;orange at LOSE;and red representing
congested conditions or LOS F.
I-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The second alternative also represents the 2NOttam•m•ah
existing and currently planned transportation C*w' pp'Jets M . N!'�'t
improvements,but combined with development
levels identified in Figure 4 as"Anticipated C"','- `, — -
x.
Development with Committed Network". As can ,
be seen,the current anticipated development el„• `'R t i lir .IS.
no
obtained from all the jurisdictions along the p a w o pm y `r` nits
Corridor indicates LOS F—congestion and likely 1 I:411:1R,V ,'ca.i tag I
gridlock—all along I-25 from Berthoud to Fort ro,t i ' " -t 1
Coffins. Furthermore,the anticipated •# r t i " 14 rjg le
development and congestion levels along 1-25 N W .t m a 6Wp- ! }
will result in failing levels of service along the S r ' ,.., a ■
frontage roads,north-south roadways,and east- `�' - � ₹ �i. fIli (fi
west roads that serve the I-25 Corridor. ! i
_ •r.,t
The third scenario represents the introduction of '+ Nn h
a system of local roadways both east and west of NN tar:—
the Interstate Highway,to serve local and mid- 'x3l j j
distance trips within the Corridor.The tL
performance of this alternative is shown in C a I
Figure 4,"Anticipated Development with aa I: i` I
li
Proposed Network"and is discussed in greater 4.1"..414
detail below under Local Roadway Alternative. {
1
As noted previously,a large number of Figure 4: Model Performance
alternatives were evaluated and tested. One alternative
evaluated was the widening of I-25 from its current four-lane configuration to six or eight lanes. Based on this analysis,
it was determined that the six-lane option was not adequate to accommodate future demand. The eight-lane freeway
resulted in an improvement of traffic conditions along I-25,but the arterials and intersections that provide access to the
freeway were significantly impacted as a result of I-25 having to serve both regional and local north-south traffic. The
widening alternative was also problematic because the I-25 Corridor has insufficient right-of-way to accommodate both
widening and the proposed I-25 TAFS recommended improvements for Commuter Rail.
LOCAL ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE
In review of these first two analyses,it is not surprising that major congestion would result,based upon the extent of
development planned to occur in the Corridor.One of the primary observations determined from this phase of the _
analysis is that the 1-25 Corridor does not include a system of local roadways that are able to serve proposed 34
development,other than a system of county roads that are discontinuous. Therefore,it was determined that the primary
issues that this planning process needed to address were the following:
• What system of local roadways would be necessary to accommodate future demand,and
• Can transit,rail,and non-engineering improvements fix the problem?
To help evaluate these issues,a north-south four-lane road located east of the interstate was tested as an alternative to
widening the I-25 freeway. The results of the first alternative concluded that although traffic would utilize this north-
1-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
south facility,a four-lane roadway was insufficient in size to reduce the traffic along I-25 to a point where acceptable
levels of service would be experienced. This scenario also indicated that even with an aggressive transit and rail
investment strategy,additional roadway improvements would still be necessary.
A follow-up alternative examined a six-lane arterial,also east of I-25. From this alternative,it was determined that a six-
lane north-south arterial does begin to address the capacity needs for the anticipated growth along the I-25 Corridor;
however,the size of a six-lane arterial raises other issues that need to be addressed.Major concerns were identified with
a six-lane arterial,particularly land use compatibility issues.
As a result of these concerns,closer examination was made as to where along the Corridor six lanes were required and
where four lanes would be adequate. Based on a review of the anticipated development and resulting traffic,it was
determined that the primary need for a six-lane arterial was within the Crossroads Boulevard Subarea. As mentioned
previously,a separate transportation study was undertaken during the same time frame of this study,which has
examined in greater detail transportation improvements needed within the Crossroads Boulevard Subarea.
The Crossroads Study proposed a four-lane County Road 5 from US 34 to SH 392 with additional north-south internal
roads to address local demand. This proposed network was tested as part of the overall I-25 Corridor Plan and it was
found to meet the transportation needs within this portion of the Corridor.
It should be emphasized that many of the recommended roadway improvements are contingent upon the anticipated
growth in the Corridor. Most roadway improvements will not be built to maximum capacity in the next few years,but
will be phased in as development occurs over time. For instance,an existing 2-lane county road that is recommended to
become a 6-lane facility will likely be upgraded to a 4-lane facility in the interim and will only be expanded if and when
the intensity of adjacent development requires it. It is critical for communities to be able to identify the potential width
of these facilities before they are needed. This type of long-range planning allows for the reservation and procurement of
adequate right-of-way with a minimum of conflict with existing and future land uses.
OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE
During the analysis of this alternative scenario,a number of issues were determined that needed to be addressed.These
issues included the alignment for this north-south roadway;the need for other connecting improvements and
interchanges necessary to address anticipated growth;and the potential need for a north-south roadway alternative west
of 1-25.Questions also were raised regarding whether the north-south roadway needed to be continuous,and how far
from 1-25 could this roadway be located yet still be effective.
To address some of the alignment issues,meetings were held with each of the participating communities to examine
opportunities and constraints along the Corridor for accommodating a north-south arterial. Based on some of the
alternative model runs,it was found that aligning the north-south arterial too far east resulted in a marked reduction in
its attractiveness as an alternative to I-25. 35
The need for other connecting improvements,as well as the addition of a continuous north-south roadway west of 1-25,
were addressed in the preferred concept plan described in the section that follows.
I-25 Corridor Plon
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
PROPOSED I-25 CORRIDOR CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The proposed I-25 Corridor Conceptual Transportation Plan is
presented in Figure 5,and is described below. It um 1
The recommended arterial improvements for the Corridor include both o n e a
Epp
.-
north/south arterials to serve development on either side of I-25 and 4 .• Nip
easVwest connections to 1-25. To the extent possible,the arterial s `
improvements were based on current jurisdictional Master Street Plans. r
Roadway Improvements West of 1-25typivrik:.
Along the west side of I-25,the north-south arterial begins at the j ° 7 -
northerly end of the study area as Timberline Road,which ;
extends as a six lane arterial to Harmony where it changes to a
four lane arterial south of Harmony.From this point,it extends trip ir
south to County Road 32. Because Boyd Lake is located south of
4. 'gran Ina
County Road 32 and does not permit the extension south,the
tiara -
recommended roadway network proposes that the north-south ,
arterial be directed to the southeast along the alignment of the ₹. IN
Union Pacific Railroad,until its intersection with County Road 9.
This connection is consistent with the Crossroads Boulevard4 Subarea Improvement Plans and the Loveland Transportation III Plan. This north-west to south-east diagonal roadway has been .W
proposed adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and would also -
r
provide a much needed additional east-west crossing of I-25 [ikk
-
between the US 34 and Crossroads Interchange. 9
Continuing south,County Road 9(Boyd Lake Avenue)is �®
proposed to be a four lane arterial until its intersection with SH
.Love , Willi'
402. South of Loveland,the north-south arterial is proposed to ,
occur along the existing CR7. In review of the potential
connections between CR9 to CR7,the recommendation was toSII4 ...
r
utilize CR16 in order to not impact east-west traffic along SH402 Air e
t
or SH 60. As true with any of the Recommended Roadway I y_fS
Network improvements,refined small area studies might suggest i
modifications to the precise alignments and other its as b
recommendations might be made provided the north-south 36
connections are made. N, +-
Roadway Improvements East of 1-25 6ptIF1ot1[f
The general alignment for a north- ivy mar !M54
south arterial east of I-25 would be NIS Rta
im*it tam Mortal
along existing CR5. This arterial MS rkale Mortal
ansderd
improvement would begin at SH 14 and —ran t I Q
Figure 5.Proposed Transportation Improvements
I-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
extend to the south to north of the Town of Timnath. To avoid
impacts to Timnath,the north-south arterial would bypass the f it CR
town to the east and then reconnect with existing CR 5 near CR 38. lti}4NI! let
South of Crossroads Boulevard the north-south road would jog ti+k. , -
slightly to the east where it intersects with US 34 and continue to 'wit gi uss
urrn
the southeast and connect with CR 3. The north-south arterial � '
would proceed along CR 3 till between CR 16 and SH 60,where it OD.,. ,
would shift to the west and continue to south of SH 56.
East/West Arterials et ifi
, . °omik y
In addition to the north-south arterials east and west of I-25,east 1°r�t e
�F.
and west arterials would be necessary to connect existing and Ca 40
future development to the north/south arterials and I-25. Three of Mira it AI
northe east-west arterials are proposed to be six lanes,Mulberry t;j 44+, n
Street(SH 14),Harmony(SH 68) and Eisenhower Blvd. (US 34). 4€*Alan"I • s
The majority of the easVwest arterials are recommended to be ii
four lanes between the two north/south arterials. These would in- kr °^
elude Mountain Vista Drive,Vine Drive,Prospect Road,Cross-
roads Boulevard,SH 402,and SH 56. SH;Z y
Interchange Improvements
The Plan also calls for major improvements to the interchanges
along 1-25.Other than the recently completed I-25/Harmony a
interchange,virtually every one of the remaining interchanges will
eventually need to be replaced or improved in order to
accommodate anticipated levels of traffic. Some improvements, . l♦
such as for the Mulberry/State Highway 14 interchange,have �i•IP
already been proposed. Other interchanges,including US 34, t` '?
Crossroads Boulevard(Airport Road) and State Highway 392 l4
(Windsor Road)have conceptual improvements being proposed ,
as part of the Crossroads Boulevard SubareaTraffic Study. Specific a'
improvement requirements for other interchanges have not been xa s
identified. P.
v,
Transit and Alternative Mode Improvements
Accompanying the roadway improvements are significant ° —
recommendations for transit,bicycle,and pedestrian facilities. n 37
y� 3N 60
The recommendations are presented in Figure 6. A key
component of the transit element is the SAnr and Tana Network eanfouD
planned commuter rail service between gm � ,.
andt SH 36 II I
Fort Collins and Denver,as identified in waa r«a.a)arair
the North Front Range Transportation a — -
*o4**tin
Alternatives Feasibility Study. Q
raetr SA S4etn ,
Figure 6-Proposed Transit System
I-25 Corridor Plan
ITRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Complementing the commuter rail service is regional bus transit service along the I-25 Corridor,connecting
existing and proposed Park-n-Ride facilities along I-25 to each other,and with the proposed commuter rail
system. In addition,long-term plans for transit service along the I-25 Corridor will need to incorporate parallel
and feeder service,providing connections into the Corridor from developed areas located to the east and west.
On-street bicycle lanes should be incorporated into all new arterials and collectors that are constructed within the
I-25 Corridor. As this infrastructure is constructed,a comprehensive bicycle network will unfold and provide
direct connections between major population and retail/employment areas. An important part of these
connections will be the integration of future facilities with regional trails identified in the various city and county
plans within the Corridor, Additional connectivity will be provided by the addition of sidewalks and pedestrian
connections between future transit facilities and user destinations within activity centers in the Corridor.
Performance of Recommended System
The performance of the preferred transportation plan alternative is illustrated in Figure 4.as"Anticipated
Development with Proposed Network." It represents the existing and currently planned transportation
improvements as contained in the North Front Range
Transportation Plan,but combined with the additional roadway an
elements included in the proposed I-25 Corridor Transportation a
Plan,for development levels identified in Figure 3 as"Anticipated •rw0Uga.+i4
WestiDevelopment .Although this plan will result in roadway"
R
congestion levels greater than what currently exist today,this a
scenario avoids congested conditions typical of many urban areas,
and represents a dramatic improvement over the previously
proposed regional network improvements. The improvements
contained in the plan will mitigate what would otherwise be ran
congested conditions along the east-west arterials,frontage roads,
and other roadways that are likely to occur without a concerted
regional effort to address mobility in the Corridor as it grows and ninny --
develops.
an
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP AREAS roasksei
The I-25 Corridor Transportation Plan defines an overall framework for Pn-4.a t ss nay
transportation improvements that will be needed over time to °`^
Mel
accommodate planned development activity in the Corridor.Over time, ,,
communities along the Corridor will be required to monitor proposed "'le
development,refine the transportation recommendations defined in the I- —
25 Corridor Plan,and fund and construct the proposed improvements. to w Ink— .w 38
% 4.wri4.+1 —
While this effort is important in defining an overall framework for the
transportation improvements,subsequent refinement and implementation ins
of improvements can best be met at a more localized level. The 1-25
Corridor has already experienced a focused work effort between Larimer
County,the City of Fort Collins,the City of Loveland,The North Front Range &" ° °*"
Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council,Town of Windsor, �2 1
Figure 7: Regional Partnership Areas
I-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
property owners and developers,and the Colorado Department of Transportation,as part of the Crossroads Boulevard
Transportation Subarea Transportation Study. This study identified a transportation plan and funding strategy for a study
area bounded generally by U.S. 34 on the south and County Road 32 on the north.The study included detailed traffic
analysis,the development of funding,and prioritization of roadway improvements needed for this six-square mile area.This
multi-jurisdiction cooperative work effort has been highly successful,and can serve as a model for other areas within the
Corridor.
To this end,the I-25 Corridor Study recommends the development of additional study areas,defined as Regional
Partnership Areas,as presented in Figure 7. In total,five areas have been identified,as follows:
RPA 1—Fort Collins,Timnath,Lorimer County
This area consists of the northern portion of the I-25 Corridor. It includes all portions within the City of Fort
Collins and emerging development along the eastern side of I-25. The Southern boundary along the west side of
I-25 is the City of Loveland whereas the southern boundary of the east side of I-25 is the Crossroads Study Area
(RPA2). RPA1 also includes the Town of Timnath and portions of Larimer County.
RPA 2—Windsor,Loveland,Lorimer County(Crossroads Study Area)
The RPA2 area is defined as the Crossroads Study Area and examines current and proposed development along
the eastern side of I-25 from north of SH 392 and to the south of US 34. This study area includes the proposed
Larimer County Fairgrounds and portions of the Town of Windsor and the City of Loveland.
RPA 3—Loveland,Larimer County
The RPA3 area is within the City of Loveland along the west side of I-25,and includes portions of Larimer County.
RPA 4—Johnstown,Lorimer County,Weld County
The RPA4 area picks up the southern portion of the Corridor along the east side of I-25,beginning at the
southern terminus of RPA2 (Crossroads Study Area). Because this segment is at the southern end of the Corridor,
coordination and interface with connecting roadways and development to the south of the I-25 Study Area project
will be important for continuity.
RPA 5—Berthoud,Weld County
The RPA5 area focuses on future development within the Town of Berthoud,east of 1-25 and connections to the
north and south.
This plan recommends that the jurisdictions of each of these Regional Partnership Areas work together in a manner
similar to the Crossroads Study effort,conducting a detailed transportation evaluation,examining funding opportunities, _
and defining prioritization and phasing of improvements in response to the local areas growth and development. 39
PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS
Because strategic phasing of improvements is critical to both development related traffic within the RPA and the overall
Corridor,phasing of improvements should also be examined in the larger context of the region through the North Front
Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council. However,the key to assure ultimate Corridor improvements is to
have the local jurisdictions within each RPA require right-of-way dedication of the north-south arterials and other local
I-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
arterials and interchange requirements,as that is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction and not CDOT. It should also
be noted that the general north south alignments defined in the I-25 Corridor Study has attempted to avoid impacts to
natural areas. The refined RPA studies should examine in more detail the precise alignments to mitigate potential
environmental impacts where wetlands or sensitive areas are impacted,appropriate mitigation will be necessary.
NORTH-SOUTH ARTERIAL AND 1-25 INTERCHANGE DESIGN GUIDELINES
A major objective of the I-25 Corridor plan is to set forth design guidelines for the north-south arterials to maintain
efficient traffic flow.These design guidelines address such criteria as the preservation of right-of-way,roadway cross-
sections,and access standards. It is further recognized that the character and design of the north-south arterials should
vary,depending whether it is within a higher density activity center,in a transition area between centers,or in the more
rural portions of the Corridor.
The following table has been developed as a set of guidelines for the development of north south arterials within the I-25
Corridor. It is important to note that these are guidelines and not standards. Detailed planning and traffic studies will
likely be required for certain portions of the Corridor to define the appropriateness and application of these standards.
These recommended guidelines are not intended to replace other standards and requirements that communities may
have in place for the Corridor;rather,they are intended to supplement those standards,and to serve as a guide for
communities that do not yet have standards in place for roadways within the Corridor.
40
I-25 Corridor Plon
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
North/South Arterial Design Guidelines
AAMty 4nt4ls Transition Areas total Aram
Criteria Parameter Nilledsnslyttsidontattnimttpal lower Density Residential and Agnahera,Yeat,
add Basiaess tentas' Some Business/Retail 9pe Spero'
Right-Of-Way Width • a'115' 115' jj 150'
Roadway Width(including median) 83' 83' 104'
Median Mid Block Width - 19' 19' 24'
Adjacent to Left Turn 7' 12'
Lane
Design Speed MPH 40 50 65
Speed Limit MPH 35 45 60
Travel Lanes #of Lanes 4 4 4
Width 12' 12' 12'
Bike Lanes Designated(Y or N) Y Y Y
Width
Parking Lanes Width ! None None None
Sidewalk Width b 6' Optional
Parkway Width (min.) 10' 10' 10'
Street Lighting Yes Yes No
Signals Signals Per Mile 2 1 0.5
Median Openings Full Openings Per Mile 2 1 0.5
3/4 Openings Per Mile 4' -. 2 1
Access Locations Per Mile 6 4 2
Curb&Gutter Yes Yes No
Left Turn Deceleration Lane Feet+ Storage 310 435 500
Right Turn Deceleration Feet 1380 550 760
Lane
Acceleration Lane Feet 2 380 550 760
Sight Distance Along Feet '., 275 325 620
Arterial
Entry Sight Distance Feet $20 565 650
INTERCHANGE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Many of the interchanges along the Corridor were constructed at a time when access was only necessary to service rural
and agriculture uses. As a result,as new development occurs along the Corridor,the current interchange configurations
are not of sufficient standards to accommodate forecast traffic demand. Therefore,in addition to the north south arterial
design guidelines,it is also important to establish minimum design guidelines for the interchanges within the study area
so as to not restrict future development from encroaching adjacent to the existing interchanges and preclude
opportunities for future interchange modifications.
Based on minimum standards to accommodate back to back left turn lanes across the interchange overpasses,it is
recommended that at a minimum 660 feet of right-of-way be preserved between the north and south bound on and off —
ramps. It is further proposed that the minimum distance for an adjacent frontage road or signal not be closer than 600 41
feet,and preferably 1000 feet,from the adjacent interchange on and off ramps.
It should be noted that these minimum interchange spacing guidelines imply a standard diamond style interchange,
similar to the recently completed I-25/Harmony interchange. In certain locations,other interchange improvement
designs might be examined and require different right-of-way preservation requirements.
1.25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
FUNDING
It is well recognized that Northern Colorado has a long list of transportation improvement needs that exceed current
available funding. This 1-25 Corridor Plan will not in and of itself solve that problem. It is further recognized that
development activity along the Corridor will generate a substantial portion of the need for future transportation
improvements along the Corridor.
Transportation improvements necessary to support development within the Corridor will likely be funded through both
local and regional sources and through both public and private sector funding mechanisms.Inherent in these
assumptions is the principle of development paying its"fair-share",meaning that development-induced demands for
transportation facilities should be funded by the development activities,rather than by local residents.However,the I-25
Corridor has demands for transportation facilities that are regional in nature,not all of which are attributable to
development within the Corridor.Many of the improvements that are needed in the Corridor result from development
activities outside of the Corridor,as well as growth in traffic from existing residents of the area.Thus it is reasonable to
assume that some portion of the transportation needs in the Corridor will serve area communities as well as the region
as a whole and that development in the Corridor can only be expected to be part of the funding solution.
As part of the planning process,sketch plan-level cost estimates were developed for the arterial improvements necessary
to accommodate future development and traffic demand along the corridor. These arterial improvement cost estimates
focused on north-south arterial improvements and east-west arterials serving I-25,which were not included in current
jurisdictional transportation plans. These costs estimates do not include local or collector level improvements. The total
arterial improvements cost estimate is approximately$125 million.
In addition to the arterial improvements,sketch plan level cost estimates were developed for interchange improvements
along the corridor. In total,eight interchanges were identified as requiring major reconstruction with an overall cost
estimate at approximately$175 million. Total new arterial improvements and interchange improvements for the I-25
corridor are estimated at approximately$300 million.
There are a variety of funding solutions that will need to be considered in developing the appropriate approach for
improvements within the Corridor.It is recommended that each of the Regional Partnership Areas undertake a more
detailed transportation study,modeled after the Crossroads Boulevard Subarea effort,to determine local development
impacts and establish a mechanism for funding of local transportation improvements within their area.
Some of the mechanisms to be considered for the funding of local improvements in the Corridor include the following:
Transportation Impact Fees—These are fees imposed on new development,dedicated to the purpose of constructing
transportation improvements to serve the areas that are impacted by the new development.Impact fees for transportation
improvements are already being used by several of the jurisdictions within the Corridor.It may be possible to levy a
regional impact fee to apply to all development within the Corridor,to be used for transportation improvements to
benefit communities.
Improvement Districts—Special Districts (such as Title 32 Metropolitan Districts or Special Improvement Districts) 42
could be formed to generate funds for transportation improvements in developing areas.
Sales Tax Sharing—This concept entails the"rebate"of a portion of sales tax revenue to a developer to offset initial
transportation infrastructure costs.This mechanism is typically used to create an incentive for new tax-generating
development and could be used,for example,to construct interchange improvements needed to support new retail
development.
1-25 Corridor Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The funding of regional projects,such as roadways that serve multiple jurisdictions along I-25,highway interchanges,or
regional mass transit,is a bigger issue. Some of these regional improvements might be funded through the NFRT&AQPC
Regional Long Range Transportation Plan,which is based on critical regional need,whereas other regional
improvements will need to be addressed through new revenue sources.
One such source includes the formation of a Rural Transportation Authority(RTA).An RTA is a state-authorized entity
that has the power to collect revenues for transportation projects from sales and use taxes,a motor vehicle registration
fee,or a Visitor Benefit Tax.The formation of an RTA would require local voter approval of affected residents within its
boundaries,but would serve as a promising source of funding for regional transportation projects.
43
1-25 Corridor Plan
Hello