The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20011892.tiff i ". CH p .. ""u i' ° {��` r a a Yy rr Ae r ; r t f r"[ ft r e ! d I ` t ssM' � „• � i.M J � .�; � .� a "` ! a st `<.. .•,„ % �„t; North Front Range w 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Prepared by: pai North Front Range 7tansportation & Air Quality Planning Council I, t' ct �.�iii lililil■"� g i '- R . Y■ F Pal N Jo Y ■■f•El■�1N�1L*!> $.' f iL['.: u a— Pl■�■�. iSec ■ ��■■■lil... rte. .! .r r�►YN'�1 tic, ' ----� � t. r ,■. +Sw■■■■■fh■�!L9 ■ " +MIS. . � �4l1 . .!�1■■■ 1 g�i6Y .7lIIa� +tk r�i�� ■IIi1■■■. �1 Pal 1. —■■��iea��.a-� ■wrclw Tr. lififfi s ° l Li ■i! a H. N ell■■ � - �� ,�,�� ■ vi!■■Ih■■��.9 E!n■aI IfW■■� �J a� IhI�y MjlJ aa'p ( .. "/ f�lilL■■■�L1F��#!! 4t.) � ■ [�s •i E la1 7iliRl; - rII With assistance from: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig r• City Visions Clarion Associates r- LSC Transportation Consultants Kimley-Horn and Associates r- , apiii July 2001 r- tivifse.2..)/f /'f (k.._,) /4-�/ 2001-1892 p ir-)O ' FELSBURG �' HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions July 5, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: NFRT & AQPC and�TAC Members FROM: Elliot Sulsk�V ' " SUBJECT: 2025 Regional Transportation Plan FHU Reference No. 00-135 Enclosed for your review is a revised 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. This is a complete final report with the exception of the Air Quality Conformity section, which is in process. The plan is scheduled for Council action at the July 12th Council meeting. Enclosure ES/cg 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832 fhu®fhueng.com Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave.Ste.200 Greenwood Village,CO 80111 ^ r• NORTH FRONT RANGE 2025 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Prepared by: North Front Range Transportation &Air Quality Planning Council .- With assistance from: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 7951 East Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303/721-1440 and City Visions Clarion Associates LSC Transportation Consultants Kimley-Hom and Associates FHU Reference No. 00-135 July, 2001 r- n .. 2025 Regional Transportation Plan — TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 5 A. Vision, Goals And Strategies 5 .- B. Project Background 7 C. Other Studies 9 D. Planning Process 10 — E. Public Involvement 11 II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 12 A. Regionally Significant Corridors 12 B. Roadway System 12 — C. Transit System 24 D. Bicycle And Pedestrian System 37 E. Freight Corridors 37 — F. Rail System 41 G. Travel Demand Management Program 41 H. Aviation Facilities 42 - III. DEMOGRAPHIC/ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE 43 A. Socio-Economic Data 43 B. Environmental Profile 45 IV. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS 47 A. Overview 47 B. Travel Demand Growth 47 C. Year 2025 Forecasts 49 V. VISION PLAN 54 A. Project Prioritization Process 54 B. Vision Plan 56 VI. 2025 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 74 A. Resource Allocation 74 B. Funding Estimates 74 — C. Committed Resources 76 D. Fiscally Constrained Plan 78 E. Other CDOT Programs 83 - VII. SHORT-RANGE FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 85 A. Short-Range Transit Element 85 B. Aviation Element 94 VIII. AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY FINDING 96 IX. FUTURE PLANNING PROCESS 97 A. Future Regional Transportation Planning 97 B. Plan Amendment Process 97 C. Future Transportation Improvement Programs- 98 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES APPENDIX C SOCIO ECONOMIC DATA APPENDIX D TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS pi FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure I-1 North Front Range Planning Area 8 Figure 1-2 Plan Development Process 10 Figure II-1 Regionally Significant Corridors in the North Front Range 13 Figure 11-2 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts in the Fort Collins Area 16 Figure 11-3 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts in the Greeley Area 17 Figure 11-4 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts in the Loveland Area 18 Figure 11-5 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts Outside of the City Areas- 19 Figure 11-6 Fort Collins (Transfort) Bus Routes 25 Figure 11-7 Greeley Bus Routes 29 Figure II-8 Loveland Bus Routes 32 Figure 11-9 Existing Bicycle Facilities in the Fort Collins Area 38 Figure 11-10 Existing Bicycle Facilities in the Greeley Area 39 Figure II-11 Existing Bicycle Facilities in the Loveland Area 40 Figure IV-1 Roadway System LOS 1998/2025 48 Figure IV-2 Roadway System LOS 2025 Build 48 Figure IV-3 Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts in the Fort Collins Area 50 Figure IV-4 Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts in the Greeley Area 51 Figure IV-5 Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts in the Loveland Area 52 Figure IV-6 Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts in the City Areas 53 Figure VI-1 Fiscally Constrained Plan in Fort Collins Area 79 Figure VI-2 Fiscally Constrained Plan in the Greeley Area- 80 Figure VI-3 Fiscally Constrained Plan in Loveland Area 81 Figure VI-4 Fiscally Constrained Plan in North Front Range Region 82 Figure VI-5 2025 Fiscally Constrained Plan Summary 78 Figure VII-1 Fort Collins Transfort Scenario 1: Minimal Redesign- 86 Figure VII-2 Fort Collins Transfort Scenario 2: Minimal Redesign with Mason 87 r r r r .- OP FELSBURG ' HOLT & • ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan LIST OF TABLES Table II-1 Highway Miles by Functional Classification 15 Table 11-2 Major Roadway Miles by Functional Classification 15 Table 11-3 Roadway Surface Conditions of State Highways 20 Table 11-4 Bridges with Deficiencies in the NFR 22 Table 11-5 Accident Rates on State Highways 23 Table III-1 1998 Household and Employment Data 43 Table III-2 Projected Growth of Households 44 Table III-3 Projected Growth of Employment 45 Table IV-1 Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel 47 Table V-1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects 57 Table V-2 Highway/HOV Projects 59 Table V-3 Rail Crossing Projects 64 Table V-4 Passenger Rail Projects 65 Table V-5 Transit Projects 66 Table V-6 Travel Demand Management Projects 70 Table V-7 Transportation System Management Projects- 71 Table VI-1 Estimates Of Available Funding- 75 Table VI-2 Committed and Uncommitted Resources 77 Table VII-1 Short Range Transit Element - Transfort- Fort Collins 89 Table VII-2 Short-Range Transit Element-The Bus - Greeley 89 Table VII-3 Short-Range Transit Element- COLT- City of Loveland 90 Table VII-4 Short-Range Transit Element - Regional Transit Services 90 Table VII-5 Short Range Transit Element - Rural Larimer County 92 Table VII-6 Short-Range Transit Element- Rural Weld County- 93 Table VII-7 Fort Collins Municipal Airport Capital Improvement Program 94 Table VII-8 Greeley-Weld County Airport Capital Improvement Program 95 r— r^ I r OP FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan — I. INTRODUCTION PHs 2025 Regional Transportation Plan I. INTRODUCTION A. Vision, Goals And Strategies VISION STATEMENT Recognizing the unique character of the region, we will provide an environmentally, socially and economically sensitive multi- modal transportation system that protects and enhances the region's quality of life. Guiding Principles Assure that all residents have adequate access to the process of transportation and air quality planning and project selection. Foster a transportation system that will effectively address the current and future needs of the region within fiscal constraints. Encourage local governments to work together as a council to develop a balanced approach to providing: • System capacity • Alternative transportation choices • Interconnectivity with other regions • Integration of transportation, land use and air quality planning Goals .• 1. To provide a safe, balanced, multi-modal transportation system that can move people, goods and information quickly and efficiently. 2. To foster regional coordination and transportation system continuity. 3. To connect modal systems. 4. To minimize congestion on the transportation system. 5. To meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. 6. To ensure adequate maintenance of the transportation system. 7. To minimize negative environmental impacts and improve air quality. .. pl FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 5 2025 Regional Transportation Plan 8. To support land use consistent with comprehensive plans. 9. To provide a positive economic impact. 10. To identify funding needs and to explore and support all potential approaches to fulfill those needs. Key Strategies • The Council strongly believes that a principal strategy for achieving these goals should be to .. affect a reduction in the share of travel by single occupant vehicles (SOV's) by providing regional support for alternative travel modes including walking, bicycling, buses, passenger rail, carpooling, vanpooling, and telecommuting. Efforts to affect this shift from SOV's to alternative modes should focus on peak period travel; travel along strategic corridors; and travel to and from major activity centers, particularly the region's two major universities and its major employment centers. • A network of Regionally Significant Corridors should be established based upon travel demand and connections between major North Front Range and surrounding communities and activity centers. Regional planning and transportation investments should focus on maintaining efficient, multi-modal mobility along these strategic corridors. r 7 r r r r pm FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page6 2025 Regional Transportation Plan rS B. Project Background r- In 1991, Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), directing each state to prepare a multi-modal transportation plan, and this directive was continued with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). For this effort, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has divided the state into fifteen transportation planning regions (TPRs), each of which is required to prepare a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These RTPs are then used as the basis for the formulation of Colorado's 20-Year Transportation Plans. The North Front Range, with a planning area as shown on Figure I-1, is one of the fifteen TPRs. It is surrounded on three sides by the Upper Front Range TPR and is bordered on the south by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) planning area. As shown, the region includes the more populous portions of Larimer and Weld Counties. There are ten incorporated communities within the NFR TPR, including the cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, Evans, and Loveland and the Towns of Berthoud, Garden City, Johnstown, LaSalle, Timnath, and Windsor. Each of the individual communities is growing independently, but the need to grow cooperatively is also recognized. Because of the rapid growth in the region, transportation planning issues continue to be fundamental, both locally and regionally. Easy travel between the communities of the region and improved travel options to the Denver metro area are the focuses of transportation planning in the NFR. The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (NFRT& AQPC), the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is responsible for transportation planning in the region. The NFRT & AQPC completed and adopted the North Front Range 2015 Regional Transportation Plan in 1994, then completed and adopted the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan in 1998. The NFRT &AQPC has undertaken this current effort to update and refine the 2020 RTP, expanding the time horizon to the year 2025. This planning process was conducted under the direction of the Council, which is comprised of a representative from each of the two counties, each of the ten communities in the region, the Colorado Transportation Commission, and the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) made up of representatives from the two counties and six of the communities within the region, CDOT, and the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division assists the Council. The TAC performed the technical tasks necessary to complete the plan, reviewed all of the work performed by the consulting team, and made recommendations to the Council. r r r r , FELSBURG 4HOLT & • ULLEVIG Pagel 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 LCR64 n f WCR,00 akin_. I �� rC� � 3 WCR 9B Nun',,I a ^ R ' d Imo 3 i 3 3 I WCR 9a Cc a CI 6 V N 2 �� WCR 94 14 ^ 1 © LCR56 3 3 3 3 65 WCR92 _ 1 1 �I yyyy■^� I� \ ■ WCR 90 S v. ■ P..i.rte WCR 88 V R52 3�.,`-■ WCR 86 8 WCR 84 r�_._■_■��Al 14 14 dd C.44 / R80 111 III w¢ Cdli p nK R]6 � \ • Ce ti LC • q 1 I au�u � - J _ k� nc��r�7�F.Inn R4 nR R 49 M ` L R36 04 A I 11 11 11 III WCR]B F2'1111 . '1' - L�L� 441G!i�_/ �w... 9 ! m¢ 29 LCfl30E L�� _ ! • ��■■■WCR 66 V" W w� ` s -.�■ R64 p 13 \ J 1%L° .� u� � a 34 34 Greeley � ivesa _ "• 1► �u c. lr �).� Vim, ; � 1.402-�_� ej LC e 'F° / WCR �' J1�N LCRI8 LCR,6 • '. sr.� WCR52 J 6 •■ C `� a `Pi LCR 14 ¢ \� i J_L fs� ¢ V ¢ 2 ¢ V N ¢ 61 - - �1 I anon i? LCR 2 Jo eto 1 A ' .I 3 3 3 RICIW fl} 11��„ w �T ,ea 3 3 R - WCR 4 Cr a LC'B N '"d e, Mikan _ 56 I11I ^ 3 3 WCR 2 U �-, LCR6 ), U LCF4 ¢ is 3 ,�' � 1Glle nS� 3 FS1_�CMB 1 j cc ; 25 � .� , 60 WC IARIMF.R COUNTY1 mingDOULDER CTIUNTY 3 3 3163 3 3 a: FELSBURG �--%! 6 xoLr h 1��, North Front Range PI ULLEVIO vm.,e^"mu., e"DmIIry INannLy CaunN '1 00-1356/1/01 r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan — C. Other Studies Many elements of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan have served as the basis for this 2025 plan. In addition, subsequent to the adoption of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan, there have been a number of other transportation planning efforts in the region which have an influence on the development of the new RTP. Numerous transportation plans have been and are being developed by individual counties, cities and towns within the NFR. In addition, the several recent and ongoing transportation plans that are regional or inter-jurisdictional in nature are described below. — The North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (TAFS) is an inter-regional study aimed at developing improvements for transportation between major North Front Range communities and the Denver metropolitan area. Phase I of the TAFS, completed in 1999, examined the purpose and need for transportation improvements and developed and evaluated conceptual alternatives. Phase II, completed in 2000, involved detailed evaluation of the short- list of improvement alternatives developed in Phase I, and culminated in a preferred plan. The preferred plan included development of a passenger rail system extending from Denver, along the 1-25 corridor, connecting to both Fort Collins and Greeley; as well as a set of highway and bus service improvements in the 1-25, US 287 and US 85 corridors. The NFRT & AQPC and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission recently completed the Regional Transportation Services and Funding Feasibility Study. This study was conducted in order to address the funding gap that is projected to exist between available funding and the identified regional transportation needs for the two regions, including TAFS recommendations. The study recommended that the two regions pursue the establishment of a North Front Range Rural Transportation Authority. The 1-25 Corridor Plan is a cooperative effort among eight jurisdictions (two counties and six municipalities) to prepare a plan for the 30 mile long Northern Colorado segment of the interstate corridor. Local officials hope that the 1-25 Plan will result in quality development, a framework for a multi-modal transportation network, and recognition of natural areas and open lands along the corridor. The Crossroads Subarea Transportation Study is an ongoing cooperative planning study involving the City of Loveland, Town of Windsor, CDOT, Larimer County, NFRT & AQPC, and the development community. The study is aimed at developing a transportation improvement plan to support the rapidly developing six square-mile study area surrounding the I- 25/Crossroads Boulevard (Larimer County Road 26) interchange. Recommendations emerging from the study include improvements to 1-25 interchanges, along with development of an _ efficient supporting arterial roadway network. A recently commissioned effort was kicked off in May 2001 involving the US 34 corridor. More specifically, the effort involves the development of an access control plan and a corridor optimization plan for approximately 26 miles of US 34 from 1-25 east to the Town of Kersey. The Access Control Plan element involves developing a plan identifying all future driveways, cross- streets, signal locations, and grade-separated interchanges/overpasses. The effort will be also pp FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG V I G Page 9 1"• 2025 Regional Transportation Plan entail the development of a Corridor Optimization Plan based on guidelines recently adopted by CDOT. The optimization plan will identify the most appropriate means of maximizing the US 34 corridor's ability to serve the movement of people and goods. It will consider the potential for interchanges, alternative modes of travel, HOV lanes, Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures, Transportation System Management (TSM) measures, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), roadway widening, parallel roadway systems, and surrounding land uses. Both efforts will be conducted simultaneously, and they are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2002. D. Planning Process This planning effort included a reconsideration of the goals of the 2020 RTP; an updated inventory of the existing transportation system; an extension of the growth projections for the region to a 2025 horizon year; identification of the current needed transportation improvements, reflecting recent planning efforts throughout the region; refinement of the methodology to prioritize the needed improvement projects; an update of the projected funding available to implement improvements; reconsideration of resource allocation; and development of the regional transportation plan that can be implemented within projected funding constraints. The NFR 2025 RTP includes two plans, the Vision Plan and the Financially Constrained Plan. The Vision Plan is a complete list of transportation needs within the region as projected over the next 24 years. The Financially Constrained Plan includes the high priority projects from the Vision Plan that are likely to be funded within the projected financial resources available to the region. r The basic structure of the process used in the development of the fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan is illustrated by Figure 1-2. ' EGI • N • LT' • NS - • - T•TI • N - L • N HIGHWAY/ r-. TRANSIT RAIL BIKE/PED TDM TSM NOV ^ RES•U•CE -- •LUC•TIAPJ HIGHWAY/ CA UPJCIL TRANSIT RAIL BIKE/RED TDM TSM HOY ^, AVAEABLE FUNDS s s $_ s s $_ RECOMMENDED ^ PROJECT `flan"' 2r. 3.� PRIORITIZATION '� •— •— L— L� by TAC TRANSIT RAIL BIKE/RED TRAVEL TRANSP. HIGHWAY/ — DEMAND SYSTEMS NOV MGMNT. MGMNT. Figure 1-2 Plan Development Process . FELSBURG (4 1-LOLT & ULLEVIG Page 10 2025 Regional Transportation Plan As shown, the process, in concept, involves two primary elements: • Project Prioritization: Ranking of projects within each of six project categories • Resource Allocation: Allocation of available funding to the different project categories The project prioritization process is largely a technical effort and, therefore, was conducted primarily through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). On the other hand, the allocation of the funding resources available to the region is a policy issue and, thus, was conducted by the Council. The projects included in the Financially Constrained Plan should be used by the NFRT& AQPC in developing the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the region. This, in turn, is the basis for requests to be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation. E. Public Involvement The public plays an important role in any planning process, as the citizens will be impacted by the improvements or changes made in the region. The interests represented by both the public and the governmental agencies within the region are often quite diverse, and, therefore, everyone must be given an opportunity to participate in the planning process. For this study, .. public involvement was solicited at several key points: • The goals of the plan and a preliminary list of proposed Vision Plan projects were reviewed and commented on by the public in September 2000. Two public workshops were conducted, one at the Foothills Fashion Mall in Fort Collins and one at the Greeley Mall. F's In January 2001, thepublic was advised of the reliminar• preliminary prioritization of the projects and the funding limitations. Public comments were solicited at open houses held at the Foothills Fashion Mall, the Greeley Mall and at the Loveland Public Library. • In May, 2001, prior to approval of the plan, a third set of public workshops at the ._ same three locations was held to solicit comments on the draft plan. The mailing list of participants in the 2020 RTP planning process was updated to include current government officials and other appropriate community members, and everybody on this list received invitations to all of the public open houses. Newspapers and other media were also used to advertise the open houses. Summary information on the open houses is included in Appendix B. r r• ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 11 — 2025 Regional Transportation Plan II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM imm 2025 Regional Transportation Plan II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Inventorying the existing transportation systems within the region is an integral step of the planning process as it is used to identify areas in need of improvement over the prospective twenty-year planning period. A variety of documents and plans were researched to develop an accurate, up-to-date database of existing transportation facilities and programs. CDOT currently maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) Transportation Planning Data Set, which describes much of the existing transportation system. This has served as the basis for .- much of the information presented in this section. A. Regionally Significant Corridors As one of its key strategies to reach the region's transportation goals, the Council has developed a network of Regionally Significant Corridors. Regional significance is defined by a corridor's providing an important link between major communities and destinations within or outside the NFR. Other criteria that have been used to help distinguish corridors of regional significance include high levels of current and projected travel demand, the economic importance to the region, and the ability to relieve other primary regional routes. Through the project prioritization process, this RTP provides an emphasis on planning for and making multi- modal investments in these Regionally Significant Corridors. The NFRT & AQPC has adopted the routes shown on Figure II-1 as Regionally Significant Corridors. Included in this network are nearly all segments of the 12 State or U.S. highways in the region, along with a number of county or city arterial roads that were judged to meet the criteria of regional significance. In addition, parts of two planned roadway corridors, Larimer County Road 5 and the planned extension of Two Rivers Parkway, have been designated as Planned Regional Corridors. B. Roadway System .. The roadway system is currently the principal component of the transportation system within the North Front Range TPR. Not only does it provide a means for vehicular traffic, including cars and trucks, but it also provides infrastructure for bicyclists and transit service. 1. Functional Classification The roadway network is comprised of a hierarchy of roadways defined by their functional classification and how they serve the mobility and access needs of the users. As mobility increases on a roadway, access decreases, and conversely, as access increases, mobility decreases. The roadway functional types are more thoroughly described, in order of their ability to provide mobility, as follows: • r ^ FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 12 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I yl IIf. LC h - - WCR 100 `L1 yt..s , ii LCR62 3 WCR 98 Nu 55`r�Elll 55n1� �i e V S 3 i.WCR 9672 h O� m 'WCR41 anawi MOP y 3 3 m `1 WCR 92 3 WCR 90 I� ' '7 ,rpt rLY LEGEND 7fi • L /i. WCR BB 1110 .1E WCR86 = Regionally Significant Corridors 211 48 , WCRa� = Planned Regional Corridor : .• iiirr I mr---iiii4. • — .r. Mrr.iy Extensions of Regionally Significant 11 NI • `~110 c-441 WCR 80 Corridors Outside NFR \IRNIs'linll ® WC'78 Rri 1 Cr'I: WCR 76 _..,. 1 NI: ill ■ , - - WCR 74 L . CD , , i , 1 � iratil i.._. .. .. 'NCR 72 .. Ens ■� LCR30E II1 ,I�rr��7t �I% l'i: 1613 l- - 1cit. Y lal PI !1 !!i ! anon m I Iti- iit .,,,,,, RIRI1MM m •CA..,fieLCRt9 l =MANI! / V / ■LCRIII M t I WCR � � o a•• U L RI. Vi-h' �i =wax ' t��" .4.„ ' WCR /vuf LC- I I =N.. •TF ' ' ,.., ,�F WCR • R i p=N in .,M� �i _ ,l�r ir• 3 WCR® � U LCRQ r �� IiI �� m1A � WC 38 LA RIMER COUNTY .— ari •• • •r y yy BOULDER COUNTY • / • � 3 • ; 3 © 3 i3 Nr V ' 'gur'11-i�: piFELSBURG Regionally Significant' DOLT G Narth Front Ran r 7ba porturlan r Air pnnurt I ULLEVIC p1�nInFcaa511 Corridors in the North Front-Range • 00-135 6/1/01 r r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r Freeway: Freeways, including Interstate highways, primarily serve long distance travel between major communities. Freeways provide the greatest mobility, with strictly controlled access allowed only at interchanges. Arterial: Principal and minor arterials carry longer-distance major traffic flows between important activity centers. The primary difference between freeways and principal arterials is access; freeways have fully controlled accesses with no at-grade intersections, while principal arterials may include at-grade intersections. Minor arterials augment the principal arterial system. These roadways place a higher emphasis on access, instead of mobility, distributing travel to smaller destinations with moderate trip lengths. _. The primary difference between urban and rural arterials is in the distance traveled. In urban settings, arterials typically connect activity centers within a community and in rural settings arterials usually connect communities. Collector: Collector roads link local streets with the arterial street system. Both mobility and access take similar precedence on collector roadways. The urban collector system provides both land access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. These collector roadways provide direct access to activity centers. Rural collector roadways provide travel between communities as well as providing greater access to local roadways and/or driveways. Local Roadway: The primary function of local roads is to provide access to adjacent land uses, in both urban and rural areas. The CDOT transportation data set divides the roadways within the North Front Range into three primary categories: highways, major roads and local roads. Highways are defined as Interstates, U.S. Highways and State Highways. Table II-1 summarizes the classification and the associated miles of roads within the North Front Range that fall within the highway category. /08 WIN OP FELSBURG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 14 r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table II-1 Highway Miles by Functional Classification Miles of Highway Functional Class Larimer County' Weld County' NFR Total Freeway— Non-Interstate 4 23 27 Interstate — Rural 11 6 17 Interstate— Urban 10 0 10 — Other Principal Arterial — Rural 37 16 53 Other Principal Arterial — Urban 17 4 21 Minor Arterial — Rural 8 15 23 Minor Arterial — Urban 3 13 16 Collector— Urban 1 4 5 _ Major Collector— Rural 9 15 24 TOTAL 100 96 196 Source: CDOT GIS Data Set. 1 Only the portions of Larimer and Weld County within the NFR TPR .. The major roadways which are not Interstate, U.S. or State Highways, are also divided into functional classification. These are mostly county roads and other similar roadways in the network. Table 11-2 summarizes the miles of roadway for each class of major roadway. It should be noted that the table below does not include the local roads. Table II-2 Major Roadway Miles by Functional Classification Total Functional Class Miles of Roadway Principal Arterial 24 Minor Arterial 165 Collector 147 _ Major Collector— Rural 95 Minor Collector— Rural 113 TOTAL 544 Source: CDOT GIS Data Set. 2. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Figures 11-2, 11-3, 11-4 and 11-5 present the existing daily traffic volumes on major roadways in Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and non-urban areas, respectively. These counts were obtained from the cities and/or CDOT. r r, (4FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 15 rc l7 Douglas Rd. CR51 287 �� 2 ' 1f O 1,� �.1 I it---. .,C7\-:-N:\:''' I i •�• f••1 u N-..\-------�,, L..�i of C'�'he^ .-/T\ TERRY A: �. 2 \�, P CR54G 33 .\LAKE \ \ Poo D. ONG I (`J !Gyy ¢ �� tlJ 'PoND 4 �9b 3 m.r.ocw '�� 1 a � D-\ • - ✓,Th._ 4f_ `a xolrvs¢rex qvw.¢ t ®l.� CR 50 . —..� bra;. �' i �' O"-31 U 8EE u1sEr \ ^..J i i.`l '� I O 2 VMe Or , R16�DE • 2J - Vine Dr ' , a (77R 48 'Z ADDRIONAL l �• Ir- O .,1 1 # C.Al r '•Iq VOLUMES :..:;.,..,.sr. -. .1 -;;N.i L F„,,=. {a • r.C�>≤•• 'L..l BNRR R aF I Y uamsn R 17.3 \1 —MulberryrS 56 Era '1 ■ _ < "-3 ti 30S N1 t ' y �% c C Isa � •�, flkanern sL ` C £ e �� . .1 4 • S l._. HORSEI�OIHI I CR44 e' Prospect Rd. Iw5r. I 2.1-6-11r2.1-6-11� •N i05 H9 ..J IS I •I IS I15 ]SbF—. LJ J9 `. �•\ V719b3 �J CR44 . 1 5'. a n. CR42 lea y Dr.x=Re. Iv \� 4 , „� ,. . CR40 HoretooM Rd 264 160 I D.1 CR40 0 24 r... I a - ] r.._.1 a �� , , . _„ `— ) v CR30E 3 ; I I' \ U = Harmony Rd - •301 333 •L,. LCR38 7;/ CR38 11 xla •I w'4 I i 154 r .1 d I �r 186. r••—• L CR 96 1. 1 \/1 �• 4� ? •� \i ¢ C 5 3 0 I/ Fa J r �_ /' r CR3d� I Y 61•& i@y RJ. . I l� 't%r l . _0SSILCREEK• h i : .1'4 E a \ CR32LI •I.` I -7 I CR32 ea V U i 7 Cg \ U Th CR90 N_ h V 13 I IF -- I ^ RS Lincoln Aye. • e vs. LEGEND 99 pDexl = 1999 Average Daily Traffic Volumes MounlaM Ave. 63 y i $ . e i S SSS IBA g �.9,b I a NOTE:Volumes in Thousands . a r• u 211.7 N I Mulberry St M I ti 20.3 I Laurel St M I ---O Figure 11-2 piFELSBURC ,,-.... ."*".>--..->"'N 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts ' a to tsmiro.ur ULLEVIG war in the Fort Collins Area — 00-135 6/01/01 l 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 `i 1 - -1 _(494)---x 4I—• 6. l9 /W_, I I �II WI &h 9t. ° Aa A A 9th St. ^ A i I• i I ad 4' IGh St s0 i �-.i. ` r l.. l is . t Ilx. 990••• C 1 I 9.5 '1 • ._-FW RW wee _ won., I��"7 •' . - w� 1wogs, 13thS • ¢ J ~ _ _ OT • Li woael �,.`^.l.f 1.9 . .. ' \© •• ! e e 1&h S. c ?I . I _.._' �.. .d: ~wit•, tU.O 1. 91Y.. wog eaI ¢ PPM S.6 in I HI I as se &T 9A .n s. se 1.. X1 1 ., 161 t • a i • , Na 91 9.f Ms' L.JlrL1 t • i zsr I ,_ .._..1 1 an at 1� - L ..® 113 ... ions. lttt�t� I SEE - L.�..� 1 iii ( :-L• ] . M..� I xA RD 9 ® t9�.�.9 THIS PAGE �r4ptc,"- ...""t J a.m. I FOR ADDITIONAL --St�.. I L.._.y�..ti ._..� i ® 4 4�len s l• 1 VOLUMES I §I� .u�sl• "In: I I M S 9A fi iM5 131 ..._.._.._-.� L� lss 1J.. „at zoe St 9�ww��I •—•• : A 4 t... : 1 U=I L..- • V t ,i 10.1 A WC,SB! -A�' ��5A 9.1 (251) Iles) I Ixu ® zens - :::'-'117"a+s IA"�',.� II I °"•.. T.. 3� j" _ I� +sn laa { .._._.. _..J •.� z: t] emu' i 1 N L: las I� �-'y EVANS 7- : / LEGEND / IxxxI = Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes NOTE:Volumes In Thousands Figure 11-3 IPIFEc--,luac ..-","#>'r'\ 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts H<t:.T y enentb t.,i.Fvii; >~•M.a 'a..n.r, in the Greeley Area 00.B3 S/30/01 1 1 1 1 1 I I - 1 I I I A 1 A 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 I 287 g 21111 1 is 7.- a l¢fi )x.o m IwYM1�5"Tl, CPM 57th Strs. vII. 7` L Esher:Rd �1• f I • 33N 91 ( r•• S- 9UYU : • 4 a S T HORSESHOE' , i LAKE '.a P 1 n n_ fi 4 LAKE % / - .,cPze • .� 11 _..—. cmme�m.eM1A E1.5 JIiI �■. ............ ...J•-' 9TM1S 9TM1'5,1 \ r.._.._.._.._..J 29 7 29A 287 Einnartiver (AKE ri,II I I I i ^ I I10VFIAND ` :• Bra&hsr - L nIL ,-rx1� � 91J va �77 --- $ 1 svo na , .473:11 cw Kw 7th St I 'fir r \.,a :to 1f -.-7,--.-.------.1_.....k.________. ..-l._._.T._. ._� • I — _Y .-�.1�� BEE INSET ! 7th St t]I C %---\ !1I ,a I 1N/SPAGEFGP , 1 I .4lsrs i 5�' ._. 1aa 1ze \,...I.., ; �I' r e �✓-1 �_ J r ^. • i --eoeosKm ��,' .� RF5. th - '.�p..� t. eta •y ` = n.o t 1 LfL..,,: d iMg,St 1v cn le ., E e.oil— I ,.e Ina 1Ae IAO 11s ,.a 1l mme, / � 2 CIIIBE N ff r cP le i CP le • CH Id LEGEND _ 6 i [KKxl = 1999 Average Daily Traffic Volumes NOTE:Volumes in Thousands Figure II-4 tiEEL;I,LR;l, 1999 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts HOIT A TT.q ffi4 IAtra.un ,Iun,u, N..n,g6..re in the Loveland Area Ot5,1mm 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WCR300 \. , Ca.. 811 MICR 03 Nu IR, 13� W�99ii _ I 11n ern m---\_,..J ' LC D..■—■ ■' Fi 3 WCRYB 14 ff lF LCR56 ■ y�j 3 ■_■WCF Be Gm ■� ! x■��"° WORM ?11 oA L�CPI m f �■��■■ wrrr 86 84 �.e �O ' Cfr 14 �U II .� l\�1�■ 13 80 I� (rod i _ ��■ R Collins[ B -n. .uP78® m •i i _.._. BL I � IBR , r B i i..._ Fr: , �� IL�9i ■■■1,■ ! 5 497 •� .I .. _•• 44L U1. LcWxE L 1 13.8 38 — __ �a4_.� —� WC•e9 ra Window 7.0 .] 6 • LEGEND • ig,i utleG"°` 1� Kxp w au1- n Ixxxl = 1999 Average Dally Traffic Volumes M U_.I..velau d. �f a i rr • NOTE:Volumes in Thousands i !� v wT+n^T � 2&d a••� M �,� H Greeley oil• a '27.71 ra &5°i le 214 "l_. n r• LcRIe � 47.7•i1 LDRI6 ,4 1■ wcR 'Irmu5MIN }{ ■� maul ff LCR M _��.11i. 60 1.2�' L ••�� - Gam./ Ili II• I # Iv LC•B 3.8�■ 4 v„-�- . ��■rr . ijn�■rig n WCR ff Brj. ��L2 ��■2y2IGs7+ Eii •.� LAMER cowry _ • ij ,3 ;�`�d`� 3$� �o�� r WLflBB BOULDER COUNTY w 2 3 U •�: # . Figure Figure R-5 e, FEL41URU Year Average Daily Traffic Forecasts '-IL s MTM , y0 a,B I „ 7 Outside of the City Areas UL LET IO wn.IMMMI 006336,01,01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan 3. Roadway Surface Condition CDOT monitors roadway conditions on the state highway system throughout the state on a yearly basis. Roadways are given a rank based on the roughness and rutting of the roadway as well as the amount of cracking and patching. The matrix shown below is then used to categorize each segment of roadway as having "good", "fair", or"poor" surface conditions. Table 11-3 presents the percentage of roadways having good, fair and poor surface classifications in Larimer and Weld counties in the North Front Range TPR. Larimer County has a higher percentage of good and fair roads as compared to Weld County. This table also shows a comparison between the conditions of the roads in the North Front Range and the State of Colorado. Overall, the North Front Range TPR has a larger percentage of roadways, approximately 45 percent, with poor classification as compared to the statewide average of 35 percent. Table 11-3 Roadway Surface Conditions of State Highways i$ �.}. Z ;y�E I tii�ii�v" .fi i� iitl �I i },{ � I I 31§ t i � i tl -� k'7 r�r +�y t i�F C E t IE EI t � P *. S E (!� I }'t�; �i ` t EE 1111 1 @ Sp r r i 5 cE �'y. E ap �e�N�t x I }a y �!y'9, n„ Utl I t u VEIN r, ,: e.4t "4r..:.. nitl m Fa, 'y ' t d ' tnFamIE Larimer 16.6% 46.0% 37.4% Weld 14.2% 33.2% 52.6% North Front Range Total 15.4% 39.8% 44.8% Statewide Total 39.1% 25.8% 35.1% Source: CDOT's Transportation Planning Data Set r r r Pa pm FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 20 2025 Regional Transportation Plan 4. Special Roadway Corridors The following section describes roadway corridors which have special designation, serve a special purpose, or can be characterized by the nature of their use. In the North Front Range TPR, such corridors include National Highway System corridors and Scenic and Historic corridors. National Highway System The National Highway System (NHS) includes the interstate highway system and a significant amount of the urban and rural principal arterial system. As mentioned earlier, there are approximately 196 miles of highways within the North Front Range TPR. Approximately 52 percent, 100 miles, are on the National Highway System and the remaining 48 percent, 96 miles, are not designated as part of this system. .- Scenic and Historic Roadways Colorado has identified over 2000 miles of roadway as Scenic Byways within the state. The Cache la Poudre - North Park (SH 14 and US 287) is the only Scenic Byway in the North Front Range TPR. Only a few miles of this byway are within the northern part of the North Front Range TPR. 5. Bridge Condition Bridges comprise an important element of the roadway network, as inadequate bridges can "- cause various capacity and safety problems. CDOT regularly inspects and evaluates all bridges on the state highway system and gives them a sufficiency rating so that structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges are identified. The definitions used by FHWA for these categories are as follows: • Structurally Deficient. Those bridges which are in advanced stages of deterioration, or are in marginal condition, but still function at a minimum level. Also included in this category are bridges which do not have desired load carrying capacities. • Functionally Obsolete. Those bridges which have acceptable load carrying capacity, but impose unacceptable physical restrictions (narrow width, restricted vertical clearance, limited sight distances, speed reducing curves, or insufficient waterway adequacy). There is a total of 147 bridges on the state highway system in the North Front Range TPR. Of these, 46 bridges have documented deficiencies; 32 are located in Larimer County and 8 in Weld County. Table 11-4 presents the bridges in the NFR with documented deficiencies. r ^ ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 21 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table II-4 Bridges with Deficiencies in the NFR — a 4 l tngP la i d I .: N ( �'�t�Y; 3° i i s p :� �F� t 3 �4' s�� I��4 r `.Higt` y m I ;: idgeS.,truetaiijI�ei. ". .... :,LoCati ja,>, r,. .,, a .. b d1 jlCb t(w#1 ntr .: Larimer County — SH1 B-16-AL Larimer County Canal Structurally Deficient 1-25 C-17-G Draw Structurally Deficient US 34 C-16-AK BN RR Structurally Deficient .. US 34 C-16-CZ BN RR Structurally Deficient SH 287 C-16-D Dry Creek Structurally Deficient SH 14 B-16-EW 1-25 ML Functionally Obsolete SH 14 B-16-EX 1-25 ML Functionally Obsolete 1-25 B-16-FJ Windsor Res, Canal Functionally Obsolete 1-25 B-17-BC CS RR Functionally Obsolete 1-25 C-17-AS County Road Functionally Obsolete .. 1-25 C17-AT County Road Functionally Obsolete 1-25 C-17-EE County Road 16 Functionally Obsolete 1-25 C-17-El County Road 16 Functionally Obsolete 1-25 C-17-EL Draw Functionally Obsolete ._ 1-25 C-17-ES CO RD 26 (Airport Drive) Functionally Obsolete 1-25 C-17-ET CO RD 26 (Airport Drive) Functionally Obsolete _ 1-25 C-14-j (minor) County Road Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-Al Draw Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-AA Big Thompson River Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-AG Home Supply Ditch Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-AH Handy Ditch Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-k (minor) Buckingham Ditch Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-R Louden Ditch Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-16-Z Big Thompson River Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-17-EG 1-25 Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-17-EH 1-25 Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-17-E Sheep Draw Functionally Obsolete SH 287 B-16-AE Draw Functionally Obsolete SH 287 C-16-C Little Thompson River Functionally Obsolete SH 287 C-16-e (minor) Handy Ditch Functionally Obsolete _ SH 287 C-16-i (minor) Farmers Ditch Functionally Obsolete SH 287 C-16-S Home Supply Ditch Functionally Obsolete Weld County US 34 C-18-AV Ramp to US 85 Structurally Deficient US 34 C-18-BB US 85 Business Functionally Obsolete US 34 C-18-BH UP RR Functionally Obsolete US 85 C-18-N Latham Canal Functionally Obsolete SH 68 B-16-EJ Fossil Creek Res. Inlet Functionally Obsolete SH 257 C-17-CZ Draw Functionally Obsolete SH 392 C-17-CS Greeley Canal Functionally Obsolete SH 392 C-17-ER 1-25 ML Functionally Obsolete ►- • p FELSBURG r" i HOLT & ULLEVIG I G Page 22 los 2025 Regional Transportation Plan ^ 6. Accident History The state compiles annual traffic accident information for accidents occurring on the state highway system. Each year a report entitled "Accidents and Rates on State Highways" is published documenting the number and types of accidents on segments of state highway and an accident rate is calculated based on the number of accidents per volume of traffic. Table 11-5 summarizes this information for locations on the state highway system in the NFR. _ These accident rates are based on the 1999 accident data. Table 11-3 lists the accident rates on the highways throughout the NFR. Table 11-5 Accident Rates on State Highways ! ..t j , k '' y 2 ,, ° ERG lea�� ( 7a�v�q f c tit�{r i i, e. a .� Id tra Site High Na a i r�F i t i { i a r 4 d� I F { ' F i i 7 rN ��rMllit f v: 5e®rltef�# Lbcatio 4 mipimapvThiL,ADL Do*Fyolicielimespoi 1A US 287 to CO RD 54 D 4.26 14C US 287 to CO RD 5 2.66 Larimer-Weld Canal &Aspen Ridge Drive 1.86 l-25A CO RD 38 to SH 56 0.61 SH 56 to SH 60 0.5 SH 60 to SH 402 0.94 ^ SH 402 to SH 392 0.88 SH 392 to SH 68 0.97 Cache La Poudre River to SH 14 1.82 SH 14 to MP 274 (near CO RD 52) 0.64 34A Leave Roosevelt National Forest to CO RD 22B 1.36 CR RD 22B to I-25 2.58 1-25 to SH 257 0.69 SH 257 to 47`"Avenue 0.73 47`"Avenue to US 85 1.58 US 85 to CO RD 45 1.05 34D (US 34 US 34 Business to 47th Avenue 1.36 Bypass) 471"Avenue to 8'"Avenue 4.41 11'"Avenue to 15'Avenue 6.99 lm Avenue to South Platte River 2.47 34Z MP 0 (JCT 34)to 10'" Street 6.27 56A CO RD 23 to 1-25 0.64 ^ 60B US 287 to leave Johnstown City Limit 0.63 68A US 287 to CO RD 38 2.59 85C Enter Greeley urban limit to south Platte River 1.10 ^ Enter Evans City Limit to JCT US 85 Greeley B 3.47 JCT SH 34 to MP 273 (JCT SH 392) 2.02 85G JCT US 85 in Evans to 26"' Street 10.87 25'" Street (leave Garden City enter Greeley) to JCT US 34 4.96 ^ Business Loop 85H JCT US 34 Greeley Business Loop to JCT US 85 2.37 FELSBURG Ci HOLT & ULLEVIG L E V I G Page 23 2025 Regional Transportation Plan 114,611.11O, ' ! 3�e�il� {(—i� Ti f• ' ry5� '� ,�t''� Ir �I t, Cx�E' ,`�taN"hyy ,� �ip� t 5i3t{ E�yv� +iiivyi �,�'��s X�(t �a't$-,ry r~ d �'�1�... r a l . ! t6 i'i 3Rt w� �t�''�.. t� tt e,,i su it ith u`t , -ie{ u i3 i't mg, s v ' 2} b n a �„ yy v, d ��/ pilt omits 11 'r, . 4 �#:rt,,it..a a4„ ....?At,i^ �iy '�.00atldn, uip .. .. , ..te.rl4 ,v Y: ++ ,�lllll 5 t; 257A Milepost 1 to JCT US 34 1.4 JCTUS34toMP9 0.82 _ CO RD 66 (enter Windsor)to MP 14 (near CO RD 72) 3.40 257B JCT SH 257 to UCT US 34 1.0 263A JCT US 85 to MP 5 (near CO RD 49) 1.43 287C Boulder-Larimer County Line to JCT SH 56 1.27 CO RD 17 to Leave Berthoud City Limit 4.46 CO RD 10 to JCT SH 402 1.26 Leave Loveland City Limit to W 69`"Street 2.63 .. Louden Canal to Horestooth Road 3.06 Larimer County Canal No 2 (near Monroe Drive)to E.Vine Drive 8.06 Lake Canal (near Alpine Drive)to CO RD 29 3.31 287Z JCT 287 to JCT FAP Rout 287 (Lincoln Avenue) 4.14 392A 1-25 Interchange (Windsor)to JCT 257 (Main Street) 1.13 392B Leave Windsor City Limit to JCT US 85 1.27 SH 85 to CO RD 39 2.10 402A UCT US 287 to 1-25 0.95 r C. Transit System Fort Collins Transfort The City of Fort Collins operates fixed-route service which has been in operation since 1974 and continues to increase ridership each year. In 1999 Transfort carried 1,431,779 passengers. This service operates on a "pulse" system wherein vehicles meet at a single point at regular intervals to transfer passengers. The three transfer centers in Fort Collins are: North Transfer Center located downtown at Mason/Maple; CSU Transfer Center, west of the Student Center; South Transfer Center, at the Square, Horsetooth and College. Transfort has two levels of service—CSU school year (approximate 160 days) and summer schedule (approximately 145 days). A lower level of transit service is provided during the summer schedule. Service operates Monday through Saturday. Sunday service is operated on a limited basis when CSU is in session. Fares for Transfort are $1.00 per ride and $.50 for seniors and disabled passengers. Youth (17 and younger) and CSU students presenting their CSU Student Activity Card ride for free. r r IPFELSBURG r C4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 24 " l 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r , - - L ' +1� `+'Q '4 r M r i 4,--i= Vine _ I i' ,. - rt da ftant:'� u ' "' ri ' ' D _ rT lit l ._.... - �., —�. --;--k.L i , n`r } ��o f r Lnooln -1 {�I _�-, .:, . l_—. i ;HIT-I , r r+ I -, urn's-- } I_Lt � I IAN Ai -- 1 Nip nwtesnp ._i �� :. Ataa1ashp r" a y " 1 i I i1I 1-* ^1 Ile- � �I 'ioxtiots hp y- M- a Nss lae-shuttle IL f , 1 I jt �' _.. p art i rlre -a _ _ ' l, r �' 111 ,.._ A/ntlishp t _, i T' R1.9 shp k pp N1 p °L ,r , 4- 9 /V Rt6.shp �. r— iM1 1 F>. `n 1. 1 jt of-7.snp � _i.�H1.asnp ,�, I_� 1 'T4QY 1 H41shp IVfl1-3shp - T N fl62shp t - "ei 1 II V �,r If 1 3.. *t 1' Foaas 7e L.,_“..1.1,- II `. —I��c- �� r# F - ---. III ekum I L.L. I , I L ! Figure 11-6 PIUFELSBURG Fort Collins (Transfort) HOLT L T ( North flout o e mrt°"°^ "'r°°°"" Bus Routes ULLEVIG Planning Oland! 00-135 6/1/01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Dial-A-Ride Paratransit service, known as Dial-A-Ride, has been operated by the City of Fort Collins since 1993. Ridership for Dial-A-Ride in 1999 was 65,168. Paratransit service is provided throughout the City of Fort Collins and is available during the same hours as the fixed route service, Monday through Saturday. Evening service is available seven days per week while CSU is in session. All service is door-to-door. Single-ride tokens are $2.00 and income-eligible tokens are $0.50 or $1.00. Fare assistance is available for persons who qualify, based on income. FoxTrot Transfort initiated intercity bus service between Transfort's South Transit Center (STC) in Fort Collins and downtown Loveland on March 1, 1997. One bus provides hourly service from 6:15 a.m. until 7:03 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturday. FoxTrot ridership in 1999 was 48,639. The fares are $1.00 for adults, $0.50 for seniors and disabled riders and the service is free for youth (17 and younger), CSU students and transfers to/from Transfort. Alternative Care Homes r, These are four small board and care homes averaging three residents. They provide transportation to the residents on an as-needed basis and as the provider of last resort. One automobile is used for the trips. Generally, the residents' families provide transportation. Collinwood Assisted Living Facility There are approximately 90 clients. They have one minivan and one automobile for client transportation. Transportation is provided for medical non-emergency trips and for outings. Columbine Care Center They have one van for the approximately 96 clients which is used for medical non-emergency trips. No personal trips are provided. Columbine Care Center West This facility has three vehicles available for approximately 150 clients. The vehicles are reserved for medical visits, but are occasionally used to transport spouses to the facility. The organization uses Dial-A-Ride for outings for residents. Elderhaus r An adult day-care facility with no live-in residents, this organization has one van and provides transportation for approximately one field trip per month. fin pFELSBURG (' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 26 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Evergreen House A small board and care facility housing approximately five residents, one van is available for emergency transportation only. Fort Collins Health Care Center Transportation is provided for medical non-emergency trips, family visits, and outings for r approximately 75 clients. Golden West Healthcare Center "' The agency provides medical non-emergency transportation for approximately 50 clients and only does so under good weather conditions. Good Samaritan Retirement Village This facility, with apartments and nursing beds for approximately 100 clients, has two vans that provide door-to-door transportation for any wants or needs of the residents. Service is limited to Fort Collins city limits from Monday through Friday. ._ New Mercer Commons The agency provides transportation for medical non-emergency visits and outings to its approximately 65 clients. Shamrock Manor This small board and care facility serving approximately 10 clients pays the fees for residents to utilize Care-A-Van and Dial-A-Ride. As such, transportation is provided for any wants or needs of the residents. S Silver Hare Senior Board and Care r This small board and care facility uses a privately-owned vehicle for transportation to medical non-emergency visits and some recreational activities. Most transportation needs are met by residents' families. Po Spring Creek Health Care Center The center provides limited transportation to its approximately 180 clients for medical non- emergency visits and scheduled shopping trips. S orFELSBURG ►' / HOLT & ULLEVIG V I G Page 27 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Airport Express Airport Express operates an airport shuttle service from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport. Service is available from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week. The service operates approximately 15 round-trips per day. The cost is $14.00 one-way and $28 round-trip. Greeley r- The Bus The City of Greeley operates fixed-route and demand-response transit services, known as The Bus. The fixed-route systems serve the Greeley urban area, including the City of Evans. Nine fixed routes operate on a "modified grid" system from 6:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Transfer points for The Bus are at the downtown transfer center, located at 9th Avenue and 7th Street, the Greeley Mall, Hillside Center and AIM College. The routes had major revisions again in 2001. Evening service is scheduled after normal hours for the fixed-route and paratransit service. The evening demand-response service operates Monday through Thursday from 6:45 to 8:00 p.m., Friday from 6:45 to 9:00 p.m., and Saturday from 5:45 to 9:00 p.m. On Saturday, the system operates six routes from 9:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. The paratransit service for the elderly and the disabled began in 1992. The service is available only to those riders who are certified as paratransit-eligible, who by virtue of their disability, cannot use the fixed-route system. The service is for Greeley and Evans. Fares for the fixed-route service are $1.00 for adults, $0.50 for seniors, disabled and Medicare card holders and youth five to 18 years of age. Children age four and under ride free. Various pass books are also available. Fares for evening demand-response service are $1.50 for a single ride. In 2000, ridership on the fixed-route was 393,769 and ridership for paratransit and demand-response was 22,965. School District Transportation Services School District#6 serves Greeley, Evans and just outside the urban area. The district has more than 12,000 students and transports approximately 4,000 students daily. Recently, the district 1-1 approached The Bus management staff looking for assistance in transporting students. The Bus staff is currently looking at several methods to see if they can assist District#6 without disrupting the fixed-route service. r- Airport Express/Express Charters .. Airport Express is based in Fort Collins, but operates scheduled service between Greeley and Denver International Airport (DIA) as well as charter service. Express Charters operates a fleet of over 30 vehicles, which are scheduled according to passenger demand. The passenger loads vary depending on the time of year. UNC has a large impact on business and the beginning and end of the school semesters and vacations are busy times for the company. r• , FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 28 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 i _ } 1 I J.- \--r,..: t, ,, A� .lr�lllli �:�llt ....■..■.a.■�� /r �■111" r i _ Ir..t•......n... Bus Routes All JPi$iIIL�` uru t,� . = �.,.............� IIJN ti� � r+ rll : "r■.�■■.r.■■■ ■■■. /\ /2 ►,1 . , el r- 3 t►. .,nom r.�>►' ■i i tI /V4 W.20.st. ■uJ� I�� .I�rE ``��11II 1�j*:EE9lFi� ': /V5,6 Al `dfE .. 1■.■..� 7 + / ;� "� `% ►�1 =ii:� I f►111 8 �. �� ..� a.� �1 �S11HII•vu.,•r raw !j 21tr s. . Il..� �I��I,■:'t : Roads '� ` �— mrnr tiU ,r71■■ilrJJftrL Jill SL I. r^ ��!ihI ... �► .•rr �l��iii + — 1 r!l�a I I(A\}I'OI(IA I I ON Pi .:ONgI.LI.ANIS,I\t:. Figure H-?: ilirFELSBURG G►eeley H 0 L T North Front Range TTansporration&Air Quality ULLE V 3 G Planning Council Bus'Routes 00-115 6/1/01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Rocky Mountain Shuttlines Rocky Mountain Shuttlines is based in Greeley and operates service to and from DIA. The service is door-to-door in Greeley. Shamrock Yellow Cab Shamrock Yellow Cab is based in Windsor and serves Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland. The company averages two vehicles within Greeley at all times, with more during peak times. Shamrock Taxi provides service to many persons with disabilities and assists in loading and unloading to/from the vehicles. Shamrock also provides shuttle service to major events such as the Rockies games and parcel service. ^ Centennial Developmental Services, Inc. (CDSI) This agency serves persons with developmental disabilities and contracts for direct transportation needs. CDSI also encourages clients to use The Bus fixed-route and paratransit services and purchases bus passes for their clients monthly. Bonnell Good Samaritan Center This nonprofit nursing home has a range of facilities from skilled nursing care to apartments and serves approximately 500 clients. Transportation is provided for medical appointments. Residents are encouraged to use The Bus fixed-route or paratransit service for other trips, such as to the senior center or the Eldergarten program. Centennial Health Care Center The center has approximately 120 beds and provides long-term institutional care for the elderly and disabled. Transportation is provided primarily for medical appointments. Centennial patients use The Bus fixed-route and paratransit service for other trips. Kenton Manor This facility operates residential beds and independent living apartments. Transportation is provided primarily for medical appointments. l— The Villa at Greeley, Inc. Approximately 200 clients are served at this nursing home, residential treatment center and restitution center. Limited transportation is available to the clients. r iFELSBURG HOLT & U LL E V 1 G Page 30 .. 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Loveland ^ City of Loveland Transit (COLT) This municipal department, established in 1998, operates fixed-route transit and complementary paratransit services. COLT has implemented two local fixed routes and continues to operate Extra Special People (ESP), renamed COLT Minibus, a demand-response service for Loveland's older residents and persons with disabilities. COLT is also responsible for service coordination with the FoxTrot intercity bus route operated by Transfort under an intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Jitterbus, the first of two local fixed routes, began service in October 1998. A single bus operates hourly service on a clockwise loop through central Loveland and east along US 34 to l- 25. Scheduled arrivals and departures are coordinated with FoxTrot. Hourly weekday service on the second local fixed route, Tango, was inaugurated in January 2000. The route alignment is comprised of a one-way loop connecting downtown Loveland with neighborhoods in the west and southwest portions of the city. Scheduled arrivals and departures are coordinated with FoxTrot and Jitterbus. Scheduled service for both fixed routes runs from 6:38 a.m. until 6:38 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Ridership in 1999 for these fixed routes was 54,623. r' COLT Minibus provides complementary paratransit service required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Three buses provide pre-scheduled service for individuals and groups making local trips within the city limits. Service hours for ADA-eligible patrons are the same as for the local fixed routes, while the hours for non-ADA eligible senior citizens are 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on weekdays only. The service carried 21,176 total passengers in 1999. Airport Express This service operates an airport shuttle from Loveland to Denver International Airport. Service operates between 4:20 a.m. and 6:20 p.m., Sunday through Friday and from 5:20 a.m. to 6:20 p.m. on Saturday. Approximately 15 round-trips per day are provided from Loveland. Trips cost $12.00 one-way and $24.00 round-trip. r r D^ 4^ i . FELSBURG I^ (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 ifjP- lust A ga ■ Legend �A ti��-I.EN ■ Bus Routes „ I ■ NTango Jitterbus Foxtrot ` jam' 'i1Kl Roads ,li ■ 1 !r rKs r-1 J1 ■ „� - CONS!. LIANI ION `wit•, �+ \ + I;lJIJ5L.LL1NIS,IBC. •• rigum 1143 PIFELSBURG Loveland.' BOLT $t NortTtausponadonn&q Air Quality ULLEVIG I G Planning Council Bus Routes 00-135 6/1/01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Rural Larimer County Several transit services are available in parts of rural Larimer County, as described below. FoxTrot Transfort initiated intercity bus service between Transfort's South Transit Center (STC) in Fort Collins and downtown Loveland on March 1, 1997. One bus provides hourly service from 6:15 a.m. until 7:03 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturday. FoxTrot ridership in 1999 was 48,639. The fares are $1.00 for adults, $0.50 for seniors and disabled riders and the service is free for youth (17 and younger), CSU students and transfers to/from Transfort. North County Dial-A-Ride The North County service for rural Larimer County residents is provided by Transfort (City of Fort Collins) and provides rural transportation to rural residents living in northern Larimer County. The service is for rural residents that are transportation disadvantaged, which would include elderly, low-income, general public, and minorities. The service provides access to social services, medical treatment, outreach programs, and other services that will enhance the quality of life for the participants. One vehicle is used for the service from 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, .. Monday through Friday. Many of the trips provided are coordinated with Medicaid/Medicare services in Larimer County. South County Senior Services The City of Loveland (non-urban area) provides South Larimer County service to rural residents Monday through Friday. The service has many elderly and disabled persons using the service for medical and personal trips. One vehicle is operated for the South County Service. Estes Park Service Special Transit, based out of Boulder, currently provides transit service three days per week in Estes Park. The Estes Park service is planned to expand to four days per week in 2002 and will operate from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and five days per week in 2003, funds permitting. Service is available in the Estes Valley for shopping, medical appointments, Senior Center visits, etc. Service is also provided into the Boulder Valley and/or Loveland/Fort Collins as needed to access service unavailable in Estes Park. r r ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 33 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Berthoud Area Transportation Service (BATS) The Berthoud Golden Links, Inc. Senior Center is a private nonprofit organization which operates a demand-response transit service known as Berthoud Area Transportation Service (BATS). The goal of BATS is to provide public transportation to meet the needs of the transportation-dependent, including the elderly, physically and mentally disabled, and all other members of the general public who have travel or mobility limitations. Transportation is provided to shopping areas, medical facilities, senior citizen and minority housing areas and to other community activities. BATS operates two vehicles —a 15-passenger van and a 25-passenger bus which is wheelchair accessible. The service generally operates from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with scheduled special trips on evenings and weekends. The service area includes Berthoud and Campion, Loveland, Fort Collins, Longmont, west to Carter Lake, south into northern Boulder County, and east into western Weld County. Transportation is provided on a 24-hour advance reservation basis. Different destinations are scheduled for different days of the week. No fares are charged for BATS services, however donations are suggested based on federal living standard measurements. For in-town trips, suggested donations are based on a sliding income scale. This scale is $2.00 for incomes under$7,000, $4.00 for incomes between $7,000 and $10,000, and $5.00 for incomes above $10,000. In 1999, BATS provided over 12,000 total one-way passenger trips. More than 60 percent of these trips were provided to people 60 years and older. Approximately 33 percent of the trips were for the general public. SAINT .- Senior Alternatives in Transportation (SAINT) provides door-to-door transportation in Fort Collins and Loveland for seniors and people with disabilities. Volunteers drive their own cars to take riders to any destination and for any purpose within the service areas. SAINT operates from Monday through Friday from 8:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and does not charge their clients a fee. SAINT provided 13,937 one-way trips in 1999. School District Transportation Three school districts provide bus service in Larimer County. Poudre R-1 serves Fort Collins and northern Larimer County. Thompson R2-J serves the Loveland and Berthoud areas. District R-3 serves the Estes Park area. The Poudre School District R-1 operates 100 buses, 20 of which are wheelchair accessible. The district provides all the Head Start transportation for the area. These students are mainstreamed onto regular and special education bus routes. Buses run an average of three routes per day. The Thompson School District R2-J operates just under 100 buses for student transportation. Approximately one-third of the buses are used for special education, which includes both school district and Head Start students. School District R-3 provides daily student transportation using approximately 20 vehicles. The district also provides transportation for the two Head Start programs that are in the service area. r• r- �.. FELSBURG ' HOLT (Si ULLEVIG Page 34 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Shamrock Taxi Shamrock Taxi service is based in Windsor and serves Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and Larimer and Weld Counties. Shamrock operates traditional taxi service, provides paratransit service in Fort Collins, shuttle services for DIA and transportation to sporting events. The company averages three to five vehicles within Fort Collins and one in Loveland at all times, with more during peak times (Friday and Saturday nights). Berthoud is served with the Loveland vehicles and the remainder of Larimer County with the Fort Collins fleet. Shamrock Taxi provides service to many persons with disabilities and assists in loading and unloading to/from the vehicles. Dispatching is from Windsor and is available 24 hours per day. Windsor Health Care Center This facility has approximately 100 clients and provides transportation for medical non- - emergency visits, shopping trips, outings and some personal needs trips. Prospect Park Living Center The center, with approximately 50 clients, provides transportation for medical non-emergency visits, recreational activities and outings, church, and occasionally to families' homes. P' Berthoud Living Center _ One van is available to the approximately 50 clients at this facility. Transportation is limited to medical non-emergency visits and to facility-sponsored activities. Rural Weld County The Weld County Transportation Program operates an extensive transportation service for Weld County residents. The Transportation Program is a branch of Weld County's Human Services Department which operates a wide variety of federally-funded program, described below. Employment Services of Weld County provides placement services at no cost to either the client or the employer. Some clients on subsidized programs are provided with transportation to job training or educational sites for periods lasting up to 60 days. Head Start is a federally funded pre-school education program. Transportation is provided to both morning and afternoon sessions, to special events and for special services such as testing and health services. Transportation is also provided to the members of the Head Start Parent Policy Board. Senior Nutrition Program delivers hot meals to 25 congregate sites throughout the county for the elderly. Lunches are prepared on the UNC campus in Greeley and transported to all 25 sites around the County. FELSBURG C' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 35 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Migrant Headstart Program consists of an educational program for the children of migrant farm workers during the summer months. The need for transportation for these children is substantial as they must be transported from widely scattered farms to program sites in either Greeley or the Tri-town area. .- Summer Youth provides classes for youth each summer. Clients are picked up at centralized sites in communities throughout the county and transported to sites in Greeley and Fort Lupton. Inter-office Trips include those made for office and administrative purposes for the Department of Human Resources. Volunteer Program provides a subsidy for persons providing trips to the elderly and disabled .. using personal vehicles. Mini Bus Program provides transportation service to the elderly and handicapped residents of Weld County outside the Greeley city limits. This service is a true demand-response type of service with limited schedules or routes. The Mini Bus service is available at various times within the county. r•- Regional Services FoxTrot As described in the previous COT section, FoxTrot service began in March 1997 and generated over 7,000 boardings in its inaugural month. This exceptionally high ridership was attributed to a month-long free fare promotion coupled with the novelty of a new service. Between April 1997 and December 1999, monthly ridership varied between 2,200 and 4,800 boardings. Regional bus service between Loveland and Fort Collins operates along US 287 between 8th Street in downtown Loveland and Transfort's South Transit Center (STC). The STC, which is located in the Square Shopping Center near the northeast corner of College Avenue and Horsetooth SMART Trips - VanGo Program The VanGo Program was established in 1996 to provide daily commuter vanpool service to residents in the North Front Range. There are 28 vehicles that take residents to work locations within and outside the NFR Region. The program saves approximately 4,100,000 vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) thus reducing congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption. r" FELSBURG P." 4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 36 2025 Regional Transportation Plan D. Bicycle And Pedestrian System Each of the three large communities within the NFR has identified a bicycle/pedestrian system which includes designated bike routes, on-street bike lanes, and off-street multi-purpose paths ^ for both commuter and recreational uses. The community bikeway plans for Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland are illustrated in figures 11-9, 11-10, and II-11, respectively. In addition, the NFRT & AQPC is currently updating its Regional Bicycle Plan, which will tie the cities' major .. bicycle routes together into a regional network. • E. Freight Corridors r The Freight Movement and Needs in the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region (HNTB, 1999) states that"while freight is moved in Colorado by truck, rail, pipeline and air, trucking and rail dominate the market...". This study also reports that the most important truck routes in the NFR are 1-25, US 34, US 85, and US 287. The primary rail freight corridors are the Union Pacific's (UP) north-south mainline though Weld County and the Burlington Northern- Santa Fe's (BNSF) east-west line though Weld and Morgan Counties. According to this study, in 1993 approximately 9,483 thousand tons of commodity either originated or were destined to the NFR. Of this amount approximately 3,711 thousand tons (which were worth approximately 4,878 million dollars) originated in the NFR and approximately 5,772 thousand tons (which were worth approximately 2,860 million dollars)were destined to the NFR. By the year 2020, approximately 5,002 thousand tons of commodity are expected to originate in and approximately 8,072 tons destined to the NFR. This would be an increase of between 34 and 40 percent over the 1993 values. a r r imr FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page37 lom CO/ Douglas Rd 1 CR 54 \\ \ 287 '1. c¢i ,1 I(.. ; ; .1 : r, cc!�..� a to N • V)1 gi _ 'TERRY'. -t1 ,Cache • LAKE ,'' - . m• rc -. _ LONp 1 hi.„. ¢ • 'POND . • I �: -, U Ca crab w. C.-C. .. • , i, O% • �• _ L i'1-' • • MounninVF.wOr. _ ., CR50 • -� \ 'LINDENMEIER l . -LAKE • W a.. 9 ¢ 1,s° • cant r Sr ••J I U i i ¢ VI I � �_ � ! U Vine Dr. •• , `- Vine Or. •• • CR 48 .t _� 'tip 1.\� • L. l'ii _ CR46 r--' ` laPort:Ave. n� ' ' '`� •.j�•-r.. _J BNRR ll a C Mulberry St. 11��10��1• , O .14 ' 0 JJ IMP r.. - • Elizabeth I♦ ■ °ti II-: °s-- - -`\ r �'1 HORSETOOTH I• ` CR 44 ros•ecr . _ _�' --� RES. ' � •• L,• �, 1 CR 44 { 't----4\-9 1'''2\:.\:\N-/ CR 42 ° i , J • Drake Rd. •. , - gal I �\ q s..rrow • ' ckR•ZIP o 1 c. • • •�� CR40 I WARREN 1 N 1 LAKE • '`:. let - • rnhmn.n _ • 1 - • V � CR 38E . _ �+ _ Harmony Rd �, -_. CR3B sme I j y 1 - CR 36 "i -.. ..`• J ��. J (. ¢ y,d•!�j�J I - co 1 L�� j N CR 34 — i Trilby Rd. L,• Iram c' 1 •�'�. CPI 32 L.I -_ •�• 1_y-'— -I 'ff.. .....' 11 cRaz I.••• rY ae h - ao V N U ^� cc U Z87 U , U_ CR 30 ~ U LEGEND = Signed On-Street Bike Route r ... ..... = On-Street Bike Lane Striped ........•.. = Off-Street Multi-Purpose Path -- Figure II-9 FELSBURO Existing Bicycle Facilities �' H O L T ac North Front Range Thinsportatlon S Air Quality - ULLEV1O Planning Council in the Fort Collins Area r, 00.155 6/1/01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 a • a3 1 1 it a J rA a . ...• _CWRW Wane. _ • -. L.. Wage. . a ,vci , • oa• • MIlnwr �� el) L. 1---1._..r 1 J q �zs _..r I „ --- WLRt1 5th i I k 263 .. aInt.an r. I : ..� pp° ..J �� 111 r ...I 2 2005201h4 1-.I 5 9rWs1I1I'k...l .+M 5IR — I • — I .W 1' fib I s U ci „„ms I .,Mr Ali% .r.. 2511 *�.• _ ans. / • 4 a m -1 u„ 1 EVENS j 1VCR at .I-J?.-i# N LEGEND = Signed On-Street Bike Route = On-Street Bike Lane Striped = Ott-Street Multi-Purpose Path limpe = Proposed Cycling Route ay @ELSBURG .�✓J�>^J/\ �. Existing Bicycle F ` HOLT &: wmmnn..rtw ,,"*, w s � •,� in the GreeteyJ4lre ULLEVI{•i =lea - y a 00-135 6/01/01 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lg ,,, I\ is LEGEND e, u 4 = On StreetBike Lane/Route " Im x �� ' , CR 1 = Off-Street Multi Purpose Path } 7 ' \ N 1 F I _ .,__ .Collins-�,el ••• I Q Mu opal Aip�ort I U 576 Street �% \ EarlertRtl. • I I �' i 9oro L. 1 xoasesxoE J LAKE 1.• r c ___ i s �I I ( \�„ A,can ,--.: . 44 1 �l _ Z o e m� ehv. . � I �4. 9 CR24E _ ___ � Q 37th 91 �� 3JM 9129th Street k . LquAlIDIE Il It Em e - T I= u J • I ` LOVELAND . r•--__ I• • ` RR • . . •lothS . _ y q :Eisenhower Wed. • �.. . a $ )m5 , r � Bm Si• I �:�• � CR 20 .. _ let St • / _J // I k BDEDtiRER L • ' A RES. u Ie I 0' Rr�U y¢q i L. M (J IC:�..J 11m SGT � - - CR18 402 1811,SI. • /i• / Q ry'1 0.. . —, U CR IeE u J CR 16 / CR16 I I CRIB V 2,73 U U 3 r`41-r-. ^r.« NOS v pi FELSBURG North E ont Runge Existing Bicycle Facilities.' �U L - TunsportBHnn B Air Quality 2 uLL�v>© Planning Council in the Loveland Area 00155 6/1/01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan ►a F. Rail System Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR): The UPRR is a Class One railroad with lines running both north/south and east/west through the NFR. The north/south line follows the US 85 corridor from Denver to Cheyenne, through the NFR communities of Greeley, Evans, and LaSalle. The east/west line runs from Fort Collins to LaSalle. The UPRR has over 40 mile of tracks in the NFR. Recently a merger between the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroad companies was approved. A variety of commodities are shipped on these lines, including grain, automobiles, consumer goods, and coal. The Colorado Passenger Rail Study (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 1997) indicates that a 53-mile segment from Denver to Greeley is a good candidate for passenger rail service. In fact, the corridor from Denver to Fort Collins via Greeley or Boulder received a very favorable rating and was ranked the highest in their screening process. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF): The BNSF is a Class One railroad and, within the NFR it passes through Fort Collins, Loveland, and Berthoud. Additionally, the BNSF has a line running from Fort Collins, through Windsor, to Greeley, which connects with the UPRR line east of Greeley. The BNSF has approximately 70 miles of track within the NFR. The Denver to Fort Collins line, mentioned above, would make use of the BNSF line from .. Greeley to Fort Collins or from Denver to Fort Collins via Boulder, Longmont, and Loveland. Currently this section of track is only used for freight and serves the industrial customers in the Fort Collins Area. Great Western Railway Company (GW): The GW is a Class Three railway which operates freight service from Longmont to Loveland, from Loveland northeast to Eaton (in the Upper Front Range Planning Region) and from Fort Collins to Greeley. The GW connects with both the UPRR and the BNSF lines in the NFR. G. Travel Demand Management Program One of the two key strategies for achieving the transportation goals of the region is to affect a shift in travel away from single occupant vehicles to alternative travel modes. In 1996, the Council established SMARTTrips as the regional travel demand management program to provide the focus for efforts to encourage alternative travel modes. SMARTTrips is responsible for employer and university based programs including an extensive vanpool program and rideshare matching services. In addition, the SMARTTrips program plays a key support and advocacy role, working with local communities in providing bicycle, pedestrian and transit system enhancements and implementing land use policies that support alternative modes. Sal iFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 41 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Along with the SMARTTrips program, the Council has also instituted an ongoing monitoring system to measure the progress of the region toward its goal of reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel. This monitoring is accomplished by development of a regional Mobility Report Card every three years. The report card documents results of a household travel survey and traffic counting for various travel modes. The 1998 Mobility Report Card, prepared in March, 1999, is intended to serve as a baseline to measure future progress toward a reduced single occupancy vehicle mode share. H. Aviation Facilities Three airport facilities exist within the North Front Range boundaries: The Downtown Fort Collins Airport, the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, and the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Downtown Fort Collins Airport is privately operated, although publicly used, and therefore does not receive federal funding. One asphalt runway, 4,700 feet in length, serves this facility. The airport elevation is 4,935 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The public airport in Larimer County is the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, located between Fort Collins and Loveland, with easy access to 1-25, at an elevation of 5,016 feet MSL. Two asphalt runways currently exist at the airport. The primary runway is 8,500 feet long and the crosswind runway is 2,273 feet long. In the past, the airport has serviced approximately 90,000 operations per year, with the emphasis in general aviation. The Greeley-Weld County Airport, a public airport, is located three miles east of Greeley, in the approximate center of Weld County, at an elevation of 4,658 feet MSL. At the airport there are currently a variety of small businesses, a flight school, private hangars and a terminal. The airport includes a new 10,000 foot runway and a 5,000 foot runway. A new taxiway is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2001. Although commercial flight activity currently does not occur at this airport, the airport is a busy facility providing services to training, crop dusting, and private/corporate airplanes. r•- r FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page42 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Ill. DEMOGRAPHIC/ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE 2025 Regional Transportation Plan III. DEMOGRAPHIC/ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE A. Socio-Economic Data The travel demand model used to project future travel volumes relies on two primary elements of socio-economic data: households and employment. Previous planning efforts had developed these data for the region for the base year 1998 and the year 2020. From these data, projections for the year 2025 were developed in coordination with the planning staffs of each of the local entities. As part of the process, these household and employment data were further sorted into categories of low, medium and high income households and retail and non-retail employment. For modeling purposes, the NFR has been divided into 622 transportation analysis zones (TAZs) for which the household and employment data were compiled. 1. 1998 Household and Employment Data Table III-1 provides a summary of the 1998 household and employment data for the six larger communities and for the non-urban areas within Larimer and Weld Counties. As shown, at that time there were over 128,800 households and approximately 144,000 employees in the NFR. Over 86 percent of all households and over 95 percent of all jobs were located within the six larger communities. Table III-1 1998 Household and Employment Data r- osil t 3 garar a tli i o u inw 3 e o tell` t iterz f ! .......................................................................... , ;.. .t.' IOuse�hb4 °�:: Ii ". 3 'dpi, thfgg.tn ti Berthoud Area 3,664 1,457 Evans Area 3,235 3,378 Fort Collins Area 50,788 61,312 Greeley Area 29,626 47,173 Loveland Area 20,973 22,808 Windsor Area 2,829 1,276 Larimer County (non-urban areas) 7,996 1,965 Weld County (non-urban areas) 9,706 4,628 TOTAL 128,817 143,997 r r pi FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 43 1.0 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r 2. Projected Households and Employment r Table III-2 summarizes the household projections for future years 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025. The 1998 data are also provided for comparison purposes. As can be seen in the table, the number of households in the NFR are projected to increase annually between 2.0 and 6.0 percent in the larger communities, and from 2.9 to 3.8 percent annually in the non-urban areas of the counties. The overall projected increase in total households is approximately 2.8 percent per year. By the year 2025, it is projected that there will be approximately 269,000 households in the region. Table III-2 Projected Growth of Households �y figGlbd$!i£,p F5 ! rs itqri!�H,'�, l . a 3�i},iyyliyti;,=�i 34 � .i_+. # .ii itl ti p Vle��$ pt! v, it�"3 bi "Ayr ilk �' .5 i� Ito ! is It 5 tti tip In adhiJ' ,v •Pt7 maL'AN.,l 9�4� .:�� ijli ns, i�2 ;� !ill) 5 ! ! d :,t'^ 6 f CP l 't't'{I fi Ati l ! l�� IiN j E k+' ! 1 'i t tiL n N ii itr - f ME M& i flyf I orb f n �I�i' i q i. '`:'t w E f. J. R e i44.r199 itu ,.,,200+9a�"' Ns r 2010 r II ! 2013 !I 0 0 ". . '.di,'20 :5 it ' o- a a20 y. ... - am„r,�u , , :raaai . .. Berthoud Area 3,664 4,571 5,219 5,868 6,516 7,164 3,500 2.5% Evans Area 3,235 5,942 7,876 9,810 11,744 13,678 10,443 5.5% Fort Collins r Area 50,788 60,281 67,062 73,842 80,623 87,404 36,616 2.0% Greeley Area 29,626 37,070 42,387 47,705 53,022 58,339 28,713 2.5% Loveland Area 20,973 27,397 31,986 36,574 41,163 45,751 24,778 2.9% Windsor Area 2,829 5,591 7,563 9,536 11,509 13,482 10,653 6.0% Lorimer County (non-urban) 7,996 11,647 14,254 16,861 19,469 22,076 14,080 3.8% Weld County (non-urban) 9,706 12,588 14,646 16,705 18,763 20,822 11,116 2.9% TOTAL 128,817 165,087 190,993 216,901 242,809 268,716 139,899 2.8% is r r r IPFELSBURG Pol HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 44 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table III-3 provides a similar summary of employment projections in the region. Overall, employment is projected to grow at an even greater rate, approximately 3.1 percent per year. Table III-3 Projected Growth of Employment ¢uA' i' I t y 1ti �! 7 v� d r s qmiiitgogiP ve ' at i y I ` al Annual % . Increase1' Inc easefi ` I OFIRRIM (19+JV�+��I Al �l 1998 2065 { 2010�' 261,5 2020 ' '2025 2025), 5) Berthoud Area 1,457 5,622 8,597 11,573 14,548 17,524 16,067 9.6% Evans Area 3,378 4,511 5,319 6,128 6,936 7,745 4,367 3.1% r• Fort Collins Area 61,312 76,141 86,733 97,326 107,918 118,510 57,198 2.5% Greeley Area 47,173 60,119 69,334 78,550 87,765 96,981 49,808 2.7% Loveland Area 22,808 33,925 41,866 49,807 57,748 65,690 42,882 4.0% Windsor Area 1,276 1,849 2,259 2,669 3,079 3,488 2,212 3.8% Larimer County (non-urban) 1,965 3,617 4,797 5,977 7,157 8,337 6,372 5.5% Weld County (non-urban) 4,628 5,632 6,348 7,065 7,782 8,499 3,871 2.3% TOTAL 143,997 191,416 225,253 259,095 292,933 326,774 182,777 3.1% B. Environmental Profile r The most significant transportation related area of environmental concern in the NFR is air quality. The NFRT &AQPC was designated by the Governor as the lead air quality planning organization for the Greeley/Fort Collins area in June of 1993. The Council, in cooperation with the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, CDOT and local governments, is responsible for the development and implementation of the Fort Collins and Greeley elements of the State Implementation Plan, as well as other transportation related air quality planning projects in the NFR. 1. Attainment Areas Both Greeley and Fort Collins experienced violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide (CO) in the late 1980's and, as a result, their previous non- , attainment status continued with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991. CO levels have improved substantially in the 1990's, and Greeley was redesignated to attainment status on May 10, 1999. Fort Collins is in the process of developing a request for redesignation, which is expected to be completed by the end of 2001. r ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 45 r- r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan ^ Motor vehicle emissions constitute the major source of CO emissions in the NFR. A number of strategies are being administered to limit CO, including a Basic Inspection and Maintenance program, oxygenated fuels, and aggressive alternative transportation programs. These include transit, bicycle, pedestrian, carpool, and vanpool programs. In addition, extensive public education is taking place at the local and regional levels in an effort to encourage citizens to use alternative transportation modes. 2. Risk Areas The NFR does not contain any Air Quality At Risk Areas, which have been defined in the Rules and Regulations for the Statewide Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions as, "an area ... where violations of ambient air quality standards for small particulate matter may be imminent unless increases in emissions in the area are mitigated." r r r r r r IP FELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 46 2025 Regional Transportation Plan IV. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS 2025 Regional Transportation Plan P." IV. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS A. Overview In order to evaluate the effects of growth upon the NFR's transportation system, the NFRT & AQPC prepared regional travel demand projections based on socio-economic forecasts provided in Section III. The NFRT& AQPC has prepared a regional travel demand model which provided estimates and forecasts for the following three scenarios: • 1998 Base Year— 1998 socio-economic data and the 1998 roadway network. • 2025 Existing Plus Committed (E+C) —2025 socio-economic forecasts with the existing roadway network plus roadway improvements whose funding has been committed. • 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)—2025 socio-economic forecasts with the existing roadway network plus committed roadway improvements plus roadway improvement projects that are planned to be in place by the Year 2025. Planned projects include two components: the Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan that is detailed in Section VI of this report and additional improvements that local governments expect to implement within the next 25 years. Although many of the improvements in project categories other than roadways can be anticipated to have the effect of reducing roadway travel demand, these reductions have not been quantified on a project-by-project basis; therefore, the 2025 vehicles trip forecasts have not been reduced for this scenario. The remainder of this section provides a summary of travel demand forecasting results for the three scenarios described above. Year 2005 and 2015 scenarios have also been prepared for air quality analysis, but these interim year forecasts are not discussed in this chapter. B. Travel Demand Growth Daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT), the total distance traveled by all motor vehicles per day, was used as a gauge to measure the forecasted growth of travel in the region. Table IV-1 shows the estimated 1998 and forecasted year 2025 VMT for the region's three major urban areas and the region as a whole. Table IV-1 Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel St a r ai a a j 5 f ht;: 'mpMIMTyj Z. i i. �'� ;* agen( ..2025(E,k'c) .:..Parcedt(.' t .. '. Fort Collins Area 2,693,000 5,559,000 106% Greeley Area 1,547,000 3,579,000 132% Loveland Area 1,518,000 3,729,000 146% Other Areas 5,503,000 12,909,000 135% NFR Region 11,261,000 25,776,000 129% ^ FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 47 2025 Regional Transportation Plan These forecasts show that regional VMT is projected to grow by 129% between 1998 2% 1% and 2025. This VMT growth compares with household growth forecasts of 109% and employment growth forecasts of 127%. 1998 ROADWAY LO5 97% A systemwide measure which is a good indicator of the transportation impacts of growth is level of service (LOS), which is a measure of the quality of traffic flow on a t2% 7% roadway. As illustrated by Figure IV-1, a significant decrease in traffic operations would be expected if no improvements are 2025 E + C made to the transportation system. The ROADWAY LO5 percentage of roadway links operating at thittasmas LOS F (highly congested conditions) would increase from less than 1 percent in 1998 to I I = LOS aB/c 7 percent in 2025, while those operating at t:•:l = LOS D/E LOS D or E (nearing capacity) would a = LOS F increase from 2 percent in 1995 to 12 percent in 2025. Figure IV-1 Roadway System LOS 1998/2025 r P"" 5% The LOS results for the 2025 RTP scenario, 13% as shown in Figure IV-2 indicate an n = LOS A/B/C improvement over the results for the 2025 1.:.] = LOS D/E E+C scenario; however, there will still be = LOS F 82% significant congestion on the system. The percentage of roadway links projected to operate at LOS F will decrease from 7 Figure IV-2 Roadway System LOS percent to 5 percent, and the percentage of 2025 Build links projected at LOS A, B, or C will increase from 81 percent to 82 percent. ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 48 2025 Regional Transportation Plan C. Year 2025 Forecasts Figures IV-3 through IV-6 show Year 2025 daily traffic volume forecasts for key roadways in the Fort Collins area, Greeley area, Loveland area, and other parts of the region. These maps show both the 2025 E+C forecasts and the 2025 RTP forecasts. A comparison of the two 2025 �- forecast scenarios shows that the most significant differences are traffic volume increases on major roadway with widening assumed in the 2025 RTP scenario, including parts of US 34, Larimer County Road 17, Larimer County Road 38/Weld County Road 74, and Mulberry Street in Fort Collins. P ., ., FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 49 ra RaUglas Rd. I5NS6 CR 54 N } 28T El �IQ II.LIIJFF. 7. .t I. __ @'r6n -k IERRY) IP « Ltl LAKEto '-AV, Pou 1?Mil CR54G .� CR52 J rs rmsls ^ 93981 LONG I klrq fr 'P D [ VI is $ setts),awa. ' °' _ L SaJTs 1 1 1 \ .n E, ( . � �" f �"�r.'� 9.19.11 • •Li : warpe.r..o-. MIMICS eLa CR50 �4 q y _ N \ n I9a�py5i comas ^ \ER C_", Q 1T - I I •ID 9 V . .J �.' •. as — SEE IIASET 4 I .- '� Vine Dr 16-3,3.34:1, T I AGE F 26.125.] Vine Dc ' 273127A :^CR 48 �ti r •rIDGVOLUME�L: �AA�,1�a, 31.1/30.7.• • \\ _I \ 1 C` [13/1126\..J 39.4619 :uRvuan. 1 •. 1 •G •`�_ x..11`•I a..� aNRR 1 _ ny A « F � _ € le.mo.]l Mulberry �.Th .9suasiN e9.9nv1 (ts) `' . r. �� r licons.21 se I.....6L T •w• HORSe110 TH ` I CRu Prospect Rd. Loa St —•—� l91.Y3.9AI 'I.`. ,••-\ GS9`I Q 43 z3 ••�._..I i�` K r9N1]A ^I&Wa j•I sumps i 1 ''• \•.\ : v\.� 'I.J CR44 e . 3:( i•—• . ' CR42 "1 O mk-RC C •.•.� . cjk 1 11602.1 I )ISO u Sir v . • ,N .: 11=11 CR40 Homaloolb Rd. [39.1/4641 CR40 ..— r.- 1 lc' 31 39.9/1471 -7 •-REN N ,sans ,A _;I,1 - I �._..� .R 1 �__1 f CR38E a. —' Nemm�Y Rd _..II��`] 6)A/661,� 5.9.17 .1� LR B �68F LR J8 b1Z3A 33.9/ •99 �I I I I (lee) I • �� _ — 1 • S _V r' ! • ! -i�11/1.3 CR 36 1]ell]b �..i it - LL. �.is 4z"a f 7' __4}} F a m2' I .J t33 _ J• CR3<•. nesn9.11 ' r•18.9498 AJC Rd. { /\ .n .c J Ati_ _ l(lit/ 1 ' FOSSIL CREEK. • ! �r r.- E rust �.� REST N r .a S .. z.._ .a �•.� E 1} 46J/159�--.�� \. n P CR32: I L 9 4 JI "� CR32 - O r� 131.]/31.31 j a Q 9: U ' — — 2e' S 1 U\ CR30 1 1121/981 i LirrzeMAro. ` eE ta'. 'Ave. N 133/1:8 I WAS Mountain Ave. I c i 4 . s C� E S r. Iy / ` I I Mulberry St. LEGEND i 1a]/16.01 Ixxx/xxxl= No Build/FiscallyConstrained Plan r^ Laurin Sr 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volume Forecasts r 1x1131.91 1 /n __ __� NOTE:Volumes in Thousands Figure IV-3 drillFELSBURG ,.� �N Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forcasts H O LT G nand: — ULLF.VIG tt.a in the Fort Collins Area 00-155 6/01/01 . 1 1 1 1 "I - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 5,., I se . lit 4 Li lm L $ n ®iii■ a . 19.&'163 AS/(6 I1, sl ■■■■■■ ■■�Lj■ (a-.91, 56.&'11.6 _ : ¢ st A I 181m51„"1"� i R .� l._.. L bas tit to u u I -•e u Is 5 s1■■■■ � ■ 1■ cFl as 16 11 x&'111 1l�r56 av13.1 •y�193.2/53]1. ;6. SI S C 1 aIn Uv163 1213113.01 ••' TM S PI NC 199/111 Rry _ .., � .,U UNC /T$n U ; 19b19a 14.6/14.6 •••. � Ind/30.5i t I rat. •• 13.01139 p3&'13� : • •'• .116v1661 .� Z. L •-✓ L.r. V 19.7/18.5 l ,.,AMst Re,- V 1$j t, Is al �. '^ .i•✓••. r 5.9/92 FSt f.1Mi 111 GR' Business ' �b5� UNCS .■.��OI)y(�J� Lfl 82 .M1LV. L '` 0.5 C5� CR 62 / i f ! .G let St nd al 1 1 • TLbi9.1 S 1 ` 2¢ 0 &'-• ••` I I GREFlEY.WELIJ{_ J ■_ W. .� 1 •Js.1/3511 )m 51 .9..9.9Yu ' l ..J F ! .■� .911w ]. �'1.JJ-L9'5'i.9 I ICOONTY AIRPORT %E L Oth si FC_, ... dIK..:1 tW— 9fL593 .ti•e J17�' wise St _p. � _...f - 45.aa.1 i �uuaaAa . m pia,""/T:A i • s • _. s _r : _ {��_I_..L.......e... 1I ] I• t.. I.. L.._ Y - com u3mAn� x&'u5„n' .u.a . ISM se ,.I I L„_, 1 W.20th St r . 55.439.0 <�� —••-439. `' =�i .�..1 ixtn_5.2 15NnJ " I9.4/9.61t� • • IfeAa6A i t < n6xIO ' cases J 45i-.. ... -...44.. y < ttl '1sT ■U��'n I� Urs.9 I '.. S '�16,R6,6.5I 'kJ la, Id. g k d 1/� FiOt-ae aJ I _� p6vnq i. J' -� I 9 �� e _ - I< ' ,Ti— 6941.0 6).O41.9a�559/511.I '� 111/Ul� BYMeeN •tea. o 275 St •11 16.1/1) ;19.9(SlA 16.2/16.7 15.9/16.1 LEGEND _ xx.xtxx.= No BuIld/Fiscally Constrained Plan 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volume Forecasts NOTE:Volumes in Thousands figure IV-4 / 6$t,//t,R,l, �_�\ Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts 1 I'LLHO E 11,4.,6.0^67.'"lYI,o..MT in the Greeley Area I LLEYI<I M.d66e.N1 16115'/3061 ' 1 - 1 5 1 • 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Q a 1ss/n.e `\ .. � ].YS.1 9.LR! 15.1/1) CR SO 11181., fl.1/90.01 YKB �x.9nasl Iu�i1 29th St. I :e o �\ `A`{'(A\ ` A A..� I �{ \i .L;;i- co€ L \,,,rrr\ \) Munkl�l Avryrl ,'t' Snh aml zae s. i alM.^� C5 LAKE b. i U !GARS, Crostroset Blvd. R 16th St. ( 2�.- (: I \••1 CRNE 'S/ — i _'._..JAL A 9Tna 9TM1 Y. T . 13.1199 •.a .._.._.. .._.. C _yam /e _ i E fixer = 1=9.2/10)1 ., 1r5 _ u S:'c It 1 I I I I"c�.�� gESER " ate V. _:� y"A J II p i TS eExeas• a. R £ .,--, i an Sf. S7y17•� - '23 • III\ 1)=.1/.36.61 ��. 6 Esw,n+..Ia'°' �•�.. !.._..{ A--'I j �� s5Jns.9 f3al I J I xJ — 161:Wq •SM SMS21 62.7/69.2 �GW NWT• 0 7th St /.._�-, .�I to st INSET ,ma 1 ? -� �:�••��CqA le 7.3/19 1st a.p25l1s.11 -/ t .\ ._ r ^•� W J. l ! eCi .1 r I sium:7 ja,no x 6umsl Ciii nN61sl— I AA = rero a. ', .i CR 160 Ili- N 11 =,7 CR16 ,1 •_A CR 1e i i OR re 1 15.6/6611 19.6/691 - 1178115.51 LEGEND I $ Ixx.wxx.xl= No Bulld/Fiscally Constrained Plan 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volume Forecasts NOTE:Volumes in Thousands Figure IV-5 III FEI.,11111 ; My Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts O1 ALT S �ixr(Ah 0.enM1 H O L VLT m ..,k6a..x in the Loveland Area .i3,AIFI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 ` r. L.: n_ ;C: %CLAIM _) 1 In .n' 2. LCRe 2 wane Nu n ^ °i ; ' 2.7 _ z�■ —_ ■■`■ L ¢ U S 9s 5 .I t LOAM n m, LQ� 1i 1a �\ ' p LCR55 3 I WLl1 B3 L. - so WCR es ■� ...'�IA�UtoForl :111 mL SO ' Ca11ilM� !9I 3 �nr' 21.0/32.6 R 7 RSO L.._ .. .., .m �'..15 i l _. . _ • i E LCRSOE ni- - ] 147 I 25.0 1 W• i 1 \ D • . -. —■ r L I MMr jr 41 `3 3/15.7 _ s� °a�(..,R �� . 'Y veland ,-7 d c .'A� r © ,so : &, - a , ' lea ]`.N741 .q • 121/133 I c Lame I It .'■mare '(��< . wcRss • yo� LL 140E 20.1/18.1 mR/s �fl �a \r \) _.. 05-t.:-/- f s. Johan I ^��.. "fib' L Iz i 9 •� ` .._.� i i i li L A� r+1193/17.6 M .« M VI.11 ^■�� 7 a ^'S LEGEND t. dws ��Y.- �w g r _ �IFre.! ,y kxx.xLxx.xl= NO Build/Fiscally Constrained Plan a - 8£ ;54;;; 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volume Forecasts r a WORN)^Y�. ■ N. «1 � ' ii •�3 g � �'� WCR5R NOTE:Volumes in Thousands IARIMERCmMIY.}e. . .�.. .. • —.. 3 U ¢ © a a PON9.R A COUNTY IA Ll / • ••2 ! 3 figure IV-6 IAFFL-nuul --. Y �\ Year 2025 Daily Traffic Forecasts VLLEYII; mlitit GR""Ail^^`,.. ) ily 00-133 5/01/0i. '— 2025 Regional Transportation Plan V. VISION PLAN 2025 Regional Transportation Plan V. VISION PLAN The Vision Plan includes all of the transportation improvements identified as being needed in the region by the year 2025. All projects were initially identified through the local entities, which submitted project descriptions using a standard form to ensure uniform and consistent information. As briefly addressed in the Introduction of this report (see Figure 1-2), all projects were categorized and then carried through a prioritization process to establish a list of projects ranked in order of their importance to the region. A. Project Prioritization Process .. The project prioritization process that was developed as part of the 2020 RTP process was refined by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Council. The entire methodology is documented in a report entitled Project Prioritization Process, May 2000. A key premise in the project prioritization process is that projects should be prioritized only against projects of a similar nature; only in this manner can a set of evaluation criteria be uniformly applied to projects for comparative purposes. Thus, six (6) project categories, as defined below, were established. • Transit - Projects in this category would include vehicle purchase, service expansion and operations, and supporting facilities/infrastructure (such as transit transfer centers, maintenance facilities, shelters, etc.) for regional bus service, city bus systems, and paratransit services such as special providers and the regional vanpool programs. • Rail - Projects in this category would include any projects which would enhance service or supporting facilities/infrastructure for passenger rail, would maintain and improve the rail system for freight haul (including intermodal facilities), and would improve rail/highway grade crossings. • Bike/Ped -These projects would include all projects with a primary purpose of providing for safe and efficient bicycle or pedestrian movement. They could include travelways or supporting facilities such as bike racks, storage lockers, etc. • Travel Demand Management-These projects would be those which provide planning, marketing, education, and management support for programs which will reduce growth of VMT and will encourage a shift in mode from SOV travel in the region. Examples of such programs could include ridesharing, parking management, and telecommuting. • Transportation Systems Management -This category should remain flexible and would include studies and projects which provide support to the infrastructure system. It could include projects and studies related to issues such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS), access management, traffic signal systems, etc. All planning studies would be included in a pool within this category. r IPFELSBURG / HOLT & ULLEVIG Page54 • 100 2025 Regional Transportation Plan • Highway/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) -This category would include all projects which have a primary objective of improving the infrastructure for safe and efficient vehicular movement. Such projects could include new roadways, roadway widening (including general purpose and HOV lanes), intersection and access improvements, shoulder widening, and park-n-ride lots. Seven (7) evaluation criteria, as defined below, were developed to be applied to all project categories and to ensure that all of the goals of the plan were addressed by at least one of the r criteria. • System Continuity - Projects should complete gaps or improve incomplete or inadequate segments of the regional system. Emphasis should be placed on inter-regional corridors and on regional connections (major origins to major destinations) rather than local connections (within communities). • Congestion Mitigation - Projects should reduce congestion by capacity or operational improvements, or by reducing demand through trip reduction or shifts to alternative modes. • Safety Enhancement - Projects should enhance safety by addressing an existing hazardous situation, a potentially unsafe situation, or a transportation facility of substandard design. • Multi-Modal Enhancement - Projects should enhance more than a single mode of travel or should improve connection between modes. • Environmental - Projects should improve the quality of the environment in the region (air quality, noise pollution, water quality, energy consumption, etc.) and impacts should be able to be mitigated. • Implementability - Projects should have evident public support; should be supported by an adequate public facilities ordinance, a transportation impact fee program, or a similar program; and should work in conjunction with and be compatible with the applicable comprehensive plans in the region. • Cost Effectiveness - Projects should reflect a positive relative benefit/cost ratio, and should minimize long-term operating and maintenance costs. r pm FELSBURG ll 4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 55 F- 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Although these criteria are applicable to all project categories, it was recognized that the assessment measures for a criterion may differ for each project category. Further, it was recognized that the relative importance of each criterion could be different for the various project categories. Therefore, a scoring and weighting system was developed for each project category. Scoring guidelines were prepared to provide guidance on how a project should be scored (with scores ranging from 0 to 3) for each evaluation criterion. These scores are then multiplied by the assigned weight for each criterion and summed to obtain total weighted points for a project. The weighted points are used to rank projects within each project category. These ranked projects comprise the Vision Plan. B. Vision Plan r- Tables V-1 through V-7 summarize the Vision Plan projects for the six project categories and also present their prioritized rank within the category. These tables include a brief project identification, the estimated cost (in constant dollars), and the rank of the project within the category. At the top of each table, projects that are committed in the current North Front Range 2001- 2006 Transportation Improvement Program or, in the case of Transit, represent a continuation of existing service, are listed. There are 381 uncommitted projects in these six project categories. In several cases, there is overlap between projects in two different categories; in those cases, the corresponding project in a different project category is indicated in the column entitled "Additional Category", and project cost totals are adjusted to avoid double counting. The total cost of uncommitted projects in the Vision Plan is an estimated $4,498 billion. r— 1. Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects The Vision Plan includes 59 uncommitted bicycle/pedestrian projects, with a total cost of$66.3 million. These projects encompass a variety of types, including bike lanes on roadways, off- road multi-purpose paths/trails, and grade separations. The right-hand columns of Table V-1 provides project cost totals for projects on the State Highway system (less than 9%) and off of the State Highway system (91%). The majority of the projects propose the addition of bike lanes on roadways, many in conjunction with roadway widening projects. r- 2. Highway/HOV Projects There are 211 uncommitted Highway and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) projects with a total cost of$2.22 billion. Nearly half of these projects, representing more than $1.0 billion, are on the State Highway system. Additionally, the cost of off-system projects that are on corridors designated as Regionally Significant is more than $320 million. A review of Highway/HOV project rankings reveals that a majority of the higher ranked projects are on the State Highway system or on other Regionally Significant Corridors, while projects that are not on Regionally Significant Corridors tended to receive lower rankings. The Highway/HOV projects in the Vision Plan are quite diverse, ranging from intersection improvements and minor widening to major widening or relocation of key regional roadways. r- ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 56 r 1025 Regional Transportation Plan r TABLE V-1 , BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS r nal On State Cumulative On-System Off-System Rank I Project 5 Atltlitlo na Submitting Agency ; Project Cost Est. State Cost Cumulative Cumulative Cata9 I I Cost Cost TIP I Fort Collins Harmony Road Bike Lanes $154,000' ~ n Yes $154,0001 $154000''„ TIP ll Evans Bike/Ped Path from Riverside Park to US 85 $101,000 No $255,000! I $101,000, TIP Greeley Poudre River Trail-Poudre River Ranch,Phase II $267,000, No $522,000 5368,000,1 •" TIP Loveland I Enhance Ped Links to Transfer Areas in Downtown Loveland $54,0001 No $576000 $422,000., L !Bike Lane Improvements,Lanmer County Road 17 South of TIP satinet County Trilby Road $155,0001 Yes $731,000'. $308,000! TIP Greeley Bike Path,16th Street from 25th Avenue to 23rd Avenue $61,000 No $792,000 i $483,000'1 law ! TIP 1 Loveland !Bike/Ped Underpass,US 34 West of Wilson Avenue $723,000! Yes 51,515,000 $1,032,000! , TIP !Greeley Bike/Ped Student Crossing.UNC,11th Avenue at 22nd Str j $139,000 No I $1,654.000! II $622,000 ^ [TIP TOTAL $1,654,000' $1,032,000 $62200011 Nilson Avenue/Eisenhower to 1st Street-Widen for Bike 1 BP24'. LOWUM ,� � $$OOAOo No $3W.' - 1 BP-45 Fort Collins Bike a Pedestrian b prorhmante.Campus West $3,500.000 No $9.800.000 53.500,000 Evans Town OMch BBSTedrbbn TM/boa,91st SOwtb ^ 9 BP•19 ' , Evan 48N Sfraat. 5142,000 No ,. 59,98;000 -53,9/1,90 BRalsMa on Ham,o ryRoad(BNRR Tracks b Co/loge / BP4f'- -- Fort C0Bns, $600.400 No $4,1/1,09 4 BP41; Fort Coltlns , Bikeanes on rlonotoot Road(BNRR Tracks to Stover) $750,000 No - - 55,19;000 ..:$6,192,000 ^ '.. / RD-SI ` ' Fort Coda, Bdtelams on NOM College-!,ors SNfbPoudm RMar $750.000 Ye. $5,W1,000 •$7$G Of10 - 7 BP49- , Lovebnd :: PlsdlaoW/ph b SOwrleat Wden br BBe LrNa $285,000 No : .$0.190.000 4a<. ;x 36.48390, 7g .BP-24. 1 S.Loveland S' Gradeapantlon to Taft andbkbs Branch- ,:$500400 Ne' , $5.730000 $5,980,000 ^ 9 BP,475''tt, 11.143 x Fort COBns . BRWess on Taft gm Road b We Paudra ,NP'orb liked- 5198,000 No 98098000 $413409, •D 80.75,E FPad - } I . ,y. . FoRCo(gpi Bpwi PgTmylowmnb-launl56wt „z rr _5160,000 - No� .$7000.000 . -, 94000' X 11 BR16....- " cs.f L•rla,r Simig tar40arCoupyR° 11CB(eynmita.," r 5374000 No $7,/06,000 55063000' ^ ,.12 _� Lsrbw L44,04:q�rR«a*FP kitia..n.. 1;ti �-' 51,004000 ,!vo. 444051000 • "_ss5ssao6 11 BPs$, RvtJ° Foie CoteC, r.- B/kMN,a$•n TpfbyRoatfP01,wWp Roadb TmNBt 51134000 No ' ..5$.633000 . .$0,754000 14 BP1 e 4 • T x.= at Stea:1.'5;4- SM.Lanes - , ‘,...-:r tr 1 $103000 119'7" ': $9690.600 ,56084000 r•x - 'III $ ..?a Ag o a on iNsa„SImNOan Cowry b Lamella s"fi.4,a»: > $963000 Port; .$14584000 • e} ,a',M =5!094000 e ii.;FM Gbl6nc�1`•.` BBNpMPSM aIarBRMaMe 9Rl4proeMefb ciet x sC�s a ' ^ `.6' £ am,. {"`Y'-',,, 5Nb,1 Sine Cpr/dor,3 Bari d Ped Mpillint4, •.: i.r Nrmoera'Foaa6Geak 9,444.&4 i. (19-#5y.'•t`�``r' F2S=SH14 nte.ch!ngeAr s Posse? PSOsabip .000;0010S'. ,17 twat:, ói4'.' US287Al anti Bicycletiama SN54 toLCR12 t Y *rl F ^ CtNny'S..'larked, Roar:31 Lanes•FMbSNi67'°rr . Fk. 1 r+sur --& BBVIVpmdn asprapdooasseyonHasmonyator- al CeRrw Q-t,� Camay1,'',a-4,..4:-..,:•?.':-.,,„ • " ; Foil.' r5rj'- SamPede$04 P•a.alon6kr$I$A vsneejcmNfe!: nx r. kx , , ,h. t- B/aafarmsarWM9(Hn Jo SbIM i Co q.Road 118lcyce Lanes4 Fort Cold.9LaPaul . ,, 19 r.:‘ ,..,,,...... ..,. LrtmerCoen4'RoM$O Bkjch Lanes Lonny to LCR7' $000000 No '411 !4 s 51014,000 ,-• 3 e ie u-':. Pjm16e TY98dtl-L ePath'- ... No9011,,t $151102.000 ':-C%,":1),49, $14562000 9112-.4BP-58 # RaawvolRoadhlleaagr VS199etto12thAwwee ,: $106000 No $19 t $16.754000 284 t - - "i- reWiy 23n0A b d ``Wd 411!Sheet b,'¢Stow $9,009 No .:$19.3034000-1-_•.1.,•,-- -,,,q,= $14 58,000 _ gs.„2445.1/2,—°•,•;; t r a 98 ; r r. '4 *t-li ' $$$ r I *;W �' t0. Na _ $25.950.aoq ,„ �x $s1,a6eom • J1 Bpi FoilC0ma1 BaeMaeoaMos.,ry 0RIn nMq 'T $1,800.. Yes -sna4000 44350,000 .:+ y.-- x 3..', N3 Ct ,,r„1 a,e„ k.;,r 1 . Y tv sa' ' 1-.r5. ,31 `o T 913 '°`. Foil µz BBal$60•nLanmy 6PPrrtka 54700 No -'5341414" • .' r .$26,550,000 731" � �^. '' Ti ,o, y' ..,„,,,e,;"1,✓ T,a�snuedmpaaa ler b&es nS k- 4 $2,000,09 No $32,964004 » ₹4*,$27,664904 • 310', fWCollnal TM.,,,,:.-4.,,:-,°: gNfbsth b LCRME $25409 No. $33,154000 r>.-r' $27,09.09 r r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan P. TABLE V-1 BIKEIPEDESTRIAN PROJECTS r. I On-System Off-SystemRank I Project a AdditionalSubmitting Agency Project Cost Est On Slate I Cumulative Cumulates cu move Category System?I Cost 1 Cost Coal I 36 BP-1 Latimer County Big Thompson Riveting 51,760,000 No $34,906,000 ;$20,550.000 ^ 36: BP-11. Lading,County East Pouch Blew Trill $2,250,000 No $37166,000 :_$31,806,000 tsars r County Roads 13,16E and 13C Bicycle Lanes-Sly u BP-1a. i,mrwcoemy _ eoro$Nao2. sow lee -$nafi5,oao i ' uwsa9c 37 OP-1a Ladner Coney West Pbudre River Tray $1,500,000 No ..$33,156,000 $33,806,000 39 BP-29 Smart Trips Region-wide Railroad Right-of-Way Intercity Bicycle Path j $9,504,000 No 548,660,000'. $43,310,000 39 BP-60 I Greeley Loveland/Greeley Irrigation Ditch bike/pad path $480,0001 No $49,140,000 I ! $43.790,000 Greeley/Loveland Canal Bike/Ped Underpasses under US 34 41 BP-31 (Greeley 'Bypass $1,750,000; No 1' $50,890,000 $45,54(1,000 'Latimer County Road 19 Bicycle Lanes-Loveland to Fort 42 BP-5 H-3 Latimer County $1,500,000 No $52.390,0001 $47,040,000 _ Collins I 43 BP-10 ,Latimer County Latimer County Road 5 Bicycle Lanes $750,000 No $53,140,000 $47,790,000 e.. 43 BP-26 I Loveland School Sidewalk Gap Improvements $175,000 No $53,315,000 $47,965,000 43 BP-6 H4 Lanmer County ILarimer County Road 32 Bicycle Lanes I $750,000 No I $54,065,000 $48,715,000 46 BP-13 Latimer County I-25/Poudre River Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Crossing I $500,000 No $54,565,000 . $49,215,000 .. 47 it BP-58 Greeley Sheep Draw Multi-tae Trail $686,000 No S55,2 51,00;1 $49,901,000 I Latimer County Roads 12 and 904 Bicycle Lanes-SH 60 to 48 BP-14 Latimer County $1,000,1700; No $56,251,000 $50,901,000 ;Loveland 48 BP-49I Fort Collins I Bikelanes on Mountain from Riverside to Meldrum $125,000 No ' $56,376,000 $51,026,000 P. 50 BP-59 ,Greeley 35th Avenue/WCR 35 Bike Lane $3,000,000 No $59,376,000i $54,026,000 51 BP-12 H-1 Latimer County I-25 Frontage Road Bicycle Lanes $1,250,000 No $60,626,000 I $55,276,000 51 BP-47 Fart Collins Bike/pad-West Central Neighborhood $2,500,0001 No $63,126,000 $57,776,000 .. 51 BP-48i FortCollins Eastside Neighborhood-Bike B Ped Improvements [ $4,000,000 No I $67,126,000 $61,776,000 54 BP-33 (Greeley 22nd Street Bike Path,7th Avenue to 1st Avenue I $130,000 No $67,256,000 I $61,906,000 55 BP-28 'Lowland Madison @ recreation trail underpass(Phase 2) $503,000 No $67,756,000 $62,406,000 .. 56 BP-20 Evans Evans Town Ditch Bike/Pedestrian Trail from 49th Avenue to the $750,000 No $68,506,000 $63,156,000 Little Thompson River 57 I BP-21 Loveland Loveland Bike Route Signing end Striping I $170,000 No $68,676,000 $63,326,000 57 BP-27 Loveland Madison Avenue recreation trail crossing pedestrian-aduatedl $35,000 No $68,711,000 I $63,361,000 Basher(Phase 1) mai 59 , BP-43 li H-100 FortCollins Mamas on Prospect Road(Shields to Timberline) $9,000,000 No i 577,711,000 $72,361,000 Project costs also included with Highway or Rail category -$11,400,0001 UNCOMMITTED PROJECT TOTAL $66,311,000 $$,3500,000 $80,961,000 , BIKEIPEDESTRIAN GRAND TOTAL _$67,965,000]$6,382,000 $61,583,000 '" " .. .-WAt , =Fiscally Constrained Projects r r r r r- r .. 2025 Regional Transportation Plan P ee TABLE V-2 HIGHWAY PROJECTS Rank I Project a Atl Catte goryegory Submitting Agency Project Cost Est. Stab Cumulative Cost On-System Off-System Cumulative Cost Cumulative Cost System? TIP COOT US 34 Business Widening.SH 257 to 47th Avenue I $25,289,000 Yes ll $25,289,000 l 525,289000 TIP "COOT US 287 Widening,SH 1 to LaPorte Bypass $19,335,0001, Yes $44,824,000 $44,824,000 TIP 1 CDOT US 34 Widening.Jefferson Avenue to Monroe Avenue 62,843,0001 Yes $47.267,000 $47,287,000 US 287,shoddy Intersection and Rebuild Canal TIP I COOT 63,429,000 Yes 550,898,000 I 550,898,000 Crossing at 1st Street in Loveland TIP li ICDOT SH 402 Widening,US 287 to F25 $30,346,0001 Yes $81,042,000 $81,042,000 Pee TIP CDOT IUS 34/Taft Avenue Intersection Improvements $234,000;.. Yes $81,278,000 I $81,278,000 TIP [COOT SH 14/I-25 Interchange Improvements,Phases I and III 12.250,00011 Yes $83,528,000 $83,528,000 TIP I 1 I Ber houd [Roundabout at SH 58/1st Street in Berthoud 5251,000 Yes : $83,777,000 $83,777,000 I lees Intersection Improvements,Latimer County Road 17/ 1 TIP Latimer County Lorimer County Road 34 6275,000., Yes 584.052,000 584.052.000 TIP [Loveland Safety Improvements on Latimer County Road 9 at GWl $153,0001 No $84,205,000 $153,000 e. TIP TOTAL $84,205,000 $84,052,00 j $153,000 1 :. 0.16 Johnstown First Street(51160)and Parish Allnue $100,000 YS $100,000 $100,000 f . :0.60 . Lon/and. US 34WRlanhi9 Galleon to LGR 3(1.5 mils,sett 629 e14glg yes 52%904000 524804000 al 426) 3.:. 0.203 Loveland (IS 34/US 287 Intersection RecrnWuetlan #;000,000:.: Ye #6,900,000 435,004000 J:. 0.88 MFR MPG. Signal Pool-Various Loeetluns Region WMs $1,260,000 No. .543,150,000 47,250,000 JelMsaVRMralde(Ste 141 Aeolis*Management 6 0. 1,430 6µ 76 Fort Conine '(sterrf r .5 ,000 Yse 680,00g 477,994000 I : IIJ3 COOT 426 S US 340r4uchenge(Loveland):.: $47,000,000 Yes $91,580,000, $µ334g00 1-25/SN 14 hmnchangs Anse lmprovrbrW •7 :. . 0.# : . Carlton CO!IrdY - .PhaeJ 519,004000 Yw $188,514000 6470,$0,000 "LMnmrtesrmy Roedt7(T RAn)Wd'ning• 1-. 14$6 BP-0 Larlmv County ':.01MUicrrtlto LovelarM-: f/,42t,000 No'' $11$,001,000 $15,471,000 S:.: 111 Larbiwr Cotmp, Lediiar Couriy11rCi7(ShNMe Sr As+) .47,164000 ..Roe 5120.881,000 #7.6$1,000 .�. ; :WMntbq-L4wWrMdFert Calgm 415511U hdervMngn Art m ,ovenwnM- f0 If4 LnMw Caumy Plite2 31,704000 Yr. H2;661,000 889,0$0,000 11 1449 Gristly Roundabouts 23:0Aremre and US 34 Basin, : 4{000,000 Yes $12,661,000 $101,034000 US 267(Garfield Asenoe)•2616 Sanest to 71st 12 IF88 LOVWm/- ttt 61{,200.000 yes. 882,7H,Goo $115,294000 — 13 /414 'Mqt MPG 8*08al P,d end R/de Lot Pool $,004000 Mod: $140,781,000 #5,631,000 ', C -.t NG16 Cahaq IS?57)Accw Mnagemet fin ' nuee 14": 0.7b .': Flan Cetlur - � #0,7884300 Ye- $1$1,600,000 $1$5,880,000 . 4215014 frdneh ng.Area bi nvviwib- .. 16 IF10 Lavlmn G9ernR' ., PhinJ .$6,704000 Yti 6147,204000 $1$1,188,000; 16 N;231` . Greeley":." Gs 16 a ad Mh Sads _...s. U4000 Yea '$167,604000 $142,06gp00 17.:-' 11JD C00T," Rj'Wr s US 5$S.nth.rye(GnWy a $24004000 Ye. $195,8 0 40 0 0 $1740µO00, 17.:.. 1147 L,esWnd US27atolondn Ngnw.y402= ::$200,000 1st.. ,$196,800,000. $174288,600 ' 19 110}9' Gre41aY, US Ypr9rMi 9MMMbnAe!We,175d'' 524005,009 Yr. J2tasoo,0oo $f342y,000, 14;' u-n Fertcoisn )Aeete,wriegamnat Plen u418xuoo ' bur #45,964000 #63,434,000 .21.; N-7l FMtt'o#40 . . a rt $7.404000 Yetr', $264485,500 ;2J0..a3f.000 E', 1116Avenua$Jfid#(M SbNtpdanwibn v ?r. 0.# '. "Suer' ' .. if104000 Nor #66,885,000 .#6„881,000 22' " 14221., (,15;3101n,bier,23dAnrueto35d Avwie . 22. 0.2 CGG7,� 125aad$11792 hatcher 4wilde07)� $21004000 Yr' $212,216,000 ,#58,214;000. 2 - '0.28 GnWy USVl endlM 9ae!t hlfltiridori $450,000 Yec W;476,000 #65,741,000` . 2E' 14-334 Gnslay USJJ 88B ,n Id 22nd$beet hdaneetlm .:260000 Ye $2#,135.080 #47,205,000 27 0.288 Greeley' r Park h Ride LetQ/M1YYY34 S KWVS6 interchange :$604000 Ida* ##,736,000 $11,531,000 arfm•f27 0.E 8!16 L diner Coumy. „ Road 3MHWd County Road 74 47050,000 tee! 42$1,7$4000 #4,141,000 '2$- )4.23] ": 161601ypn0t1nd16d$Ortbsncl/M ' GraslsY '. � ,1ha :6464000 Yee. #81.884000 SZ47,885,000 . 30 11-40 COOT , U$2413ypo„a COIAwtnue , -.#4004000 Yr $311,845,000 $2n16/,000' ima 31 0.43" COOT Ulu B)5w all sS'0wf $200,000 Yet. '##,046,000 $271,165,.000 32 0.47 COOT - US8801ype+,at Mr Sans $204000 Yr $31;24000 $274Oµ000 FIM3014 hdnehepo An,Inmros'enenla- JJ 0.1$ ,LerfrnMCoumy ,,..PMe4 :61,000.000 Yet #15,25,0010 S21!,0µ000 P.M 34 H-100 0143 -PorttolHne Prospect Widening from Collage to Lenny $13,144000 Noe $324384000 $47,321,000 e�w 34 0.$3 Ladner County X14 hit vhenge Arr/elfl/palnnib. :a000000 Ye 5324316,000 J2$1,0µ000 r C ; Fra 2026 Regional Transportation Plan F ` TABLE V-2 HIGHWAY PROJECTS 'Addftionall On On-System Off-System Rank I Project N sem Category Submitting Agency Project Cost Eat. State Cumulative Cost System? Cumulative Cost Cumulative Cost 94 9346 ' COOT US 86 Bypass at 22nd Street $200,00° yes *328,688pa0 92.1,244,000- 37 -H-225 Greeley US 34 Bypass and lit Avenue Improvements 91.600,000 In $330.186,000 $2a2,864,0o0 e. 37 H-30 I CDOT I-25&SH 402 Interchange(Loveland) I $30,000,000'! Yes $360.185,0001 $312,884,0001 39 11-202 Greeley Interchange deLd@HWV 318Tvo Riven PKWY 5800,000 No' $380,705000 I $47,921,000 40 H-70 I Greeley US 34 Bypass and 83rd Avenue Interchange 520,000.000'. Yes $380,785,0001 5332,864,000 41 H-38 COOT I SH 392:1-25 to Downtown Windsor $22,113,000 Yes $40;89500011 $354.977,0001 rear 41 K91 Fat Collins Harmony Rd-Seneca St to BNSF RR,contribution for $2,600,000 No $405 498,000 II $50,521,000 Front Range Community College frontage Timberline Road Widening,from Drake Road to 41 H-92 Coigns Cs 001 Prospect Road I 515,480,0001 No 5420,9]8,0 , $68,OO1po0 45 I H-200 I Fat Collins ISH 14 to U5287 Truck Route Bypass I 585000,0001 No** $505,978,000 1 $151,001,000 1 L. 'Taft Hill Road Improvements,Horsetooth to Old 45 N-88 Fort Collins Harmony $13,860,000 No. 5518838,0001 i 5164,861,000 47 H-99 Fort Collins Prospect Widening from the nouns River to 425 518,037,0001 No' 5535.975,0000 $160,898,000 48 H-79 I Fat Collins 1 Harmony Road Waenirg from Interstate 25 to College $57,780,000 Yes ! $593,855,000 $412,757,0001 Lorimer County Road 19(Wilson Avenaft Hell Rd) 49 K3 BP-5 1 Latimer County 512,000,000 No' 5805,855000 Wk 1 1 5192,898,000 Widening-Loveland to Fat Collins 49 H-82 Fat Collins Trilby Road-College Avenue Intersection 51,280,000 Yes 5806,915,0001 $414,017,000 Improvements College Avenue-Horsetooth Road Intersection 49 iii I H-83 ; Fort�Ile�lmrovements $2,]00.000'1 Yes 5609,815,000 5418,717,000 49 H-84 Fat Collins !LaPorte-College Intersection Improvements $1,280,000 Yes $810,875,000 $417,977,000 I 49 H-85 Fat Collins Laurel-College Intersection Improvements 51,280,000 Yes 5812,135,000 5419,237,0001 54 H-37 (COOT SH 14 Strictures at I-25(Fat Collins) $4,500,000 Yes $616,635,000 $423,737,0001 55 H-140 Foil Collins Lemay Street Widening from Lincoln to Mulberry $2,650,000 No 11 $619,485,000 i $195,748,000 56 K207 Greeley 5th Street Widening $600,000, No 5620,085000 $196,348,000 58 H-87 Fat Collins 57.313,0801 Avenue North,Grade Separated Railroad 5],313,0001 No 582],398,000 5203,881,000 Crossing iii 58 H-7 Lorimer County Latimer County Road 5 Widening-LCR 28 $7,275000 No' $834,873,000 I $210,936,000 (Crossroads Blvd)to SH 392 Lemay Avenue-Lincoln Avenue to Confer Street,4- 59 H-88 FM CollinsIona Arterial with At-Grade Railroad Crossing 518435000 No 5853,111,000 $229,374,000 59 497 Fat Collins Downtown River Candor Plan Implementation 512.000.000 No $865,111,000 $241,374,000 rear 61 H61 Loveland US 34M/Ilson Avenue Intersection Rebuild $800,000 Yes 5885,911,000 5124,53],000 81 1162 Loveland p US 267/57th Street(Lorimer County Road 28) I 5800,000 Yes $888,711,000 $425,337,000 01 H-25 Evans 37th St-eeWJCR 54 Widening from Highway 257 a $10,455,000 No $877,1688,000 $251,829,000 23rd Avenue 64 Hsi BP-6 Latimer County Lorimer County Road 32 Widening-US 257 to 425 $8,905,000 No' $885071,000 $280,734.000 e. 84 K74 Fat CollinsNorthCollege Avenue Widening from Jefferson to the $7,212,000 Yes $883,283,000 $432,549,000 Poudre River 84 H-48 CDOT US 85:Weld CR 48 to WCR 70 588,208,000 Yes ' $781,491,000 $520,757,000 67 H-142 Fat Collins Overland Trail Widening from Sumac to Drake $7,554,000 No $789,045,000 $288,288,000 ism. 87 11-191 , Fort Collins Overland Trail Widening from Mulberry to Elizabeth $1,920.000 No 5783,885,000 52]3,208,000 89 H6 Latimer County Lorimer County Road 5 Widening-SH 392 to LCR 38 $7,275000 Not $801,240,000 $280,483,000 (Harmony Road) 70 H-81 Fat Collins Prospect Rood Interchange at Interstate 25 $18,6880,000 Yes $819,900,0001 $539,417,000 am' 71 H-44 CDOT US 85 Bypass at 18th Street $200,000 Yes $820,100,000 $539,617,000 71 1-48 COOT US B5 Bypass at 5th Strad $200,000 Yes $820,300,000 5539.817,000 Timberline Road North,Grade Separated Railroad 73 14-88 Fat Collins 518288000 No 5833,580,000 $293,]43,000 Crossing at Vane Drive I 74 H-55 Loveland Larimer County Rood 5 Widening-LCR 20E to LCR 28 56, .000 No $840,460,000 $300,643,000 (Crossroads Blvd.) 75 H-117 Fat Collins LaPorte-College to Teti Hill;widening $17,280,000 No 5857,740,000 $317,923,000 76 H-23 Evans 35th Avenue Widening 5600,000 No $858,340,000 $318,523,000 77 K2 LovelandLatimer County Road 28(Crossroads Blvd.)Wideningg- $2,]50,000 No' $861,080.000 $321,2]3,000 Iii I-25 a LCR 3 78 H-145 Fort Collins Shields Street Widening from Fossil Creek to Trilby $10,260,000 No' $871,350,000 ' $331,533,000 79 K139 Fort Collins Horsetocb d to Road Widening from Shields Street Taft $12880000 No $884,010,000 $344,193,000 HiN Road 80 H-113 Foil Colin Conifer-Hickory Re-Alignment $2,130,000 No $886,140,000 $348,323,000 ri 81 K34 CDOT 1-25:Weld CR 38 to SH 14 $244,894,000 Yes $1,131,034,000 $754,711,000 ' 81 H-21 Johnstown SH 80 Widening(425 to SH 257) $18,000,000 Yes $1,149,034,000 $802,711,000 81 11-224 Greeley Four Lasing of 5H 263 $9,250,000 Yes $1,158,284,000 5811,961,000 ens 84 H-125 Fort Collins Muben Widening from Shields to Taft HIP 511,]24,000 No' 51,1]0,000,000 $358,04],000 85 H-109 Fort Collins Prospect/Overland Trail Modern Roundabout $350,000 No 51170,358.000 $358,397,000 '-I 2025 Regional Tranaportaybn Plan Pa TABLE V-2 HIGHWAY PROJECTS - On-System Off-System Rank 1 Project a Category Atltleional ISubmitting Agency Project Cost Eat. State I Cumulative Cost Cumulative Cost Cumulative Cost r..System?' 1 Two-Rivera Parkway Construction from SH 60 to WCR I 85 1 H-211 Greeley 525,000,000 No' I $1,195,358.000 i 5383,39],000 !5467 I µ11t ' 'Fort Collins i Shields/LaPorte lntefsecuon improvements I 51,740,000; No 51,19],099,000 I $365,137,000 e] H-132 Fort Collins 'Prospect I Road Widening from Taft Hill to Overland $11,280,000 No li 51,208,378,000'1 5356,417,003 Horsetooth Road Widening from Taft Hill Road to 1 87 I 1+138 IFort Collins $6,306,000 No $1,214,884,060 $402,723,000 I Overland Trail I ' Timberline Road Widening from Willow Springs to 87 H-152 ', !Fort Collins $11,480,000, No $1,226,144,0001, I 5414.183.003 Trilby awe 87 H-163 'Fort Collins Overland Trail Widening from Horsemoth to CR 38E I $6,240,000 No $1,232,384,000'. 00$420,423,0 I 87 1 µ1B8 IFort Collins I Overland Trail Widening from Mulbeny(CC)to LaPorte[ 58,042,000[1 No I 51,238,426,000 5426,465,000 I ROW for the US 34 Bypass grade separated 93 H-218 I Greeley $200,000, Yes 51,238,628,000[ $812,161,0001 interchange at 107th Avenue 94 I µ107 I Fort Collins Mulberry B Canyon Intersection Improvements 51,740,0001 Yea $1,240,366,000! $813,901,000, 94 1 H-133 !Fort Collins Prospect-Lemay Intersection Improvements ' $1.260.000' No' 51,241,626,000[1 1 $427,725,000 94 H-160 I Fon Collins 'Shields at Windfall F ' Nov $1,241,628,000! I $427,725,000 saw µ208 Greeley 11th Avenue Widening $600,0001 No i $1,242,226,000' I 5428.325,000 94 H-209 ;Greeley 123rd Avenue Widening and Bike Lane $3,350,000! No 51,245,576,000[ $431,875,000 94 I µ22B I Greeley 11th Avenue Bridge Replacement $2,000,000 No $1,247,578,000'., $433,675,000 94 ' H-24 1 Evans WCR 54(LCR 18)Widening from l-25 to CO 257 $9,323,000, Nov $1,256,899,000 1 $442,998,000 iii 94 H-27 COOT '1-25 8 Crossroads Blvd.Interchange(Loveland) $22,800,000, Yes 51,278,859,000, 5835,901,000 94 , H-31 ICOOT I-25 8 SH 56 Interchange(Berthoud) $32,000,000 Yes ! $1,310,899,00011 5867,901,0001 94 H-32 COOT 1-258 SH 60 Interchange(Johnstown) I $25,100,000 Yes $1,335,999,000 5893.001,000 a-. 94 1+38 COOT SH392-East of Windsor to US 85(Lucerne) $14,500,000' Yes $1,350,499,000 $907,501,000 94 ! H-41COOT US 34 Bypass at 65th Avenue(ROW) $3,000,000[ Yes $1,353,499,000 $810501,000. 94 H-42 ' COOT US 34 Bypass at 63rd Avenue(ROW) I 51,000,000 Yes $1,354,499,000 $911,501,000 94 µ52 COOT US 34:Glade Rd to Morning Or(WIO Loveland) 1 $2,600,00011 Yes $1,357,099,000 $914,101,000 — 94 1 H-67 I Greeley US 34 Business(18th St)Improvements $14,000,000 Yes 1 $1,371,099,000 $928,101,000' 109 1+122 Fat Collins Timberline Road Widening from 0.5 miles south of $2y 396,000 No $1,398,495,000 $470,394,000 Prospect to Vine 110 1+143 BP-34 Fort Collins River Taft Hill Road Widening hem LaPorte to the Poudre $11,328,000 No $1,409,823,000 5481,722,000 111 H-197 j Fort Collins McHugh Street-Elizabeth Street Roundabout $2,160,000 No 51411,983,000 $483,882,000 112 H-101 Fat Collins Loney ryAvenue Widening from Conifer County Club $10,740,000' No 51,122,723,000 $494,622,000 112 1+105 IFort Collins LaP0M-Impale to Bryan,intersection at Tae, 510,290,000 No 51,433,013,000 5504.912,000 roundabout at Impala 112 H-129 Fat Collins Elizabeth Street Widening from Skyline to Overland $13,092,000 No $1,446,105,000 5518,004,000 112 µ94 Fort Collins Linden St widening from Jefferson NReAvood. $8,658,000 No , $1,454,763,0001 $528,682,000 Including the Vine Intersections i Lincoln-Riverside to Laney,4-lane Arterial with Bridge 112 H-96 Fort Collins 59,895,000 No $1,484,658,000 $538,557,000 over Poudre River _ 117 11-80 Fon Colin Vine Drive Interchange at Interstate 25 $18,680,000 Yea $1,483,318,600 $946,761,000! 118 µ71 Greeley 107th Avenue and US 34 Interchange $25,000,000 Yes $1,508,318,000 $971,761,000 119 H-19 Johnstown 1-25 and Johnson's Corner Interchange $25,000,000 Yes 51,533,318,000 $996,761,000 ^ 119 H-216 Greeley US 85 and'0*Street Overpass Construction and $8,500,060 Yes . 51,541,818,000i $1,005,261,000, Ramp Improvements 119 µ222 Greeley Crossroads Highway to Greeley 564,000,000 Nova $1,605,618,000 5600,557,000 122 H-93 1 !Fat Collins Troutman Parkway Widening from Mason to Tanager $8,526,000 No $1,614,344,000 5609.083,000 [ s.. 123 H-104 Foil Collins JFK/Troisbnan Modern Roundabout $300,000 No $1,614,644,000 $609,383,000 124 - H-1 BP-12 Lorimer County S.Frontage Road-LCR 26(Crossroads BlvdJro SH 54.500.000 No 51,619,144,000 $813,883,000 392 121 H-102 Fort Collins Intersection Improvements,Annual Capital $12,500,000 No [ 91,631,644,000' 5826,383,009 124 H-103 Fat Collins Minor Streets Capital(Steels,Bridges,Railroads) $15,000,000 No $1,648,644,000 5641,383,000 124 I 1+108 Fat Collins Oyerland/Drake Intersection Improvements 51,280000 No $1,6447,904,000 $642,643,000 121 1+112 1 IFort Collins Hickory-College to Shields $6,522,000 No $1,654,428,000[ 5649,165,000 124 H-114 Fat Collins Vide-425 to 0.5 mile east of Lemay $15,540,000 No $1,889,986.000 5884,705,000 r 124 H-115 Fat Collins !Vine Re-alignment-College to 0.5 mile east of Laney 515,540,000 No 51,685,508,000 5880,245,0W 124 I µ116 Fort Collins Lemay-Southridge Green Blvd to Trilby $10,500,0001 No $1,696,006,000 5690,745,000 124 µ120I !Fort Collins 58,100,000ine Road Widening-TNby Road toCanpenter $8,100,000 No $1,704,106,000 $698,845,000 124 H-123 Fat Collins Triiwi ail Street Widening from Taft Hill b Overland 510,440000' No 51.71/,546,000[ $709,285,000 124 1+124 Fat Collins Taft Hill-Mulberry Intersection Improvements 1 $1,280,000 Nov St 715.806,0001 $710,545,000 r pet 2025 Regional Transportation Plan P ee TABLE V-2 HIGHWAY PROJECTS I we Rank 1 Project* Additional Ca�o Submitting Agency Project Cost Eat State i Cumulative Cost On-System OR-System Cumulative CON Cumulative coat System] 124 I H-126 Fort Collins ilemay-Riverside Intersection Improvements _ $1,260,000 No 31,717,088,000I $711,805,000 124 ' H-127 I Fort Collins Elizabeth-Taft Hill Intersection Improvements $2,220,0001 No* 51719,288.000 I $714,025,000 w. 124 H-128 I !Fort Collins Overland Trail-Elizabeth Intersection Improvements 1 $1,280,000! No $1,720,548,000' I $715,285,000 124 '1, H-130 I BP-35 Fort Collins !Trilby Road Widening from Timberline to College 'I 317700,000 No $1]38246,0011 I $732,985,000 Prospect Road-Overland Trail Intersection 124 H-131 Fort Collins 52,220,0001 No $1740,438,000I 1 5]35,205.000 Imams I 124 H-134 Fon Collins Road Road Widening horn Interstate-25 to County $7,080,000 No 31,747,548,001 3742,285,000 ^ 124 H-135 Fort Collins Drake Road Widening from Taft Hill to Overland 512.050,0001 No $1759,608.001 $754,345,000 124 I H-137 I I Fat Collins Drake Road Re-alignment at Ziegler Road 510470,0001 No $1778078,00! 57&1815,000 Trilby Road Widening from College Avenue to Tan Hill sew 124 H-140 I BP-35 Fort Collin 0 Road 512,380,000 No 31,782,438,000 I 5]77,175,0 Overland Trail-County Road 42C Intersection I 124 H-141 i Fort Collins Improvements $3,912,000 No 31786.34800 I $781,087,000 124 i H-147 I Fat Collins Lemay Street Re-Alignment at Partner Reservoir $6,924.000'1 No $1,793,272,000 • $788,011.000 124 H-148 Fort Collins I Lemey Avenue Widening from Trilby to Carpenter 310,280,001 No $1,803,532,000 5]99,271,000 N. , 1241 H-151 ': !Fort Collins Timberline Road Widening from Vermont to Drake 37,788.000. No S1,811,320.000I i *80 .059. 00 124 H-155 I Fat Collins Trilby Road-County Road 38(Fossil Creek Area) I 514,100.000! No 51025,420,000 I 5820,159.000 124 I H-181 Fort Collins Fossil Creek Parkway No $1,625,420,000 3820,159,00 ran 124 i H484 Fort Collins 311,280.008 Creek Court Widening from Corbett Street to 511,20.000 No $1,836,70,00 $831,439,000 County Road 7 124 H-185 Fort Collins Harmony Tech Parkway Construction between $4,50,00 No I 51,841,280 000 5835,999,00 -Harmony and Rock Creek 124 H-166 Fort Collins Skyway Drive at South College Avenue i No 51,641,280.00 $835,999,000 n. 124 H-167 i Fat Collins Avondale Road Connecting CR 32 and S.College $11,0]0,000' No i 51,652.330,001 3807,09.00 Avenue 124 H-188 Fort Collins IEast-West Road In Fossil Creek Area 59.888000 No 51,881998000 3858,729,000 County Road 9 widening from Douglas to Mountain 124 H-189 !Fort Collins 00.510,8 ,0 No 51,8]2,850,0 0 0 588].589,0 Vista few 124 H-170 Fort Collins 513,880.000• Road 9 Construction from Mountain Vista to $13,880,00 No *1,888,530,0001 5881,269,00 Timberline 1Cam East• Road 125 Widening from West olCounty Road 124 I H-171 Fon Collins 00 514,430,000 No 31.9 .9 .00 0 1 5395,899, 0 124 H-172 Fort Collins County Road 50 Widening East of Interstate 25 $2,40,00 No I 51,90,360,001 5898,099,000 1 e 124 11173 Fort Collins Mountain Vista Widening from Timberline to 1.25 $10,928,000 No 51,914,288,00 w 1 5909,025,00 124 H-174 FM Collins Mountain Vista Widening from County Road 11 b $3,870,000, No 51,918,158.00 5912.895,000 Twnbedine 124 11-175 Fort Collins New Mirror Arterial Located East of of Timberline i 58.310,000 No 51,926.488,000' 5921,205.000 Garganey,SE of Conifer Street Extension we 124 H-178 FM Collins New Minor Arterial Connecting Vine Drive and 59.510,000 No 31,935,978.000 *90,715,000 Mountain Vista Drive 124 H-178 'Fort Collins Conifer Street Extension 58,10.00 No *1.944,076,000 5938,815,00 124 I 11-119 Fort Collins "Old-Vine Widening from Redwood Street to NOM 33.00,00 No 51,947.076,000 5941,815.00 College Avenue we 124 H-180 Fat Collins Douglas Road Widening from Shields to 425 521,120,000 No 51,988,196.00 5882,935,00 124 H-181 Fort Collins Corbett Drive Extension 53,40.00 No *1,9716]8,00; 5968.415,00 124 ' H-182 Fort Collins Buctdnghem Street widening 53.338,00 No 51,975,012.00 $969,751,00 124 H-183 Fort Collins Redwood Extension-Willox to Spaulding $2,870.000 No 51,977,882,000 5972.421,000 w• 124 H-184 Fort Collins IShields Street Widening from Vine to Highway 287 5942800 No 31,987.102,00 $981,841,00 124 H-185 Fort Collis WdOx Lane Widening from College to Shields $4,740,000 No 51.991.842.00 5988,581.000 124 H-188 Fort Collins Vine Drive Widening from Shields to Taft Hill 35,340.00 No 31,997,182,000 5991.921,00 sew 124 H-187 Fat Collins Overland Trail Widening from Miduud to LaPorte 57.350,000 No 52,004.532,000 5999,271,000 124 H-193 Fort Collins Taft Hill Project at Cathy Fromme Prade No 52,004,532.00 5999.271,00 124 H-194 Fort Collins Swallow Road Extension to Taft Hill Road $2,870,000 No 52.07.202,000 *1,001,941,000 124 H-195 Fort Collins Timberline at Willow Springs Widening No $2,0 0 7,202, 0 51.0 0 1,941. 0 eve 124 H-196 Fat Collins County Road 34 to Windsor Road No ' 52.07.202,000 51,01.941,00 ' 124 14199 IFot Collins Lemay-Hasetooth Intersection Improvements 51.20.00 No 52,003.482,00 51,03,201.00 Lorimer County Road 25(Crossroads Blvd.)Widening- 124 1453 Loveland 54.30,000 No 52.012,762,00 51.07,01.00 ^ 1-25 to LCR9 124 1454 LoveandE.aforlbpe Road-US 34 to LCR 28(Crossroads 54,300.000 No 1 $2,017,082,00i 51,011,801,000 Blv124 H-57 Loveland LCR 9(Boyd Lake Ave)Widening-US 34 to LCR 32 512.000.00 No 52,029,062,00 $1,023,01,00 124 H-90 Fort Couins Timberline Road Widening form Vine to Mountain Vista $15,228,000 No 52,044,20,00 51,039.029,00 Pee 124 H-95 , Fort Collins Willow Street,from College to Lincoln 55,298,00 No $2,049,588,00 51,044,327,00 183 H-72 Greeley Extension of Balsam Avenue to US 34 5330,000 No 52.049.918.000 $1,044,857,00 r r— 2025 Regional Transportation Plan — TABLE V-2 HIGHWAY PROJECTS ' I on Addltionel On-System Off-System Rank I Project I ia CatporY Submitting Agency I Project Cost Eat System?SWe III Cumulative Cost Cumulative Cost'Cumulative Cost I 184 I H-1] Johnstown South Loop Road(CR 44 to CR 17 Connection) 516,003000 No , $2,065,918,0001 31,060,657.030 184 I H-18 1i Johnstown I North Loop Road(CR 50) 515,000.030; No I $2,080.918,000. $1,075,657,000 186 11. H-154 Fort Collins Shame Pointe Onve Connection to Drake Road 38.180,000 No $2,089,078.000'1 $1,083 817000 we 187 I H-108 . ]Fort Collins ,Lemayffnlby Modern Roundabout $2,520000 No 32,091,596.0301 31,086.337,000 187 1 H-149 11Fat Collins II Timberline Road Widening from Prospect to Vine $28,760,000 No 1 32,118,358,000 51113,097,000 I t 187 H-150 1 1 Fort Collins I Timberline Road Widening from Prospect M Harmony $35220,000 No I 52,153,578.00011 31,148,317.000 nn 190 1 H-20 ;Johnstown 'k25 Frontage Road(SH 56 to US 34) $19,600,0301 No 82,173,1]8,0001 51,16],91].000 59th AvenueStreet 'C four laninp from US 34 Business to 190 I H-206 IGreeley 1 33.000,000 No 1 52.176178.0001 ! 81,170,917,000 I]1st Avenue US 34 Business to US 34 Bypass.four- 190 H-210 ,Greeley 30$4,0 .3001 No 82,180,178,000 1 81,174,917,000 !lanirp ea. I Two Rivers Parkway/83rd Avenue Conidor 190 I H-230 IGreeley 512,300,030' No* $2,192,178,000 31,186,917,000 Improvements 19011 #26 'Evans 47th Avenue Widening III $630,000 No 82,192778,000 81,187,517,000 1,LCR 9(Boyd Lake Ave)Widening end Realignment H-56 Loveland i $10,400,000, No 1 $2,203,178,000' 31,197.917,300 US 34 to SH 402 e. 190 ' H-58 Loveland 38,000,000 Diagonal Road Construction-LCR 11 b 425 E. 38,000,000 No 52,211,1]8,003 $1.205,917,000 ' Frontage Road 197 I H-159 I, iFort Collins Paving of Unpaved Streets No $2,211,08,030] 31,205,91],000 197 I H-189 Fort Collins Scott Avenue Paving ' No $2,211,1]80001 31,205,917,000 ei 197 H-190 (Fort Collins I Frey Avenue Paving No l 32,211,08,000 $1,205,917,000 200 H-157 Fort Collins I BAVA Neighborhood Sidewalks and Sweat No $2,211,178,000' 51,205,91],000 Improvements 201 ' 14118 Fort Collins Pavement Markings and Signs No 32,211,178,000 $1,205,917,000 201 Hiime -35 11 I CDOT I US 2875 SH 68 Reconstruction(Fort Collins) 31,800,0001 Yes 32,212,778,030 $1,006,861,000 1 201 , 1439 CDOT I SH 883 Timberline Road Reconstruction(Fort Collins)I 81,500,000 Yes $2,214,278,000 $1,008,381,0001 1 201 I H-50 COOT ,US 287 8 US 34 Reconstruction(Loveland) 31,500,000 Yes 32,215.7730001 31,009,881,000 10th Street(US 34 Business)and 10th Avenue 205 I H-204 Greeley 8170,000 Yes 32,215,948.030 81,010,031,000 am Reconstruction 101h Street(US 34 Business)and 111h Avenue 205 H-205 I Greeley 5170,000 Yes $2,218.116000 31,010201,000 Reconstruction 205 H-229 ' Greeley Pavement Marldng and Signs $300.000'1 No $2,218418,000 $1,206,217,000 208 #158 Fort Coikna Paving of Downtown Alleys No $2216,416000 51,206,217,000 was 209 H-51 'COOT US 34 Bypass&17th Avenue Reconstruction(Greeley) $630,000 Yes 62,21],018,000 51.010.801,030 210 H-121 Fat Collins Canyon Avenue Parking-Olive to Magnolia ' $2,820,0001 No 52.219,838000 I S1,209,037,303 211 I H-223 Greeley Greeley Entryway Enhancements 81,685,000 Yes - 32,221.523,000 51,012486.000 r— UNCOMMITTED PROJECT TOTAL f 32,221,523,000 $1,012,485,000 31,209,037,000 HIGHWAY GRAND TOTAL I $2,305,728,000 $1,096,538,000 I$1,209,190,000 Off-System Road Identified as a Regionally Significant Condor eri " New ON-System Roadway Would Become a Regionally Significant Corridor 11;e4 4' � an a Fiscally Constrained Projects ili R'' r r n r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan TABLE V-3 RAIL CROSSING PROJECTS "m Additional On Cumulative Total Rank Project# Category Submitting Agency Project Capital Cost System Cost 9 N TIP I Fort Collins Fort Collins Downtown Railroad Consolidation,SH 14 $1,266,000, Yes $1,266,000 TIP TOTAL 51,266,00ej " 1' Rpg-1, Loveland; , 57th Street/BNSF Railroad Overpass 18,000,000 No :.;.:.v , $6,000,000 LemayAvenue North Grade Separated Railroad 2 Rp¢5 ,H-67.: Fort Collins ' crosslrrg _ 17,913,000 No 115,319,000 3 RDQ-9 , Fort Collins ` Drake Road West o/College RR Grade Separation, $5,000000 No - 120.313,000 Timberline Road North,Grade Separated Railroad 4 R(X)-6 I H-88 'Fort Collins $13,260,000 No $33,573,000 Crossing at Vine Drive 5 1 R(X)-16 Fort Collins Union Pacific RR Overpass at Windsor Road(CR 32) 1 $5,000,0001, No $38,573,000 6 R(X)-17 TF-ort Collins Grade Separation on Mountain Vista Drive West of 1-25 , $5,000,000, No $43,573,000 7 ; R(X)-8 : Fort Collins BNSF Railroad Grade Separation at Trilby Road $3,500,000 No $47,073,000 8 R(X)-11 H-154 Fort Collins Sharpe Pointe Drive,RR Crossing I $600,00O No $47,673,000 — 9 R(X)-13 H-93 Fort Collins Troutman Parkway(Grade Separation or Crossing) $5,000,000 No $52,673,000 10 R(X)-12 Fort Collins Lake Street Crossing,West of College $300,000 No $52,973,000 _ 10 R(X)-7 Fort Collins .BNSF Railroad Crossings,Downtown Fort Collins $250,000 No $53,223,000 12 R(X)-14 Fort Collins Annual Railroad Crossing Improvement Program $9,600,000 No ' $62,823,000 13 R(X)-10 Fort Collins Keenland Drive,New RR Crossing $540,000 No $63,363,000 'v—, 14 R(X)-19 Greeley UPRR and GWRR crossing material upgrade across 6th $101,000 No $63,464,000 St.,7th St.,8th St.,21st St.and 23rd Ave. 15 R(X)-15 Fort Collins Union Padfic RR Overpass at Trilby Road $5,rrrrrr No $68,464,000 .... _ Project Costs also included with Highway Category -$26,173,000 UNCOMMITTED PROJECT TOTAL $42,291,000 RAIL CROSSING GRAND TOTAL I $43,557,000 1 €N ° mss' .,,�� :.:;.=Fiscally Constrained Projects 11010 r" f^ r- r I- rim 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r TABLE V-4 PASSENGER RAIL PROJECTS r 04N Costs On Cumulative Cumulative Toth Rank Project*-'Submitting Agency Project Capital Cost (24 years) System Score Capital Cost Cost Cwddor Prsswation-Regional Passenents) ger Rail t R(P)-19 Noah Front Range MPO II I mauvu,000 Na 222 $J0,000,00D $90,000,000 PWne *,andhegm 2 R(P)-3 NOM Front Range MPO Phase Inter-Regional Passe nger Rail-U5 34 to Fort $270,900,000 $331,200000 No 222 $300900000 $632,100,000 Collins and Greeley Phase 1 Inter-Regional Passenger Rail-Weld County 3 R(P)-4 NOM Front Range MPO $126,400000' $168,000000 No 217 $427,300,000 $926,500000 Road 38 to US 34 4 R(P)-2 No Front Range MPO i infra-Regional Passenger Rail Service $193,600,000 $307,200,000 No 206 $620,900,000 $1,427,300,000 out Condor Preservation Cost included in Inter-Regional and Intro-Regional Passenger Rail Projects -$30,000,000' -$30000000 I -330,000000 PASSENGER RAIL TOTAL $590900,000 $$06,400,0001 $590,900,000 $1,397,300,000 P^ =Fiscally Constrained Projects r r r r j r r r POO a_ r r_ 2025 Regional Transportation Plan inn TABLE V-5 TRANSIT PROJECTS 1. Rank Project# Submitting Agency Project Cost Est. Cumulative Cost ^ CES T-56 Fort Collins Continuation of Existing Transfort Service $ 137,312,856 $137,312,856 CES T-60 Fort Collins Replacement Transit Vehicles(2002-04) $ 888,308 $138,201,164 .— CES T-62 Fort Collins Replacement Buses(2005-07) $ 3,689,490 $141,890,654 CES T-82 Fort Collins Replacement Buses(2008-10) $ 4,711,040 $146,601,694 f. CES T-96 Fort Collins Replacement Buses(2015) $ 3,026,602 $149,628,296 CES T-98 Fort Collins Replacement Buses(2018) $ 6,323,808 $155,952,104 CES T-100 Fort Collins Replacement Buses(2022) $ 6,781,316 $162,733,42 PM CES T-33 Greeley Continuation of Existing Fixed Route&Paratransit&Evening Demand $ 41,688,000 $204,421,42 CES T-49 Greeley Transit Vehicle Maintenance Equipment Replacement $ 170,000 $204,591,429 ^ CES T-50 Greeley Transit Vehicle Replacement for Continuation of Existing Transit $ 2,581,000 $207,172,420 Services I CES T-3 Loveland Tango Rte(Operating Assistance) $ 6,000,000 $213,172,420 ... CES T-4 Loveland Operating Assistance(2002-2006) $ 14,688,000 $227,860,420 CES T-8 Loveland Bus Replacements-Existing $ 890,000 $228,750,420 ^ CES T-21 Loveland Latimer County Rural Transit(Existing) $ 3,710,808 $232,461,228 CES T-24 NFR MPO Loveland to Fort Collins Transit Service(Existing) $ 4,120,111 $236,581,339 CES T-27 Smart Trips Regional Vanpool $ 11,349,136 $247,930,475 CES T-26 Weld County Weld County Transportation Program-Elderly/Disabled $ 16,005,416 $263,935,891 Fie TIP Fort Collins Bus Facility Expansion $ 7,600,000 $ 271,535,891 TIP Fort Collins Maso n Street Right of Way $ 7,734,000 $ 279,269,891 ✓ TIP Fort Collins CSU Transit Center $ 3,258,000 $ 282,527,891 TIP Loveland Loveland Maintenance Facility $ 4,625,000 $ 287,152,891 .i. TIP and CES TOTAL $ 287,152,891 1 T-1061: Smut Trips NFR Smart Tdps Regional Vanpool Expansion $ - 2,400,000- $2,400,000 ^ 2' ' T-55 Fort Colons ,'sr MasanStreet Transportation Corridor $ 74,400,000 � . $76,8011,000 3 T-22 p, NFR MPG - Greeley to Denver Regional Transit Service(New) $ 8,476,629 $85,276,629 "'" 4 T-19..- NFR MPG < Southwest Weld County Transfer Center $ 800.000 i $86,078,629 Add Route 1C transitservlce downtown to E-Harmonyll-25 5 T75 Fart Collins ;- Transportation.Transfer center $ 7,801,924 $93,978.553 ^ . 5 - T-102, Greeley:',:r Medlea4c#nlc Shuttle Service In Greeley/Evans $ - 424,000 -` $94.40$553 Tr. < .,T-23---, NFR MPG Y >_: , Expanded Loveland to Fort Collins Transit Service(New) - $ 7,865,768 ` . $102,268,321 .. ` Now Route 9 Extended Transit Service South Transit Center to ▪ 8 ;T-79 ForfCollins r} . $ i.21&961 $103,486,285 Harmony and Timbedlna' F P.M 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r— TABLE V-5 ' TRANSIT PROJECTS Rank Project# Submitting Agency Project Cost Est. Cumulative Cost I r— increased frequency on Route 1 transit service downtown to _.. 9 T-84 Fort Collins Harmony&Increased frequency on Route 1C to East Harmony&I- S 9,603,675.. . $113,088,960 25 Transportation Transfer Center' 9 T--18 NFR MPO Fort Collins-Denver Regional Transit Service(New) - $ 9,388,565 .$122,477,525 11 T-105 Greeley EcoPass-Greeley/Evans $ 648,000 $123,125,52 UNC Shuttle Service Between Gunter Hall and Student Center,Parking, $ 2,319,432 $125,444,95 12 T-51 Greeley Housing 13 T-28 Greeley Transit Service-Promentory Service $ 724,080 $126,169,037 14 T-5 Loveland "Transit Center"Architectural Plan Development $ 150,000 $126,319,037 ... 14 T-59 Fort Collins Complimentary Demand Response Service(2002-04) $ 14,837,760 $141,156,79 14 1-61 Fort Collins Complimentary Demand Response Service(2005-07) $ 8,588,974 $149,745,771 17 T-12 Loveland "Transit Center"Construction Plan Development(Ph 1 of 2) $ 1,500,000 $151,245,771 18 T-104 Greeley Hospitality Ambassadors-Greeley/Evans $ 266,000 $151,511,771 rii 19 T-54 Greeley West HWY 34 Business Transit Service Expansion-Promentory Service $ 3,006,368 $154,518,135 20 T-15 Loveland "Transit Center"Construction Plan Development(Ph 2 of 2) $ 1,000,000 $155,518,139 21 T-10 Loveland Increase Frequency(Short-term) $ 4,986,000 $160,504,135 21 1-65 Fort Collins Increased Frequency of Transit Service on Route 3 Constitution to $ 1,252,458 $161,756,597 Downtown 21 T-67 Fort Collins Increased Frequency of Transit Service on College Avenue&W. $ 4,213,026 $165,969,623 Harmony from South Transit Center to Front Range Community College 21 T-66 Fort Collins Evening Service(2002-04) $ 5,494,776 $171,464,399 21 T-73 Fort Collins Increased Frequency of Transit Service on Shields Route 6 during CSU $ 3,394,534 $174,858,93 sessions 21 T-74 Fort Collins Increased Frequency on Route 2 transit service from West Drake, $ 4,190,084 $179,049,017 Overland&Prospect to Colorado State University 21 T-76 Fort Collins Increased Frequency of Transit Service on all Route 3 $ 1,432,196 $180,481,213 21 T-77 Fort Collins Increased Frequency on Foxtrot(Route 1 B)between Fort Collins and $ 13,377,572 $193,858,785 Loveland 21 T-78 Fort Collins Increased Frequency on existing transit route 5 from downtown to $ 3,892,772 $197,751,557 South Transit Center on Lemay 21 1-80 Fort Collins Evening Service(2005-07) $ 6,361,080 $204,112,637 21 T-83 Fort Collins Complimentary Demand Response Service(2008-10) $ 10,439,218 $214,551,855 21 T-85 Fort Collins Increased frequency on Route 4 transit service $ 8,446,323 $222,998,178 21 T-86 Fort Collins Increased frequency on Extended Route 3 transit service $ 7,725,771 $230,723,949 21 T-87 Fort Collins Increased frequency of transit service on Shields Route 6 when CSU $ 2,413,207 $233,137,156 not in session ifl 21 T-88 Fort Collins Increased frequency on all Route 2 transit service $ 5,091,819 $238,228,975 21 7-89 Fort Collins Increased frequency of Transit Service on Route 9 from Downtown to $ 7,787,503 $246,016,478 South Transit Center via Timberline '� 21 T-90 Fort Collins Increased frequency on Route 8 transit service $ 6,898,779 $252,915,257 • 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r^ TABLE V-5 TRANSIT PROJECTS Rank Project# Submitting Agency Project Cost Est. Cumulative Cost i - 21 T-91 Fort Collins Increased frequency on Extended Route 9 transit service $ 1,100,671 $254,015,928 21 T-92 Fort Collins Evening Service(2008-10) $ 7,731,984 $261,747,912 • 21 T-95 Fort Collins Evening Service(2011-25) $ 15,162,720 $276,910,632 41 T-47 Greeley Transit Two-Way Communications Equipment Replacement $ 79,000 $276,989,632 ▪ 41 T-7 Loveland Communication System Equipment $ 75,000 $277,064,632 43 T-46 Greeley Transit Service From Outlying Areas of Greeley and Evans $ 5,470,848 $282,535,480 ... 44 T-29 Greeley Addl Service Hours for Evening Demand Response Service $ 430,560 $282,966,040 44 T-30 Greeley Addl Service Hours for Paratransit Service $ 1,565,200 $284,531,240 44 T-39 Greeley Increased Frequency of Transit Service on 10th Street $ 3,006,368 $287,537,608 ,�, 44 T-40 Greeley Increased Frequency of Transit Service on 16th Street $ 3,006,368 $290,543,976 44 T-41 Greeley Increased Frequency of Transit Service on 28th Avenue $ 3,006,368 $293,550,344 ^ 44 T-42 Greeley Increased Frequency of Transit Service on 4th Street $ 3,006,368 $296,556,712 44 T-52 Greeley UNC Shuttle Service Between Student Center and 3001 8th Avenue $ 2,319,432 $298,876,144 (State Farm Facility) 51 T-58 Fort Collins Bus stop Accessibility Modification(2004-04) $ 69,480 $298,945,624 51 T-69 Fort Collins Bus stop Accessibility Modification(2005-07) $ 69,480 $299,015,104 51 T-81 Fort Collins Bus stop Accessibility Modification(2008-10) $ 69,480 $299,084,584 51 T-94 Fort Collins Bus stop Accessibility Modification(2011-25) $ 150,000 $299,234,584 ... 55 T-35 Greeley Downtown Transfer Center Improvements $ 200,000 $299,434,584 55 T-53 Greeley UNC Transfer Center Design and Construction $ 432,260 $299,866,844 57 T-66 Fort Collins New Transit Route 3 Extension between Colorado State University $ 5,505,018 $305,371,862 main campus and south campus 57 T-71 Fort Collins New Route 4 transit service Downtown,Taft HilliHorsetooth 8.Dunbar $ 6,949,796 $312,321,658 ^ 57 T-72 Fort Collins New Route 9 transit service from Downtown to South Transit Center via $ 6,718,148 $319,039,806 Timberline 60 T-17 NFR MPO Fort Collins to Greeley Transit Service(New) $ 7,780,005 $326,819,811 r• 60 T-25 NFR MPO Fort Collins-Longmont Regional Transit Service(New) $ 6,735,477 $333,555,288 62 T-31 Greeley Bus Stop Accessibility Improvements $ 600,000 $334,155,288 ... 63 T-70 Fort Collins Transfort Bus Facility Expansion(2005-07) $ 12,496,000 $346,651,288 64 T-38 Greeley Farebox Replacement $ 90,000 $346,741,288 - 65 T-20 NFR MPO Loveland to Greeley Transit Service(New) $ 7,780,005 $354,521,293 65 T-36 Greeley East 8th St Transit Service Expansion(Weld/Greeley Airport) $ 3,006,368 $357,527,661 P S 65 T-93 Fort Collins Phase I Incremental Expansion of Transit Service(2011-15) $ 109,278,178 $466,805,839 r t 2025 Regional Transportation Plan TABLE V-5 ' TRANSIT PROJECTS Rank Project# Submitting Agency Project Cost EM. Cumulative Cost ^' 65 T-97 Fort Collins Phase II Incremental Expansion of Transit Service(2016-2020) $ 109,278,178 $576,084,01 65 T-99 Fort Collins Phase III Incremental Expansion of Transit Service(2020-25) $ 109,278,178 $685,362,19 ▪ 70 T-37 Greeley Expansion of Transit Service Center Administration Facility $ 75,000 $685,437,19 71 T-63 Fort Collins Increased Frequency of Transit Service on College Avenue $ 12,319,724 $697,756,91 I. 71 T-64 Fort Collins Increased Frequency of Transit Service on Route 2 $ 7,240,004 $704,996,92 73 T-1 Loveland Transit Vehicle/Maintenance Facility Design $ 150,000 $705,146,92 • 73 T-11 Loveland Transit Vehicle Maintenance Facility(Ph 3 of 3) $ 1,000,000 $706,146,92 73 T-2 Loveland Transit Vehicle Maintenance Facility(Ph 1 of 3) $ 1,500,000 $707,646,92 ,� 73 T-9 Loveland Transit Vehicle Maintenance Facility(Ph 2 of 3) $ 2,500,000 $710,146,92 77 T-34 Greeley Demand Response Reservations,Scheduling,and Reporting Software $ 100,800 $710,247,72 77 T-45 Greeley Transit Services Management Information System Upgrade $ 75,000 $710,322,72 77 T-48 Greeley Transit Vehicle Global Positioning System $ 200,000 $710,522,723 77 T-6 Loveland Dispatching Software $ 35,000 $710,557,72.. 81 T-32 Greeley Conference Shuttle $ 453,200 $711,010,92 UNCOMMITTED PROJECT TOTAL HS711,010,923 Pm TRANSIT GRAND TOTAL x98,163,814 rm Committed Resources:"CES" =continuation of existing service;"TIP"=project committed in TIP -;;'1,:--;: 1Z; =Fiscally Constrained Projects .-E,......S.1, r a r • 2025 Regional Transportation Plan TABLE V-6 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS — Submitting I Annual Cumulative Rank Project#' Agency Project Cost Est. Cost Years Cost — 1 TDM-I Smart Trips SMARTTdps Regional Travel Demand Management 515,902,000 8682,595 24 $15,902,000 Program fExisdng) 2 TDM-8 Fort Collins Fort CollIns Transportation Demand Management $18,240,000 $760,000 24 $34,142,000 3 TDM-7 Greeley Less-Taxing Commuter Benefits In Weld County $796,000 $33,000 24 $34,938,900 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT TOTAL I $34,936,000 .— =Fiscally Constrained Projects r r_ r_ 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r• TABLE V-7 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT Rank ! Project# Submitting Agency Project Cost Est. Annual Cumulative Years Cost Cost 1 TSM-1 North Front Range M Region-wide Planning Studies _ ` $6,500000 $275,000 24 $6,600,000 Region-wide Intelligent Transportation System 2 TSM-2 North Front Range MP $8,500,000 $13.100,000 3 TSM-13 Loveland Loveland ITS.Project r: $850000 . $13,950,000 Advanced Traffic Management System in Fort 4 TSM-11 Fort Collins $5,000000 $18,950000 9 Collins , 5 TSM3 Greeley Greeley Traffic Operations Center $1,745,000 $55,000 24 $20,695,000 6 TSM-4 Greeley Variable Message Signs In Greeley $300,000 $20,995,000 Closed Circuit Video Monitoring Station in 7 TSM3 Greeley Greeley _ $75,000 $21,070,000 "' 8 TSM-12 Fort Collins Fort Collins Traffic Operations Facility $4,000,000 - .$25,070,000 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT TOTAL lI I 525,070,000 r =Fiscally Constrained Projects r r r 7 r lom 2025 Regional Transportation Plan 3. Rail Projects Since Rail projects fall into two very distinct categories, these projects are presented in two separate tables. Table V-3 shows Rail Crossing projects, which consists of safety improvements, new crossings, or grade-separated roadway crossings of railroad tracks. The Vision Plan includes 15 uncommitted Rail Crossing projects with a total estimated cost of $42.3 million. Table V-4 shows the four Passenger Rail projects. These projects consist of the three phases of the passenger rail system proposed in the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (TAFS), as well as a Passenger Rail Corridor Preservation project which includes strategic right-of-way acquisition, financial planning, and environmental analysis for all three phases of the Passenger Rail Vision Plan. Corridor preservation activities in the 1-25 corridor will need to be coordinated with any highway widening and improvement projects that emerge from the planned environmental assessment of the 1-25 corridor from Denver to Fort Collins. Passenger Rail construction cost estimates total $590.9 million. Operation and maintenance costs shown for Passenger Rail system are shown to be $806.4 million; however, this estimate is an unrealistically high one, representing operation and maintenance costs over the entire 24-year period of the RTP. 4. Transit Projects Projects in the transit element of the Vision Plan are shown on Table V-5. This table shows that a continuation of existing transit service in the region, along with the four transit projects committed in the 2001-2006 TIP, represent $287.2 million. Additional projects include expansion of existing Transit service and provision of new Transit service. Expansion of existing service includes new bus routes, extensions of existing bus routes, and increased frequency and hours of operations for the existing bus systems in Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley, as well as expanded vanpool and paratransit services. New transit services include additional services between North Front Range communities and between the North Front Pa Range and Longmont to the south. Uncommitted Transit projects are estimated to cost $711.0 million. As is the case for Passenger Rail projects, cost estimates (except as otherwise indicated) include the assumption that operation and maintenance costs are extended over the 24-year planning period; therefore, cost estimates in this category are on the conservative (high) side. 5. Travel Demand Management Projects As shown in Table V-6, three Travel Demand Management (TDM) projects were submitted, with the vast majority consisting of continuation of the SMARTTrips regional travel demand management program and the Fort Collins transportation demand management program. These projects are the regional and local TDM programs, both of which include many efforts aimed at relieving dependency on the single-occupant vehicle. The cost for TDM projects is estimated at $34.9 million over the 24-year planning period from 2002 to 2025. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 72 2025 Regional Transportation Plan 6. Transportation System Management Projects Table V-7 lists the eight Transportation Systems Management (TSM) projects that are included in the Vision Plan. Included are seven projects that fall into the broad category of"Intelligent Transportation Systems" (ITS), along with a Region-wide Planning Studies project. The total cost for TSM projects is estimated at $25.1 million. P" P, r- oft P- n r- rU Pm. . FELSBURG r- C4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 73 2025 Regional Transportation Plan VI. 2025 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 2025 Regional Transportation Plan peo VI. 2025 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN The Fiscally Constrained Plan is comprised of the high priority project from the Vision Plan that are likely to be funded by the year 2025 based upon the financial resources that are projected to be available to the region. r" A. Resource Allocation Resource Allocation was one of the two primary elements in the plan development process, as illustrated in Figure 1-2. Resource Allocation is a process that reflects how the Council believes the limited resources available for transportation system improvements in the region should be distributed among the six project categories in order to best achieve the vision and goals of the plan. The Council's Resource Allocation among the project categories for the 2025 RTP is as follows: Transit 22.0% Rail 22.8% (Passenger Rail 20.3%) (Highway/Rail Crossings 2.5%) Bicycle/Pedestrian 4.2% Travel Demand Management 4.2% Transportation System Management 4.1% Highway/HOV 42.7% B. Funding Estimates Estimates of available federal, state and local funding for the plan period from 2002 to 2025 are shown in Table VI-1. As noted, sources for these revenue projections include CDOT estimates, extrapolation from the 2020 RTP and from the 2001-2006 North Front Range Region Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and Regional Transportation Services and Funding Feasibility Study projections. All funding estimates are stated in constant (year 2001) dollars, although, as noted, several of the funding categories are projected to be expanded at a rate of three percent per year. r piFELSBURG '- C41 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 74 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table VI-1 Estimates Of Available Funding lifFed,erOMWEI 161:011M nigairoPaallii d ote '.Ftindrngl'Category ,... t$► . i $n ($M -°. :Y.., total e.:. Other Regional Priorities ' 123.1 210.0 " 333.1 34.0 Small Urban ` 3.9 0.5 4.4 0.4 Enhancements 15.2 3.8 19.0 1.9 CMAQ s'4 33.8 8.2 42.0 4.3 Strategic Projects 131.0 - 131.0 13.3 Transit (Bus, Rail) a 203.4 247.8 451.2 46.1 Total 510.4 470.3 980.7 100.0 1 Based on 2020 RTP allotment and expanded to 2025 at 3 percent per year. 2 Because program ends in 2004, used funds from TIP for 2002-2004 3 Based on TIP 2002-2006, expanded at 3 percent per year. ° Available only to the Fort Collins area. 5 This is a maximum estimate based on CDOT sources, a portion of which may be expended on projects in the Upper Front Range RTP. 6 Based on TIP 2002-2006, expanded at 3 percent per year; except assume 2 times TIP funds for 3 out-of-the-ordinary capital projects (Fort Collins bus facility expansion, CSU transit center and Loveland maintenance facility). Source: Regional Transportation Services and Funding Feasibility Study, Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc., November, 2000 Total funding estimates total $980.7 million for the 24-year plan period. Federal and state funding accounts for $510.4 million, or 52% of the total. Local funding, including local government and private contributions, are projected to be $470.3 million, or 48% of the total. Following are brief descriptions of the six funding categories listed in Table VI-1. Other Regional Priorities: The federal/state part of these funds is largely the portion of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and State Highway Users Tax Fund dollars that are allocated by CDOT to the North Front Range region. Federal guidelines on use of these funds is relatively flexible in terms of project categories, with some improvement types within each of the NFR's six project categories eligible; however, the Colorado Transportation Commission has historically limited spending of these funds to projects on the State Highway System. Local funding estimates included under Other Regional Priorities are estimates of local and county government expenditures for both local match for federally funded projects and locally financed improvement projects, as well as estimates of private contributions that can be expected toward financing of major roadways. r Small Urban: This federal funding source has generally been used by the NFR for transportation systems management and travel demand management projects such as traffic signals, planning studies, and carpool and vanpool projects. This program is scheduled to end in 2004. piFELSBURG C4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 75 -- 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Enhancement: Starting with ISTEA, and continuing with the TEA-21, 10% of Surface Transportation Program funds are set aside for transportation enhancements. Transportation enhancements include facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, scenic or historic highway programs, landscaping, historic transportation building preservation, preservation of abandoned railway corridors, mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff, and others. The CDOT Regions are responsible for the administration of this program, working with their Regional Planning Commissions. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ): CMAQ funds are aimed at improvements that will contribute to attainment of air quality conformity, thus only the Fort Collins non-attainment area is eligible. CMAQ funds in the NFR have generally been used to finance the Fort Collins portion of the region's SMARTTrips travel demand management program. Strategic Projects: The Strategic Project program, commonly referred to as the "7t' Pot", is a funding program targeted by the Colorado Transportation Commission at investments in strategic corridors throughout the state. The I-25 corridor through the North Front Range and Upper Front Range planning areas is one of those strategic corridors. These funds could be used for 1-25 highway or regional passenger rail projects. r Transit: The federal/state portion of Transit funds consists of Federal Transit Administration funding in various capital, operational, and maintenance funding programs, all of which are specifically targeted at transit service. Local funds in the transit category represent local matches for these federal funds, as well as continuation of the overmatch that the Cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland have applied to bus systems within each of those cities. r C. Committed Resources A significant portion of the $980.7 million total resources described in the previous section has already been committed to projects and programs, thus is not eligible to be allocated to new projects in the RTP. Table VI-2 shows the total resource allocations by project category, the committed resources, and the remaining uncommitted resources. Committed resources, -- totaling an estimated $374.4 million, are of two types. The largest portion is the $287.2 million estimated to continue the region's existing transit services over the 24-year planning period. An additional $87.2 million is committed in the 2001-2006 TIP. Funding for completion of all projects that are included in the 2001-2006 TIP are considered to be committed, so funds listed in the TIP for"Future Years" are included in the Committed Resources listed in Table 6.2. In addition, committed projects are indicated at the top of Tables V-1 through V-7 by shading. r r r L . ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 76 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table 6.2 shows that $606.2 million are estimated to be available for allocation to new projects in the 2025 Fiscally Constrained Plan. The uncommitted funds for Transit and Passenger Rail are shown as a single amount, since the Council elected to view funding for bus, vanpool and passenger rail service expansions as a single pot of money to be allocated. The right-hand column of Table 6.2 shows the percentage of the $606.2 million in available funds for each project category. It should be noted that the percentages of uncommitted funds differ substantially from the Council's initial resource allocation because of funds that have been committed. For example, the Council's resource allocation for Transit and Passenger Rail is 42.3% (22.0% for Transit, 20.3% for Passenger Rail) while the percentage of uncommitted resources for these two categories is only 21.1%; this reflects the large share of transit resources that are dedicated to continuation of existing transit service. Table VI-2 Committed and Uncommitted Resources Resoprcac fiotalse0odrte2 Corhmltt§d ` {Uriccmmat.ed milyfr Wfrini: Ali₹sCat10F) Allocation R oud 'pia 6 Re§ouf iz 4 1'Pt117 �1e} ,'. .Rroject�Catego>��',` rPerceM�ge:r,..�.. '('�i�Ai�lYons�m.'':(S�tJlltlidil's)�,�}�F5'��flP�lutll3"ns)4:.. Bike/Pedestrian 4.2% 41.2 1.7 39.5 6.5% Highway/HOV 42.7% 418.8 84.2 334.6 55.2% Rail 22.8% 223.6 1.3 Highway Rail Crossings 2.5% 24.5 1.3 23.2 3.8% Passenger Rails Crossings 20.3% 199.1 - Transit(Bus&Vanpool) 22.0% 215.7 287.2 127.6' 21.9 Travel Demand Management 4.2% 41.2 - 41.2 6.8% Transportation System Management 4.1% 40.2 - 40.2 6.6% �- Total 100% 980.7 374.4 606.3 100% Includes 2002-2006 and future commitments in current TIP and continuation of existing transit service over 24-year plan period 2 Uncommitted resources calculated with Passenger Rail portion of Rail allocation allowing application to Transit (Bus &Vanpool)or Passenger Rail 3 Funds to be allocated to Transit(Bus&Vanpool)or Passenger Rail r r•- pFELSBURG d HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 77 2025 Regional Transportation Plan D. Fiscally Constrained Plan Combining these estimates of available funds for each project category and the ranked lists of projects in each category, the projects that comprise the Fiscally Constrained Plan have been identified. Referring again to Tables V-1 through V-7, these projects are designated by darker shading. The fiscally constrained projects are also illustrated on Figures VI-1 through VI-4. Figure VI-5 provides a summary of 2025 Fiscally Constrained Plan projects. TSM $25.1 Bike/ Pedestrian TDM $34.9 539.2 t Highway/ TransitHOV $122.5 w"_ 330.2 Passenger Rail $30.0 Rall -- Crossing $20.3 Total Available Funds-$606.3 Million Figure VI-5 2025 Fiscally Constrained Plan Summary r IPFELSBURG ►� C, HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 78 \ a Douglas Rd. 287 1 cm. 1 '•*41 •IN IIcc TERRY) \--, " �a°he ,-� LAKE , `' .,'�e \tl CR54G � \ ._.. •1.._.._... e \,sq 11 , LONG River +qr I POND l Country Club Dr. \ \ `r �� ...tie • •• l' Mountain View Dr. LPIDENMEIER j 75 LAKE ' II UJ r \- \ Hiory Conifer • St. •^��„j (] f -" y.-'Vine Dr. •`r'•v Vine Dr. I. ti"' � \ ' 4' a r .. jj =uckin.ham St. •�' , r i=1.? ` CR 46 LaPorte Ave. N • .N co 1= I Mountain Ave. gy 7 min -, m i Mulberry St. r'F_�`i 39) 'y' • . 4tm 77. IC 1 _\ o r� III '��S. � Elizabeth St. + , `° 4b., 46.. �� HORSE TROTH Lake St r?""` • CR 44 Prospect Rd. --46-' ! RES. l 1 r c7)- 1.: 1 •, e �11 m I 1 1 ••� , \ •� -511-% eh; 75 .e Stuart se to a m : 0 � �.rr / m i•• m •,P hif\ I CR 42 `o V Dr a k;Rd. CR 40 Horsetooth Rd. J i 2 •0 i_••J rrou 5r ,.- �LAKB - J ',S CR38E I Pkwy. I r ' .. — ; AR.a3.? A, Harmony Rd l , i≥) 1-44S,- Y...�1 j s• - 7` S4 ., yes J •`.._I. co CC N742 .cam' .J E CR 34, 1 ---35( LTjrilby Rd. i i �V C- CR32Ir !_• Imo.._.. ..0 .._.. ..J / I-N._C a 0. O Cc U ; \;231 cc cc U U T LEGEND Additional Projects = Highway Projects Travel Demand Management I Additional Projects Travel Demand Management l r 392 TDM-7 Less Taxing Commuter Benefits in Weld County 2 cc Transportation System Management g g \ g TSM-3 Greeley Traffic Operations Center ) TSM-4 Variable Message Signs in Greeley Rw W°R" I� WCR 66 TSM-5 Closed Circuit Video Monitoring Station in Greeley o a N55 WCR 64 o St. 4°x`1 •.�^f - - , JG% a� —..� WCR 62 F St. Bus'ness\ • Bypass L. ` WCR 62 25 1 1 .� ¢ em sr. em sr. 5Th sr r 40231 !F.•J I�� c "T i a1 ^..I J �., .. 1 Sthsc �� fim sr, c'r'M •3 "'ti ,L. jai .may �:... �, �.�- I ._•._....j _ ., — I Business_ 1......1•7 ..� �. Y 13th St. �Il6 6 I 1-',—..r•— •L-.—..—• .L. �l rte.. 1• r• e •?4�,. �, l6msr. e e 3.233 16th S1. •.r r •� 13 •.J '�. C _ S e 5 5 I I.._ — z 4 elgiAls t6msrl ti in • h E ,! ., e "'-"• 1 . •• I ^`.r.. —..—..—.. B e^''J �� tamsr. ^ a 22,Cpry�nA �te p 5,234 U s¢ `\\\\ 3 • r_.. `• ///• e w '...¢ 4 1fi�s �I17 zz . ,2 51 � o s I 1 ..I I • I ay— r..j e / • I �`R. ■ e WCR 56.5 / < 34 L.-, L■ r..l L....—..1. —••—s I. ^ 34, zsms 27th St - .2,1 I. � S `34( .R' Ye a.. `105 I •--• n L.. ,r V (r z9m gy 30th St 2� P Ct 257 3 4.. r 32nd sr. » e 10 L..—..—..—.! a —I r•-:Lm r' 34thsc aros7 a m WCR54 _ —.. r"• CIA J 1O2 N --- 37Th Sr. -I - es EVANS LEGEND 1� J J WCR52 = Highway Projects IL J?"� = Bike/Ped Projects isikk = Rail Projects X = Project Designation Figure Vi-2 IIFELSBURG Fiscally Constrained Plan r, H O LT & North Front Range ' ULLEVIG L E V I G Transportation 6 Air Quality in the Greeley Area Flaming Connell 00-135 6/1/01 0 I un. 873 Er Additional Projects cc - m U cc V m a 1:-\na !, CR 30 Transportation System Management `""B • r••� •I I TSM-13 Loveland ITS Project \ \ • I 1 .-..i ��..� ! ! I — '� '� U Ft.Collins-Loveland•• I • ��(� Municipal Airport I Ct age-41 I I 57th Street Earhart Rd. ---111 ! I LEGEND r"-I BOYD ! a = Highway Projects Q a —• —••i j: HORSESHOE LAKE /��• , I • I = o —..— ••—•� _� LAKE \ \ \ f ! Bike/ Ped Projects g • j..1 = Rail Projects N. t..—..—. —..—..—.. :� -4.> $J' / l •��, S .— cossoadsBvd� l I = \ c. —..—.. CR X Project Designation I. ...—..—..1 _ _ " J� ••— •—••—••—• ~ — — ! 37th St L.a .— 1 1 CR 24E •` ! 37th SL • : ---"l� `• ! `.- �� Cr • I —.. F 29th Streetji \::i U ca ze • i : Qs�e Leal ,>�KE.Q,CL ; CC I ' I r ST ` LAKE 8 ii Q `�—i• - - -` Mcwhinrer • LpRR r.--I I I j. ENS0 LOVEI.AND ( ,� ,6th SE-23- `m' �•. < awe. 34� ._..� J (1_ mat Eisenhower!B1W. L': ,.—..� et I M ` • •`. A 2J i i •� — 25. 8th Bt. 0 b ?.._....... ; 3 7th SL a'.,•�,C-- CR ZO.r.. \ 1st St. �l. it i--� N \ ,\•r� BOEDECKER ` o . \ • f' Thompson_ U N I V RES- �1 ~•� Dr. 0. 1 n �• O, ��.er " �/Jf e S 4"'r_ J,. 66) •1 .• 14th St. e •• --� CR 18 402 L—..—. :1S• - / : deg-4(% ,8th St. 7----- • 2 S — — O CR 16E N /�/ ••— - • I o CR 16 / CR16 I CR 16 cc 2873 cc cc o r o U Nitre -VI-3 64. FELSBURG Fiscally Constrained Plan II U O LT G n ' in. Loveland Area NTwMportnH n Afr Quality ULLEVIG Planning Council 1 00-135 5/9/01 LCR64 a WCR100 287 Well • ..n 0 e n \ N m .- ¢ Additional Projects �'- LCRsz 3 3 3 WCR 98 Nu n \ U U U cc 3 Highway j J LCRso 3 3 3 3 NCR 96 c H-64 Regional Park and Ride Lot Pool ¢ 25 I m ^ m \ . wcn94 H-65 Si nal Pool - Various Locations Region Wide 14 -V+ q 1 LCR58 a ag g •✓�, iz a ' LCR56 V 3 3 3 WCR 92 _ Transit i 3 \ T-106 NFR SMART Trips Regional Vanpool Extpansion LCR54 _ WCR 80 • IB..' co PiErce Travel Demand Management I LLM752 N \ WCR 88 TDM-1 SMART Trips Regional Travel Demand N u \ WCR 86 Management Program (Existing) ' Ei OLCR so "� 3 - TDM-7 Less Taxing Commuter Benefits in Weld CountY 46 �._ \\ wcRaa Transportation System Management A t\\ 14 TSM-1 Region-Wide Planning Studies ' '' - t4 ,x, LC-a4 -■ WCR 80 TSM-2 Region-Wide/ Intelligent Transportation I '19' l System Project (// Fort z °g )) [6 ■■ '1 WCR 78 NORSrP!%IfN Collins Lt., S '1 ....,c4 \ WCR76 LC'... WRW E ton WCR 74 4, ''7 "19' WCR 72 / IIL :ev=� anc LEGEND "� R36 `c 0 `,., Q w-eias — j = Highway Projects - WCR 70 U i " h IPJ� 392 = Bike / Ped Projects m cr) E287 t LCR30E Windsor (�1� ' WCRB� = Rail Projects an e .P WCR64 X = Project Designation a t. a'• 1 LARe• �_ __ .r Qin 97 a 34 u cc u- veland `. J ..' w■ ' 77` aq LO • li '� -..��-' °- \�� •Iy,� � ■��`34 1. r 9 !! rj Thm . \ — l ra�rin>♦� 34 1 Greeley il.�� YGass -.:5434 V 'i°� WCR 54 j -- - LCR7818E LCRI8 402 �'. 34 r n LCR76 „�,� 1 WCR 52 � I a) mCC 44�� LCR 14 a. IS �,• IS—_ 60 .imp-- �_/ :1 9� I„S� o U U U U U carnet cAR1ER • ' • u �y '19'J�Imst� ... _ - Salle 3 3 3 3 3 3 LAKE m/ LCR 12 _ 111 4. l 1 +tom _ ��.�� v � A �� :_'17'' • i�� cw Rw li � �r '2'� WCR 46 LCR1D' • Rro.r U o LCRB �� 'F a 3 3 p p WCR 44 I la n. CC 66 unm - cc / , o 266en , ^ V' V - � �'+ LCR6 ` d 0-3 �<'� O ,4 N 3 3 WCR 42 `M ..4 LCR4 iT ^� �� _ e V r1 sos hGil. /S Ja 3 ¢ WCR40 LARrntER COUNTY J 3 3 25 I'' °3 3 g N h •; 3 WCR38 CC CC` CC CC CC CC BOULDER-CDER ---:-S-- —287 7 3 /4 3 3 3 85 3 3 3 Figure Vt-4 fil FELSBURG Fiscally Constrained Plan H O LT & Northpo[nliRange on&Air Quality ULLEVIG Planning Council in North Front Range Region 00-155 6/1/01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan E. Other CDOT Programs The prioritized list of projects presented in Tables V-1 through V-7 have been financially constrained to coincide with the combined total funding from federal, state, and local sources as enumerated earlier. In addition to these program categories, there are a number of other funding programs that will provide for the implementation of various projects that are selected through processes that are conducted by either CDOT or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Through the general descriptions of programs listed below, this plan supports the inclusion of projects in upcoming versions of the North Front Range Transportation Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program selected from these programs by processes involving statewide competition, program-specific applications, or by CDOT Region 4: • CDOT Surface Treatment Program -The CDOT Surface Treatment Program uses a process of identifying the remaining service life of the state highway system to determine where the surface treatment funding should be used in meeting the Transportation �- Commission's goals. The Transportation Commission has set an objective of having 60% of the state highway system rated as good or fair. ^ • CDOT Bridge Program - The CDOT Bridge Program uses a process of identifying the condition of every bridge on the highway system to determine where bridge funding should be used. The Transportation Commission has set a goal to meet 100% of structural, functional, and maintenance needs of the structures on the state highway system. • CDOT Rest Area Program - The CDOT Rest Area Program identified current rest areas that needed to be replaced, reconstructed, and maintained to meet the Transportation Commission's goals for the program. Funding for construction and replacement of rest areas will sunset in Fiscal Year 2004 when prioritized projects are expected to be completed. • CDOT Safety Program - The CDOT Safety Program is aimed at meeting the Transportation Commission's goal to reduce motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities on the state highway system. In addition, safety program objectives for sign replacement and roadway striping have been established. • CDOT Maintenance Program - The CDOT Maintenance Program uses a process of grading maintenance levels of service on the state highway system. The Transportation .. Commission has established specific grade levels as objectives for the various activities associated with the maintenance program. r" i . r FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 83 2025 Regional Transportation Plan • CDOT Operations Program -The CDOT Operations Program addresses the variety of administrative functions enabling CDOT to deliver its construction and maintenance programs. These include general support activities such as procurement services and human resource management, as well as program support activities such as transportation planning and roadway design. In addition to these programs, federal discretionary grant programs such as the Recreational Trails Program, the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program, Access to Jobs/Reverse Commute Program, and various Federal Transit Administration discretionary grant programs can provide additional funding for specific transportation projects and purposes. Program and grant applicants to coordinate with their regional planning commissions or metropolitan planning organizations to ensure consistency with regional transportation plans and programs. Similarly, notification of CDOT is necessary to facilitate coordination between — regional and statewide plans and programs. Consistency at the regional plan and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) level would be considered consistent with the statewide transportation plan, and enables the projects awarded grants under the discretionary programs to be interpreted as eligible for inclusion in the STIP. r pp FELSBURG HOLT LT & ULLEVIG Page 84 2025 Regional Transportation Plan VII. SHORT-RANGE FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 2025 Regional Transportation Plan VII. SHORT-RANGE FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN This section provides descriptions of two short-range regional transportation planning elements. A. Short-Range Transit Element This section presents the Short-Range Transit Element of the North Front Range Regional Transit Plan that has been prepared by the NFRT &AQPC. The long-range elements of the Regional Transit Plan have been integrated into the preceding section of this RTP. The short- range element includes the projects to be implemented over the next six years. The major assumptions used in developing revenue and cost projections are sources currently used by the transit agencies or to be realized over the short planning horizon. The Short-Range Transit Element is the basis for operational plans for each transit provider within the North Front Range Region. Each operator is responsible for developing their own detailed operational plans to implement the Short-Range Transit Element. The Short-Range Transit Element is used by the Colorado Department of Transportation in the evaluation of transit grant applications. Service Plan — Fort Collins—Transfort The City of Fort Collins is completing a Strategic Operating Plan for the short-term planning period, as well as a long-range bus system design goal for year 2010. As of April 2001, four consecutive scenarios have been developed to reach the 2010 goal. Scenario 1 provides simple modifications to the existing service, and Scenario 2 adds the Mason Street Corridor project. Scenario 3 begins the transition to a productive grid design by providing a more extensive redesign of the system based on longer-term service improvements. The improvements position Transfort for continuing growth in Fort Collins. Thus, Scenario 3 is a foundation for the preferred system, and Scenario 4 will require a significant budget increase. A realistic option for the next six years is to look at Scenario 1 and progress to Scenario 2. These scenarios are shown in Figures VII-1 and VII-2, on the following pages. The maps are taken from the Nelson\Nygaard Draft Executive Summary. Table VII-1 presents the Transfort fiscally-constrained service plan for the next six years. The detailed financial plan will be available in the Strategic Operating Plan when the plan is finished .. and should be referred to for specific project funding details. To date, the information was not available. r ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEV1G Page 85 Pe Figure 2: Fort Collins Transfort N Scenario 1: Minimal Redesign •÷t ..a 4 •• r" 1..... a •w L....Pe 144 ^[w• 0 r i a.- ICI r F. 134am I ow." 1-,u. spa. � 0a two • rk G[M •rnl[t[ oOVAIN tA Dead ,_.t+[..t• aswltWeal OSW Mee — - itt— d iii es" seelemd r' . le „l[ le I LOWS Al Dar Rain T Tani Cs ryt Miry"quo ap 70.1euin Mmor goods Con NU a as lie un.0 , v.• eeluel to Figure VII-1 r4FELSBURG Fort Collins Transfort ' H l7 L &T North Front R atRange Transportationtb Air Quality ULLEVIG Planning Council 5ceneraio 1: Minimal Redisign 00-135 6/1/01 t_ n s . n-(:).- s T_ 4 Y.. f ,} Law F Y,.1.4 1 T x_ i 0.114- -- 9 IT w yyy F aYlC flaw/ tNnl a} Y r i eYre t e �./►r1 tar mow Mr Pat t •p-AY ' IIr-1-1 " I Y )---- .c.^ y-�.L Cake , o — Ma tt i r Ic-ry F { J 0 -! lip 1 ' Feb*sane It W fir es YI►eYM . 1 -1 a -, IV W. we wall CC.�-yd4 Inning.. P • I Y,PKC Wit Pm TOW T. I Lewd Ampocas O Tmklc yr @Y M014r*IVardn) 20W..• WnRwy Myra JIIYrur mow. .-. Posit Dry art I o DI JNIh Figure VII-2 piFELSBURU North Front Range Fort Collins Transfort H O L T & Thvnsportntton 6 Air Quality ..- ULLEVIc Planning Council Sceneraio 2: Minimal Redisign with Mason 00-155 6/1/01 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Service Plan — Greeley—The Bus The City of Greeley—The Bus Short-Range Transit Element is presented in Table VII-2. The table shows the overall fiscally-constrained expenses for The Bus and also the projected revenues for the system. The overall system costs for the next five years are approximately $2,500,000 each year. If more monies become available, The Bus has several expansion projects for the community of Greeley and the surrounding areas. Service Plan — Loveland — City of Loveland Transit The City of Loveland — COLT, Short-Range Transit Element is presented in Table VII-3. The table shows the overall fiscally-constrained expenses for COLT and also the projected revenues .. for the system. The principal short-range elements identified by the City of Loveland include: • Increase citywide fixed-route service to 30-minute frequencies during peak hours, six days per week. • Increase the Foxtrot service and coordination with Transfort. r- • Restructure the Minibus service to a true ADA-defined paratransit service, instead of an age-based service. The major factor for funding sources with the City of Loveland includes the availability of FTA Section 5307 monies in fiscal year 2004. This funding source will provide additional monies to the agency, but will still require a 50 percent local match. Therefore, the budget on the following page presents the major upgrade (more frequent service and longer hours) in service for fiscal year 2006. This allows the City of Loveland to plan for an increase in funding from their general fund or optimistically from a dedicated tax or impact fee from the increased development in the region. The North Front Range Regional Transit Plan provides a list of the Loveland preferred projects, which have been submitted for long-range planning purposes. These projects may be implemented for the transit agency if additional monies become available. Service Plan — Regional Services Projects included in the regional services portion of this fiscally-constrained Short-Range Transit Element are Foxtrot Service (Loveland to Fort Collins) and Regional Vanpool Service by Smart Trips. Table VII-4 provides the year-to-year budgetary information for the regional services. It must also be noted that numerous regional projects ranked very high among all the projects submitted for the North Front Range. These projects were not included in the fiscally- constrained short-range plan. However, it is a good chance that these projects may be implemented with additional monies available within the region. Three such examples of high scoring projects are: I- OP FELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 88 2025 Regional Transportation Plan ^ Table VII-1 Short-Range Transit Element Transfort-Fort Collins EXPENSES 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Continue Existin• Services $ 5,893,010 $ 6,069,800 $ 6,251,894 $ 6,439,451 $ 6,632,635 $ 6,831,614 •— Replace Vehicles $888,308 $3,689,490 (7 med-sized buses&4 mini-buses) 14 mini-buses, 8 full coaches& 1 serv. veh.) Bus Facili Ex•ansion ---- $ 7,600,000 Mason Street ROW •reserv. $ 7,734,000 ---- CSU Transit Center - $ 6,194,000 ---- TOTAL $ 6,781,318 $ 19,997,800 $ 6,251,894 $ 10,128,941 $ 14,232,635 $ 6,831,614 FUNDING SOURCES Itemized funding sources available`from the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. y TOTAL $ 6,781,318 $ 19,997,800 $ 6,251,894 $ 10,128,941 $ 14,232,635 $ 6,831,614 • Table VII-2 Short-Range Transit Element r The Bus-Greeley EXPENSES • 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 O- Continue Existing Services $ 2,024,416 $ 2,105,000 $ 2,189,000 $ 2,277,000 $ 2,368,000 $ 2,463,000 Replace Vehicles $ 110,000 $ 17,000 $ 130,000 $ 45,000 $ - $ 635,000 Support Vehicle Main.Equip. $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 2,134,416 $ 2,202,000 $ 2,319,000 $ 2,322,000 $ 2,418,000 $ 3,118,000 rfb-, 4.7 n7t FUNDINdtObRGEg -;rCr 4 Fares $ 283,000 $ 297,000 $ 312,000 $ 328,000 $ 344,000 $ 361,000 Advertising $ 43,524 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 City of Evans $ 80,250 $ 83,000 $ 86,000 $ 89,000 $ 93,000 $ 97,000 FTA Urban $ 922,000 $ 987,000 $ 1,026,480 $ 1,067,539 $ 1,110,241 $ 1,154,650 FTA Discretionary $ 88,000 $ - $ 104,000 $ - $ - $ 508,000 City of Greeley $ 717,642 $ 790,000 $ 745,600 $ 793,000 $ 826,000 $ 953,000 TOTAL $ 2,134,416 $ 2,202,000 $ 2,319,080 $ 2,322,539 $ 2,418,241 $ 3,118,650 ^ Notes:Assumed 3%inflation Rate&4%Personnel Cost Increase. r•' r r r 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r Table VII-3 Short-Range Transit Element COLT-City of Loveland -- EXPENSES 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Continue Existing Services $ 507,000 $ 560,300 $ 610,000 $ 737,000 $ 759,110 $ 781,883 Enhanced Services $ 1,250,000 $ 1,300,000 ▪ Replace Vehicles $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Other Capital $ 1,625,000 $ 3,000,000 TOTAL $ 2,192,000 $ 3,560,300 $ 670,000 $ 737,000 $ 2,069,110 $ 2,141,883 FUNDINGSOURCES Fares $ 20,000 $ 29,150 $ 32,000 $ 35,000 $ 59,000 $ 65,000 Advertising $ 8,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 13,200 $ 13,900 $ 14,600 "' City of Loveland $ 967,000 $ 1,764,000 $ 317,000 $ 368,500 $ 1,016,555 $ 1,052,942 FTA-ATJ $ 96,000 $ 98,880 FTA 5307-Urban $ 353,000 $ 368,500 $ 1,052,555 $ 1,088,942 FTA 5309 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,600,000 ▪ FTA 5310 $ 48,000 FTA 5311 $ 29,727 $ 30,727 $ 31,649 $ 32,598 $ 33,576 $ 34,584 Medicaid $ 24,000 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 TOTAL $ 2,192727 $ 3,560,757 $ 771,649 $ 843,798 $ 2,201,586 $ 2,282,067 r—• Notes:Assumed 3%Inflation Rate. r Table VII-4 Short-Range Transit Element Regional Transit Services 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Continue Existing Services 1.Foxtrot(Loveland to Fort Collins) $ 167,438 $ 177,430 $ 186,302 $ 195,617 $ 205,397 $ 215,667 .. 2.Regional Vanpool $ 255,500 $ 272,000 $ 175,000 $ 200,000 $ 210,000 $ 221,000 Replace Vehicles 1.Foxtrot(Loveland to Fort Collins) $ 250,000 2.Regional Vanpool $ 279,000 $ 301,000 $ 240,000 $ 242,000 $ 260,000 $ 280,000 .. TOTAL $ 701,938 $ 750,430 $ 851,302 $ 637,617 $ 675,397 $ 716,667 s ,e A$"3o ?'3 $77— v, ;3' +m s °73," *s».g 'F,- M,,..-x�,'a�'L ��Fah. Ra+rx'k .. ,�� .�_ ,��1 . .. ;�111�bIN_ � RCiES''t b'`_ __ .._ . . . .._ . VanGo CMAO $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Small Urban-Highway Side funds $ 206,000 $ 182,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Fares $ 267,500 $ 328,000 $ 350,960 $ 375,527 $ 401,814 $ 429,941 .� Subtotal $ 498,500 $ 535,000 $ 375,960 $ 400,527 $ 426,814 $ 454,941 Foxtrot FTA 5311 $ 83,719 $ 88,715 FTA 5307-Urban $ 293,151 $ 97,808 $ 102,699 $ 107,834 .� Larimer County $ 27,906 $ 29,572 $ 47,717 $ 32,603 $ 34,233 $ 35,945 Loveland $ 27,906 $ 29,572 $ 47,717 $ 32,603 $ 34,233 $ 35,945 City of Fort Collins $ 27,906 $ 29,572 $ 47,717 $ 32,603 $ 34,233 $ 35,945 Fares $ 36,000 $ 37,800 $ 39,690 $ 41,675 $ 43,758 $ 45,946 Subtotal $ 203,438 $ 215,230 $ 475,992 $ 237,291 $ 249,156 $ 261,613 TOTAL $ 701,938 $ 750,230 $ 851,952 $ 637,818 $ 675,970 $ 716,554 Notes:Assumed 5%Inflation Rate• 2025 Regional Transportation Plan • Expansion of SMARTTrips Regional Vanpool • Greeley to Denver Regional Transit Service • Fort Collins to Denver Regional Transit Service Intercity Bus Feasibility Study fas In addition to the local planning efforts for regional service, an Intercity Bus Feasibility Study is currently underway. The purpose of the study is to determine if commuter bus service is feasible in the following travel corridors in the Front Range: 1) 1-25 south from Denver to Pueblo; 2) 1-25 north from Denver to Fort Collins/Greeley, including Highway 85 and the possible link from I-25 to Highway 85, via Highway 34. The study will look at service needs between 2001 and 2008, including an evaluation of demand and service design as construction on I-25 is underway. Service Plan — Larimer County (Rural Area) Larimer County conducted a Transit Services Action Plan study to guide the county in the correct direction for transit in the future. Rural transit service is currently provided by the county under contract with BATS, SAINT, Special Transit, City of Loveland Transit, and TransFort. The recommendation from the Larimer County Transit Services Action Plan is for Larimer County to take on management of a "County Transit Program"—similar to the existing Weld County Program. Further details and implementation steps are available within the report. The fiscally-constrained plan for rural Larimer County is presented in Table VII-5. Larimer County relies on the transit agencies to apply for the rural FTA grants. The fiscally-constrained plan assumes that Larimer County will implement the recommendations for the County Transit Program by 2004. The continuation of existing services includes: • South County Senior Transportation by COLT • North County Dial-a-Ride Transfort • BATS • SAINT • Estes Park Service by Special Transit Service Plan —Weld County (Rural Area) The Weld County Transportation Program is a multi-faceted transportation service for rural Weld County, including special populations and the general public. It is an integrated service with a diversity of funding, including contracts, public grants, and private grants. The fiscally-constrained plan for rural Weld County is presented in Table VII-6 and includes the funding for the continuation of existing services. iFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 91 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table VII-5 Short-Range Transit Element Rural Larimer County EXPENSES 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Continue Existing Services South County Service $ 59,454 $ 59,454 $ 62,427 $ 65,548 $ 68,825 $ 72,267 North County Dial-A-Ride $ 47,042 $ 48,550 $ 50,978 $ 53,526 $ 56,203 $ 59,013 BATS $ 72,876 $ 74,876 $ 78,620 $ 82,551 $ 86,678 $ 91,012 SAINT $ 46,178 $ 47,543 $ 49,920 $ 52,416 $ 55,037 $ 57,789 Estes Park $ 72,000 $ 92,000 $ 96,600 $ 101,430 $ 106,502 $ 111,827 Foxtrot $ 167,438 $ 177,430 $ 186,302 $ 195,617 $ 205,397 $ 215,667 Subtotal $ 464,988 $ 499,853 $ 524,846 $ 551,088 $ 578,642 $ 607,574 Replace Vehicles South County Service $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - North County Dial-A-Ride $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - r. BATS $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - SAINT $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - • Estes Park $ - $ - $ - $ 18,500 $ - $ - Foxtrot $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ 430,000 $ 18,500 $ - $ - TOTAL $ 464,988 $ 499,853 $ 954,846 $ 569,588 $ 578,642 $ 607,574 FUNDING SOURCES Fares $ 41,849 $ 44,987 $ 47,236 $ 49,598 $ 52,078 $ 54,682 FTA 5311 South County Service $ 29,727 $ 30,727 $ 32,263 $ 33,877 $ 35,570 $ 37,349 North County Dial-A-Ride $ 23,521 $ 24,275 $ 25,489 $ 26,763 $ 28,101 $ 29,506 BATS $ 38,438 $ 39,438 $ 41,410 $ 43,480 $ 45,654 $ 47,937 .. SAINT $ 15,885 $ 16,176 $ 16,985 $ 17,834 $ 18,726 $ 19,662 Estes Park $ 36,000 $ 46,000 $ 48,300 $ 50,715 $ 53,251 $ 55,913 Foxtrot $ 83,719 $ 88,715 $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 227,290 $ 245,331 $ 164,447 $ 172,669 $ 181,303 $ 190,367 FTA 5310 South County Service $ - $ - $ 48,000 $ - $ - $ - North County Dial-A-Ride $ - $ - $ 48,000 $ - $ - $ - BATS $ - $ - $ 48,000 $ - $ - $ - SAINT $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Estes Park $ - $ - $ - $ 14,800 $ - $ - Foxtrot $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ 144,000 $ 14,800 $ - $ - FTA 5307-Urban $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - Local Match(County,Cities& Private) $ 195,849 $ 209,535 $ 399,163 $ 332,521 $ 345,261 $ 362,525 TOTAL $ 464,988 $ 499,853 $ 954,846 $ 569,588 $ 578,642 $ 607,574 Notes:Assumed 5%Inflation Rate. 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table VII-6 Short-Range Transit Element Rural Weld County EXPENSES 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Continue Existing Services $ 893,500 $ 954,000 $ 992,160 $ 1,031,846 $ 1,073,120 $ 1,116,045 Replace Vehicles/Other Capital $ 441,133 $ 458,778 $ 477,129 $ 496,214 $ 516,063 $ 536,705 Subtotal $ 1,334,633 $ 1,412,778 $ 1,469,289 $ 1,528,061 $ 1,589,183 $ 1,652,750 FUNDING SOURCES Fares/Other Oper. Revenues $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 10,400 $ 10,816 $ 11,249 $ 11,699 Medicaid $ 55,000 $ 57,000 $ 59,280 $ 61,651 $ 64,117 $ 66,682 FTA 5309 $ 112,320 $ 140,000 $ 145,600 $ 151,424 $ 157,481 $ 163,780 FTA 5310 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 66,560 $ 69,222 $ 71,991 $ 74,871 FTA 5311 $ 82,000 $ 90,000 $ 93,600 $ 97,344 $ 101,238 $ 105,287 Title Ill $ 54,000 $ 56,000 $ 58,240 $ 60,570 $ 62,992 $ 65,512 �. Head Start $ 520,000 $ 550,000 $ 572,000 $ 594,880 $ 618,675 $ 643,422 CSBG $ 95,000 $ 105,000 $ 109,200 $ 113,568 $ 118,111 $ 122,835 Weld County $ 264,813 $ 254,778 $ 264,969 $ 275,568 $ 286,591 $ 298,054 WIA $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,160 $ 4,326 $ 4,499 $ 4,679 School Districts $ 42,000 $ 45,000 $ 46,800 $ 48,672 $ 50,619 $ 52,644 TANF funds $ 35,000 $ 37,000 $ 38,480 $ 40,019 $ 41,620 $ 43,285 Subtotal $ 1,334,633 $ 1,412,778 $ 1,469,289 $ 1,528,061 $ 1,589,183 $ 1,652,750 Notes:Assumed 4%Inflation Rate. r r r r r r r r 7 pPa 2025 Regional Transportation Plan U- B. Aviation Element The Short -Range Aviation Element consists of the Capital Improvement Programs of the two publicly funded airports in the region shown on Tables VII-7 and VII-8. In addition, both facilities plan to update their airport master plans in the next few years to define long-range improvement plans. Table VII-7 Fort Collins Municipal Airport Capital Improvement Program mi r i "N I " 5#iitk Infl 144 ` " . ,, 1'eaflPraject ili lral : ,Local =_Neai Ititbt 2001 Rehab T/way"B" Between "Al"and "A2" 20,312 182,813 203,125 Construct Maintenance Building 62,500 62,500 125,000 2002 Install Hard Stands on Ramp 37,500 37,500 75,000 Slurry Seal and Paint South End of Main Ramp 25,000 100,000 125,000 2003 .. Sealcoat T/ways & Ramps I 83,375 I 90,000 I I 173,375 2004 Crack, Seal, Fog Seal and Paint R/way 15-33 I 125,000 I 125,000 ( I 250,000 2005 Master Plan Update I 37,500 I 37,500 I I 75,000 2006 Pave and Paint Rlway 6-24 75,000 75,000 150,000 300,000 Total 6-Year Costs 445,875 547,812 332,813, 1,326,500 r r r FELSBURG ,, HOLT & ULLEVIG Page94 P" 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Table VII-8 Greeley-Weld County Airport Capital Improvement Program .. yy'�tatel 'mii 'Ihlm ..a _ .,,,�t.' t ilemrolect Feder'alui Local.,,, Toil:ii;.TotalovEAG al 2001 Taxiway C * $1,660,000 $1,660,000 Infrastructure/Roads $400,000 $400,000 r- 2002 Taxiway A Central $1,880,000 $1,880,000 Airport Master Plan $150,000 $150,000 .. Infrastructure $1,000,000 $1,000,000 2003 Runway 9/27 Rehab. I $1,770,000 I I $1,770,000 ■. 2004 Aprons/Taxi Lanes Rehab. _ $1,110,000 $1,110,000 Infrastructure $1,000,000 $1,000,000 2005 Security Project $150,000 I I $150,000 2006 Runway 16/34 Overlay $3,300,000 $3,300,000 Total 6-Year Costs $10,020,000 $2,400,000 $12,420,000 * Taxiway C is the final phase of a multi-year 15 million dollar airport expansion project which included the construction of a new 10,000 foot primary runway and a new terminal building. r r r r IPFELSBURG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 95 2025 Regional Transportation Plan VIM AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY FINDING r- 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r— VIII. AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY FINDING .. IN P ROG RESS r- r• FELSBURG r- C4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 96 '— 2025 Regional Transportation Plan IX. FUTURE PLANNING PROCESS 2025 Regional Transportation Plan ^ IX. FUTURE PLANNING PROCESS This section provides discussions of considerations that should be applied to future transportation planning activities that are undertaken by the NFR. .., A. Future Regional Transportation Planning The NFR updates its regional transportation plan on an approximate three-year cycle, and the plan development process is continually evolving. Based on the 2025 RTP process, a few observations have been made by plan participants relative to modifications to the process that should be considered for future RTP updates. • Project Categories - The Rail project category has been defined to include both rail/highway crossing improvements and passenger rail projects. Since evaluation criteria and potential funding sources that are appropriate for these two types of rail projects are very different, it — is recommended that Rail/Highway Crossing and Passenger Rail be separated into two project categories. • Socio-Economic Forecasts -The socio-economic forecasting process used for the 2020 and 2025 RTP's was essentially a "bottom-up" approach, whereby individual jurisdictions were asked to provide forecasts for their own communities, and the accumulated individual forecasts were reviewed for reasonableness at the regional level. For future planning, the NFR should consider implementation of more of a "top-down" approach, whereby regional household and employment control totals would be established first, then growth would be allocated to individual communities based on a regional socio-economic forecasting process. B. Plan Amendment Process In the approximate three-year periods between RTP updates, there may be a need to amend the plan. Situations that would spur interim amendments may include new projects or substantially modified project descriptions that emerge from completion of a regional or local study or the availability of financial resources that were not anticipated in the RTP process. The NFRT & AQPC will develop a standard form to be submitted by a member jurisdiction wishing to request an amendment. Information should be submitted outlining the specific amendment request, the reason that the amendment is needed, and a clear explanation of the reason the amendment is required prior to development of the next scheduled RTP update. NFRT & AQPC staff will review the request and determine whether the request should be processed as an administrative planning modification or as a formal plan amendment. Criteria for determining eligibility for a administrative planning modification should be developed by the TAC. In the cases of administrative planning modifications, NFRT &AQPC staff would prepare a recommendation for incorporating the modification in the regional transportation planning process. The recommendation would be presented to the TAC for concurrence. ppFELSBURG i HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 97 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment requests that would either add a new project to the RTP or project modification of a magnitude greater than that outlined for an administrative planning modification would be treated as a formal plan amendment. In these cases, the Council would be required to consider and adopt the modification as an amendment to the RTP. C. Future Transportation Improvement Programs Every two years, the region's six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is updated by the NFRT & AQPC. The TIP is the primary tool for allocating funds to implement projects .. identified in the RTP. The prioritization of projects in the RTP should continue to be used as a guide to development of the TIP. Three additional considerations have been suggested by planning process participants as ones that should be incorporated in the TIP development process. • Small Projects —There is a concern that in allocating funds through the TIP process, one or two very high cost projects could use up all of the available funding for a significant period of time, thus delaying implementation of highly ranked smaller projects. It is recommended that special consideration be given to allocations to smaller projects in the development of TIP's. • Local Match —The amount of local funding committed to projects for which federal and state funds are sought should be considered in selecting projects for inclusion in TIP's. If local governments can commit to significant investments for local matching and overmatch funds, that should be factored into the TIP project selection criteria. Such a consideration can serve to optimize the benefits derived from federal and state funds, as well as creating incentives for local governments and private interests to invest in needed transportation improvements. • Project Phasing — For some large multi-phased projects, the ranking of different phases in the RTP may not be the most logical order in which the overall project should be implemented. For example, the utility of one phase may be dependent upon the implementation of another phase that has been ranked lower in the RTP prioritization process. These phasing considerations should be factored into the TIP development process to ensure the most logical phasing of multi-phased projects. r r FELSBURG r' (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 98 r x- 2025 Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS a ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan r GLOSSARY OF TERMS AQCC Air Quality Control Commission CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation ^' CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CO Carbon Monoxide Council NFRT & AQPC DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year (October-September) HOV High Occupancy Vehicle, any vehicle carrying two or more passengers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, requiring states to develop a Statewide Transportation Plan and a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) identifying short-term project needs and priorities. ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service (a measure of roadway congestion ranging from LOS A, free-flow traffic conditions, to LOS F, a breakdown in traffic flow). MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization is the agency designated by the Governor to administer the federally required transportation planning process in a metropolitan area. An MPO must be in place in every urbanized area over 50,000 population. The MPO is responsible for the 20-year long range plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The MPO is the coordinating agency for grants, billings and policy- ►- making for transportation. NFR North Front Range, one of 15 statewide planning regions. NFR TAFS North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study analyzing potential options for long range transportation between the Denver metro ,. area and the NFR. r pp FELSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan NFRT & AQPC North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, the MPO for the study area. NHS National Highway System, including the Interstate System and major, connecting arterial roadways. RTP Regional Transportation Plan SIP State Implementation Plan (Air Quality) SOV Single Occupant Vehicle STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program is developed by CDOT, identifying short-term project needs and priorities. Colorado has established a 6-year STIP. TAC Technical Advisory Committee, responsible for technical tasks, review of consultant work, and making recommendations to the Council. TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone, used for land use projections and modeling purposes. TDM Transportation Demand Management, strategies attempting to reduce single occupant vehicle trips by encouraging alternate modes of high occupant transportation. TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TIP Transportation Improvement Program, a multi-year program of transportation projects (including highway and transit) on the Federal aid system, which addresses the goals of the long-range plans and lists priority projects and activities for the region. TPR Transportation Planning Region. 15 TRPs have been established in Colorado. TSM Transportation System Management, strategies to obtain more capacity from the existing transportation system. UFR Upper Front Range, planning region surrounding the NFR including the rural portions of Larimer and Weld Counties, and all of Morgan County. VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled. The total distance traveled, in miles, by all motor vehicles of a specific group in a given area during a given time period. up FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG r— 2025 Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES Fam r— .. r .- pp FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX C SOCIO ECONOMIC DATA See: North Front Range Travel Demand Model - Documentation and User's Guide, April, 2001 for detailed socio economic data and forecasts r r I- r FELSBURG ' HOLT & ULLEVIG 2025 Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX D TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS See: North Front Range Travel Demand Model - Documentation and User's Guide, April, 2001 for detailed traffic projections S pFELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG Hello