HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000766.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY VISION PLAN AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, the
Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Upper Front Range Regional Planning
Commission, and the Colorado Department of Transportation, have been working cooperatively
for the past two years to complete the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility
Study, and
WHEREAS, 18 different technologies and 17 different highway and rail alignments were
examined and analyzed during this process, and
WHEREAS, population is expected to increase by 43 percent and employment is
expected to increase by 36 percent in the North Front Range Corridor over the next twenty
years, and
WHEREAS, the transportation infrastructure will experience above-capacity congestion
by 2015 if no improvements are made, and
WHEREAS, no significant inter-regional transit services, no high occupancy vehicle
lanes, and no passenger rail service exists in the North Front Range Corridor, and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1999, the Policy and Oversight Committee of the North
Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study, approved a Vision Plan to guide
transportation improvements in the North Front Range Corridor over the next twenty years, and
this Vision Plan calls for a balanced approach of widening 1-25 with general purpose, high
occupancy vehicle lanes, instituting a regional transit service, and pursuing passenger rail
service in the 1-25 Corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board supports all appropriate short
and long term actions to ensure implementation of the North Front Range Transportation
Alternatives Feasibility Study Vision Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, that the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study Vision Plan
be, and hereby is, approved.
2000-0766
BC0029
RE: NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES FEASIBILITY STUDY
VISION PLAN
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 3rd day of April, A.D., 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
W LD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ►' �'�: : a` .,/ 7 I&E /L
Barbara J irkmeyer, Chair
Weld County Clerk to th>& - -f,
(O). - 2, 161-,-
C� �, ^, M. J. ile, Pro-Tem
BY: G._i/�, • �.
Deputy Clerk to the B J.\, / €,r
y . - Qe.Qrc,�.e,E. Baxter
AF'PROVEd AS TO FORM:�� 4
Dale
Cednty Attorney �i,,,e1 4 4i
Glenn Vaad
2000-0766
BC0029
From: "Kay Wood"<kwood@ci.fort-collins.co.us>
To: <kathy_gilliland@agilent.com>, <mbyrne@agilent.com...
Date: 3/17/00 11:13am
Subject: 2nd try- Resolution on TAFS
Sorry--the last line of this memo was cut off. I'm resending the whole thing.
DATE: March 16, 2000
TO: Planning Council Members
FROM: Vicky McLane
RE: Resolution in support of Vision Plan for TAFS
The North Front Range Transportation&Air Quality Planning Council, at its March 2,2000 meeting, passed a
resolution in support of the Vision Plan of the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study. At
that meeting it was recommended that the Council's local governments adopt a similar resolution of support.
We have attached a sample resolution that you can modify to meet your needs, and we would appreciate you
sending us a copy of the resolution you pass in support of the Vision Plan. We will then forward all of the resolutions
to the Transportation Commission, to CDOT, and to your State Legislators. If you have any questions,feel free to
call Vicky McLane, (970)224-6059.
Here is some background on the study. It was co-sponsored by the North Front Range Planning Council,the Upper
Front Range Regional Planning Commission, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and the Colorado
Department of Transportation. The study's purpose was to develop regional solutions to safety problems,traffic
congestion, air quality issues, and mobility problems between northern Colorado communities and the Denver
metropolitan area. In addition to a regional bus network and miscellaneous mobility improvements,the Vision Plan
consists of two major elements: a passenger rail system from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver Union Terminal,
focused on the 1-25 corridor, and the addition of General Purpose/High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on 1-25 from SH 7
to SH 66.
CC: <kwood@ci.fort-collins.co.us>, <rhensley@ci.fort-c...
2000-0766
NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES FEASIBILITY STUDY
•
•
PHASE II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARCH 2000
NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES FEASIBILITY STUDY
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
r� SOT
NORTH FRONT RANGE
TRANSPORTATION PHASE II
AND AIR QUALITY
PLANNING COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUM MARY
MARCH 2000
myth Fran(Rail
T(anrcoreCbn G.A4OwNry
clammy Council
UPPER
FRONT RANGE
REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
DENVER
REGIONAL COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS
D COG
❑o❑Kmle
A sHo
and m
Associates,Inc.
Suite 500
1515 Arapahoe Sheet Tower 1
Denver,Colorado
80202
TEL 363 446 5552 PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT HAS BEEN FINANCED
FAX 303 446 8678 IN PART THROUGH GRANTS FROM THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Acknowledgements NORTH FHONT RANGE
�kANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
FEASI HIun STUDY
The consultant team sincerely wishes to acknowledge the time, effort, and dedication given to
this project from its inception by all the members of the Policy and Oversight Committee and
the Project Management Team.
Policy and Oversight Committee: Project Management Team:
North Front Range Transportation and Air Myron Swisher, Colorado Department of
Quality Planning Council: Transportation (Project Manager)
Kathy Gilliland, Mayor, City of Loveland Stan Elmquist, CDOT Region 4
Jim Disney, Commissioner, Larimer County Mark Jackson, Spencer Montgomery,
Steve Rudy, Denver Regional Council
Colorado Department of Transportation: of Governments
Nancy Brigden, Greeley Vicky McLane, North Front Range
Peter Mirelez, Northglenn Transportation and Air Quality Planning
Joann Groff, Denver Council
Charles Archibeque, Greeley Drew Scheltinga, Frank Hempen, Upper Front
Range Regional Planning Commission
Upper Front Range Regional Planing
Commission: Consultant Team:
Cynthia Erker, Commissioner, Morgan
County Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.: Tim
Mike Harms, Commissioner, Morgan Baldwin (Project Manager), Don
County Beccasio, Scott Bressler, James
Barbara Kirkmeyer, Commissioner, Weld Cromar, Katie Doyle, Andrea Hallman,
County Bob Hazlett, Sara Jane Maclennan,
Chris Quinn, Ron Thorstad
Denver Regional Council of Governments: Balloffet and Associates, Inc.: Ray Moe,
Don Parsons, Mayor, City of Northglenn Keith Hangland, Ben Herman, Darcie
Leona Stoecker, Mayor, City of Longmont White
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.: Steve Decker,
Private Sector: Steve Pickrell
Joan Boes, League of Women Voters of City Visions: Katherine Woods, Chris Koziol
Larimer County Felsburg Holt & Ullevig: Bob Felsburg, Elliot
Pamala King, Mountain States Better Sulsky, Debbie Zermuehlen
Business Bureau Korve Engineering: Ron Rypinski
Alternates: Leland Consulting Group: Bill Cunningham
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas:
Jennifer Finch, CDOT Headquarters
Helen Peiker, Tad Widby, Chuck Fuhs,
Karla Harding, CDOT Region 4
Sam Seskin
Doug Rames, CDOT Region 4
Ron Phillips, NFRT & AQPC
Table Of Contents NORTH FRONT RANGE
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
FEASI BILRY STUDY
Introduction 1
Study Area 2
Purpose and Need for Transportation Improvements 3
Alternatives Development 4
"Short List" of Alternatives 5
Widen 1-25 6
HOV/Bus Lanes on 1-25 6
Passenger Rail 7
Detailed Evaluation Process 9
Packages of Alternatives 10
Package C3: Western A Rail Plus Widening 1-25 '12
Package D4: Western A Rail Plus HOV/Bus Lanes on 1-25 12
Package 1-25 E: Rail on 1-25 13
Recommended Vison Plan 14
Estimate of Probable Costs 15
The Vision Plan's Major Components Include: 16
Implementation Scenarios 20
Short-Term and Long-Term Action Plans 22
Introduction NORTH FRONT RANGE
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
FFASISIL ry STUDY
a t d,?,
-6 r: I . P l'z
—
1 'E
The North Front Range Transportation Alternatives
Feasibility Study INFRTAFS) was a Major Investment Study kirki
Ol
sponsored by four public agencies:
• The Colorado Department of Transportation;
amill
• The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality DEP�NTOFTRANSPORTATION
Planning Council;
• The Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission;
and ----7/N
• The Denver Regional Council of Governments. /yorth Front Range
'
Transportation Er Air Quality
Planning Council
The study's purpose was to develop regional solutions to
safety problems, traffic congestion, air quality issues, and
mobility problems between the northern Colorado „population centers and the Denver metropolitan area. UMW Tern
Solutions recommended by this study were aimed at falling
within projected funding constraints and at sensitivity to MORGAN
community needs and environmental regulations.
DDCOC%
1
NOF—I. FONT RANGE
IBANS`CIThar pN Ai rEFINAFIVEG
Ffnvmun „TJuv
The Stud Area ochevenne/Laramie
The study area for the NFRTAFS _ 1 _
extended approximately 60 miles •Fort Collins
from the Denver metropolitan area
to Fort Collins and included other
north front range population ?�'V"9
centers in between. The width of
Loveland • • Wesley
the corridor varied but generally
extended from the foothills on the
west to US 85 and DIA on the
east, with 1-25 forming the "spine" ���_
of the study area. The primary
focus of the NFRTAFS was on ;Longmont
north-south travel between thew
major population centers in the ;4:
study area. Tpl ?
BouJ,der*—
)
Purpose and L
Need
DIA
Public S.oping
Candidata Candidate Denver
Modes Alignments
- - ti f
1 1
P,e Screen„ I Pre Screening 05 N
I�
.Lone u.I "Long List
r Mod
.. or Alignments General Study Area Boundary
M mane-Macon Potential Regional)
Mode Alignment and Inter-Regional To Colorado Springs/Pueblo
Combinations Connections
c nncepwa
ConceptUal
Front Range
s .nnv
'abcnusr traffic headed
Detailed
for breakdown
Definition,
e.emaeon
Study gives options
me for thinning crowded
Recomlmprn.ementle) . highways of the future
.,Mi5.sand_
North Front Rrange Transportation p 1, w p
Alternatives Feasibility Study ) sgar4 .er nr, =wst..ad"elp�
alternatives '",�,�a;,..rd,d,>.Ma.a pry e
eWyllm elaitt:C.e1.W.a,°W
development and evaluation process. u N , m can*.wr b,
v E.nWalmgssoisasyl s—brine
2
WORT— IRON- RANGE
1{[A NSF'c=F[TAT„N ,,T,NNATVES
EASLE LAY irADT
Purpose and Need Purpose and Need for Major Transportation
for Transportation investments In the North Front Range
Improvements "As population and employment in the north front
The purpose and need for range continues to increase between now anti 2020,
transportation improvements in the the transportation infrastructure, already in poor
north front range were determined coronae'Roams ores and Nish40.44condatertin
through the identification of key many locations, wrn continuatitiontek4mit This will
transportation and development resists in mead Ser travel Seed*,
issues and major travel markets inersee 1 to. *st.tottality.
within the study area. The -44*****ntion.:03000101.
forte0e, *stfilaAis*ortherrisittlivolifus
The major findings of the study decd et Y r d t
included: kromfititni*and e mssf
*E 0004
■ a projected population increase
g ! `�;
in the study area of 43% by ,40•••100S * Ifieitttilin
w
2020;
• a projected employment Ifil 1, ibtif °t7rti il6
increase of 36% by 2020;
• forecasts for above-capacity
congestion on many study area
roadways and highways if no
major improvements are made; If we make no major J
inter-regional improvements to our
• no significant
9 transportation
transit services that exist in the system, how long l' ,
study area; and will it take you to
• several communities being non- htrours ind 202g peak
hours in 2020? �
attainment areas for carbon
monoxide and PM-10. II Between Fort Collins
and Downtown Denver:
2 hours. 55 minutes
Between Loveland and
Downtown D Denver:
2 hours.44 minutes
-25 slowly strangling 2Between Greeley andDowntown Denver:
Growing population damps Colorado's major artery north 2 hours. 52 minutes •
. -
r w.rw`v:..e.thn 4 ^G •Between Longmont yr Problem. frame
=`.a'^ _^ ^"�"'°..#' A r2. and Downtown Denver . . ,, Congestion by 2020
1 hour. 47 minutes t
.,err= .b< ran
3
Alternatives
Development -air-1AANSPOf2TA TRANSPORTATION "T OE
T10N ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY
, . ,
.t• r x.ds '
, „ . ,:,..._, J., i ,,,,,. 7___4' -
tV
° 1,ri.. .4 , •
tot .5
?war
A "long list" of eighteen highway and railroad
alignments and seventeen modes or technologies
were initially studied. They were then subjected to a ARr.=, .•
pre-screening or "fatal flaw" analysis. The
evaluation criteria used for this process were
primarily qualitative in nature and considered: —
■ consistency with regional goals;
• environmental impacts; '
• community impacts; -. •-_:
• proven technology in revenue service in North
America;
• impact on land use patterns;
• mobility; and --
■ capital costs. -
le tk"-
Technologies examined included:light rail
High Occupancy Vehicle "HOV/lanes, high
speed rail, highway widening and several
others.
4
Nonni fHON' iAN,e
'tanN;r•.:nrn*oN L;r vnrvrs
[IA.uinnr .IL,UY
•
"Short List" of
Alternatives
After the pre-screening process,
the remaining alignments and "IASI
modes were combined into a series v ,A , , --
of "packages" or "families" of -
alternatives and were subjected to
a more rigorous screening process.
As a result of that process, a
"short list" of alternatives was
developed for more detailed 'Mr
assessment, including a "No-Build"
alternative. This option, required
under federal guidelines, assumes
that no improvements are made to
transportation facilities other than -. re ,1/4.%
those already budgeted. This -
option is the "baseline" against W ,
which all others are measured. "
Another alternative was Inter- I --^
Regional Bus Service, along with a . n
Transportation Management option
(a series of low-cost projects "t'M *
designed to improve mobility for
the region). The other
recommended alternatives were:
• Widen 1-25; 1; C`"\
• HOV/Bus Lanes on 1-25; and
■ Four Passenger Rail alternatives
Each of the alternatives is
described in detail on the following
pages.
5
NORr- ERON I RANGE
MAN-Fs, R IAI ON a ti RNAIIVES
FLA`S -V '.R.ov
Widen 1-25 HOV/Bus Lanes Widening
This alternative adds one general on 1-25 1-25 would
purpose lane in each direction on cost fortune
1-25 between SH-7 and SH-14, a This alternative adds one lane in
total of 40 miles. The widening of each direction on 1-25 between
the facility would result in the 70th Ave. in the north Denver amen are gaone,owth The
Del
Camino f alone, The Del
metro area and SH-14, a total of west fmm f.engmnnt and afnny
need to reconstruct most be ome to„ tt4 r°�t'°nn e„nfd
approximately 53 miles, for use by the next century, Weld' °'e'"
structures and interchanges on the PP Y me net century, weld cQuno
9 aera have ptorerfnn
freeway. The purpose of the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) 9raeishav protested
predict
Y P P mere could be 600,100 mot,
alternative would be to provide traffic and buses during peak maonatshnmthe nonhernedgr
nr me nen�er amt to Fett wroe,
additional vehicular capacity a hours. The alternative would use toy the year l020.
P Y on The heath of our economy,
the inside lanes next to the and uur as gnarny,along me Front
highway facility that is forecast to Range mid dvectly with h,u
median, with a four-foot painted well we mr,t our transportationexperience significant levels of problems on II the next ill years,
congestion by 2020. buffer to separate the new lanes said LanmittN1 (minty Gomm..
KEY FEATURES: from the two existing general
• Open to general traffic at all purpose lanes and would revert to
times general purpose auto use during
• Provides short-term relief to off-peak hours.
1-25 congestion problems in KEY FEATURES:
North Front Range • Used by buses as part of the
• Estimated 2020 travel times inter-regional bus network
from downtown Denver to: ■ Estimated 2020 travel times
Downtown Ft Collins: 107 min. from downtown Denver to:
Downtown Loveland: 96 min. Downtown Ft Collins: 75 min.
Downtown Longmont: 82 min. Downtown Loveland: 63 min.
■ Estimated capital cost: Downtown Longmont: 49 min
$500-600 million depending on • Estimated capital cost:
final design $700-800 million depending on
final design
` 1
N ay
6
NORTH Ricrv- RANGE
NANsvcFIAT ON N T VS
FLA-DIL.V STUDY
Passenger Rail 1-25 Alignment
This alternative would introduce passenger rail service Fon Collins North cu-I4
in several corridors in the region. Estimated costs / Ip,,,,,o,,,ltd
range from $160 million to $900 million depending on ,
w,ia
the alignment, technology and the number of stations.
34
It has been determined that light rail is too costly and
does not have the maximum speeds needed for a
corridor this large; therefore, only push-pull locomotive
powered commuter rail and self-propelled diesel
multiple unit (DMU) technologies were considered for
the north front range. All of the options assume a
single track, with passing tracks where necessary, and
right-of-way preservation for a future second track.
E-47DIA1m
1-25 Corridor
Service from Fort Collins to Denver Union Terminal
(DUT), generally following the 1-25 corridor.
• Length: 61-63 miles
• Average speed: 45 MPH
• Estimated 2020 travel time from DUT to:
•Downtown Ft Collins: 80 min Western Alignments
•Downtown Loveland: 82 min
•Downtown Longmont: 53 min Foil Collins Nod]
• Estimated capital cost: $585 million
Western Route IncclanA
Service following the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line
to connect Fort Collins to Denver Union Terminal via
Loveland, Longmont, and Boulder.
• Length: 70.4-74.4 miles
• Average speed: 42 MPH
• Estimated 2020 travel time from DUT to: ()Miami We1nrn
k/\Ii!ennm0T Ii
•Downtown Ft Collins: 100-105 min I�R
•Downtown Loveland: 76-81 min
120thI, -0
•Downtown Longmont: 52-58 min
• Estimated capital cost: $349.4-$367.2 million
Dcv,ei I m n19ummnl
7
NnR FI FfON F RANGE
IhAI.'+ 'r,'irA1;ON Ar..Ii1:A ..
I l A•,P L -r 37 L G V
Interior Route Interior Alignment
Service following the Union Pacific Railroad to
connect Fort Collins to Denver Union Terminal with """"""..1"'
optional extensions to Loveland and Greeley. 10"`""^ ^
• Length: 68.1 miles <redr,
• Average speed: 42-47 MPH I ,,a1on,
• Estimated 2020 travel time from DUT to:
��>
*Downtown Ft Collins: 87 min
Milliken 1a
•Downtown Loveland: 81 min
•Downtown Greeley: 74 min ,1„1
• Estimated capital cost: $490.8 million
Eastern Route
Service from Fort Collins to Denver Union Terminal, l 47111:1111
utilizing the Great Western Railroad and Union Pacific
Railroad lines via Greeley and Brighton.
• Length: 76.5 miles
• Average speed: 45 MPH haw Ink.r rNniiul
• Estimated 2020 travel time from DUT to:
•Downtown Ft Collins: 102 min
•Downtown Greeley: 67 min
•Downtown Brighton: 31 min
• Estimated capital cost: $313.6 million Eastern Alignment
Fun('ullllrs North Nn
9Jzo1
c Push-pull locomotive-
'fie powered commuter rail
tcr
I� v-
iih
N �R.
❑riJnun
•
I �- i�I a tt" FI'II :Dili
Selj-propelled «
Diesel Multiple Unit
8
Detailed Evaluation
..dr NORTH FRONT RANGE
Process TRANSPORTATION ,ALTERNATIVES
REASIBIU1Y STUDY
•
i {I T ` •irti' ' 4f Ir
-I
ar
The evaluation criteria and methodologies used in this Combined Weighted Totals
study were in keeping with guidelines established by the Average total for each category
Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal w—
Transit Administration. The categories used for the 0.
development of detailed evaluation criteria for this study
00
were:
■ Consistency with regional goals and objectives; 10
■ Mobility; U
• Cost-effectiveness; 0 f .�0".,. �i s? ,® ° oe
„
• Safety; t ''. _ e
2 , - -
■ Land use;
• Expandability;
■ Impacts; and
• Community support.
Approximately 40 qualitative and quantitative criteria were Groups look at transportation needs
used in the detailed evaluation process. To facilitate the ▪ z. .a
most objective evaluation possible, a numerical rating s r
system was used to rank each short list alternative within �.'• !w=t.- ..0a..;t -
each criteria. As a result of the process, the Western A ecir a,__W .. -- :_.; ...___
Rail alignment was the highest-ranked alternative, followed -^ ,.... _ .
by HOV/Bus lanes, the Western B Rail alignment, and the z ts_a , ,y
Interior Rail line. "14-4---.. . -- +- --
9
NORM FRONT RANGE
1hAN 5"(>R TAT iON A.L1'_R MO E5
0-P` '3I Y 7,T LArf
Packages of • A focus on more than a I ran portal
regional bus system. A Scoping' phase
Alternatives regional bus system provides kicks off study
transportation options for the Assessment may bring rail system
After the detailed evaluation ='
transit-dependent and some - ;-,
process was complete, a set of „.r o �
packages of improvements was choice riders, but a bus system aw ,,
developed. The packages were operating in mixed traffic with , :: I --,�
designed to find the best mix-and no travel time advantage .u' r —
match elements of the "short list" provides little benefit to the v '�w - _ .,
study area's transportation "'
of alternatives in an attempt to ,�^E,5 n.,;..
network overall. A regional
deal with as many transportation „a.,. _,._____::.
issues in the north front range as bus network is important,
possible. A number of factors however, to provide linkages to
guided the project team during the alternative modes or facilities.
development of the packages: • A focus on rail service
• A focus on the major conges- somewhere in the study area.
tion problems in the study area. Almost two-thirds of the .
The 1-25 corridor has been respondents to the study's COLORADO
"black box" survey said that 2 Colorado es cities' .
identified as the major north—growth surgurges - _
Passenger rail service was the , ^
south route in the study area,
and that facility is projected to best transportation policy Y '=
have less-than-adequate peak- option for northern Colorado ,.. _
period levels of service (either The study's Policy and
LOS E or F) by 2020 along Oversight Committee
virtually its entire length. expressed an interest in
seriously pursuing a rail option
• A focus on improving travel as a long-term solution for the
times for alternative modes. study area.
Under no-build conditions, the • A focus on the 1-25 corridor.
total travel time from down-
town Fort Collins to downtown While most existing study area
Denver in 2020 peak periods population centers are offset
from the 1-25 corridor, future
for those in single-occupant p
autos is forecast to be almost population and employment
forecasts show a trend toward
three hours (175 minutes). ri
Any package developed needed significant development
—
to provide significant travel
directly in or adjacent to the
time savings to a large seg- corridor. This study's Policy
merit of the population. and Oversight Committee has ---jt j
10
NGRTII PITON, RANGE
WNAIIGI'ORTAION AL]E RGATIV ES
II a: H II ITT STVOT
expressed a strong desire to passenger rail service, for US northern w baaNr for big anlNemeds
Lr:ZVensure that alternative which up to 60% FTA funding ry' marl_
solutions other than those could potentially be available) -
benefiting the single-occupant Cost-sharing options with the -
auto be developed to provide a Denver metro area's Regional
visible, marketable alternative Transportation District were "' -T-
to congestion in the corridor. explored as well.
• A focus on serving multi- Using the factors outlined
occupant autos. About 25% above, the project team
to 35% of all autos on 1-25 developed a list of 17 potential
contain more than one combination packages for the
occupant, resulting in the need Policy and Oversight Committee to
to serve carpools in any review and evaluate. They were
solution developed for the grouped into five categories:
corridor.
• Group A focused on widening
• A focus on maximum funding I-25,
flexibility. Any projects IN Group B emphasized HOV/bus
Brown cloud-
not going anywhere
recommended by this study lanes on I-25,
will be in competition with • Groups C and D focused on
other projects around the state passenger rail service on the
and nation for funding. A west side of the study area,
major guiding factor in the ■ Group E was aimed at
development of packages was providing passenger rail service
the potential availability of the on the "Interior" rail line, and
Colorado Department of ■ An additional group of
Transportation's Strategic packages, Group 1-25, was
Corridor (or "7th Pot") funding developed after the first five
for improvements in the study groups at the suggestion of the
area. That funding alone Policy and Oversight
would not be enough for Committee.
corridor-wide improvements.
Therefore, the project team After reviewing the major features
developed packages of of those groups, the project team,
improvements that could working with the Policy and
potentially be financed through Oversight Committee, narrowed
"leveraged" funding, or having the packages down to three
the 7th Pot funds provide the alternatives for final review and
local matching funds for consideration. Rote people dived done to wok
Federal Transit Administration bitm'. —
financing for transit projects `C7� '� `4='
(such as HOV/bus lanes or
11
NOR1- F13'N' RANG(
II,A,..,, `RTA1 t A.. -
[TA nIll':TY pTJOY
Package C3: Western A Rail I °'°II°I"°III,i,7--
1.2* , III,
1._,
x?IId.7 I I,N_ ..Plus Widening 1-25 -'*. _
This package combined the Western A rail alignment on the - '' -C Tali
west side of the study area (the BNSF line from Fort Collins r. iA;
to Denver by way of Loveland, Longmont, and Boulder, ice]hoe,Dente, , J W`
to an,C II / Reur 11146
generally a single-track alignment with passing tracks
where needed, and using self-propelled Diesel Multiple Unit r , J Is`v 1 uY
"regional rail" commuter rail technology) with a widened I- I o _._L-1,-, '
hd
25 from SH-7 to SH-1 1 9, a distance of approximately 11 ' sit """ "�
PP y " SII7t ~11119
miles, and North Metro HOV/bus lanes (from 70th Ave. to \ it I ---
-ICU >� ` Id,Ilh kI , uoV lam,
SH-7. The package's total cost was $748 million. ` 1 ,RR
v
Benefits Drawbacks US 36 Bus
F �9
d I I ,1 Mess I I Boulder
• improvegkQy 001-15. • No improvement to LOS on northern Rm
segment of ['Until r Lehi
• GtPpgYrkrMM fatcOMt• l 25 T- 911
sliming slkbl IftD • No benefit to bus riders,carpooiers,or vanpoolers ay, \
Fk0ytl(b4e.I Gn nplrMtprn segment of I-25. F'1.7- 'r,1 ;1 .I . , I
• imprdvrM rl titles. ' • Poc,*eb telt Investment on west side of study r C -�x_i'" _'4
area *purer'vilS Studies
• Provides no alternative mode north of SH-7.
Package D4: Western A Rail Plus 'I•' l.y -
w^ Immo ten U°bin,,
nts
HOV/Bus Lanes on 1-25 i I°'°°Ir`°1e
�I .-111%
IM R
This package combined the Western A rail alignment on the .�--_�_ .
�
west side of the study area (the BNSF line from Fort Collins I'-SmacRmu '
e
to Denver by way of Loveland, Longmont, and Boulder, R°,I From Dent ei - - dlir wF B
Ito Foil Collins / R-s alBe.
generally a single-track alignment with passing tracks \ � , h ,,
where needed, and using self-propelled Diesel Multiple Unit 14- "`"
"regional rail" commuter rail technology) with HOV/bus y let .i,. ,
lanes on 1-25 from SH-7 to SH-66, a distance of = •s '°'Ii
approximately 14 miles, and North Metro HOV/bus lanes. - �iy
n rtll nn , Hcl �
The package's total cost was approximately $836 million. 30Uli I 70th St 4 t 941 '
:...1.15'S 16 R "`4'-u --
•a Dry
Rapid I .i I ec I U, Ile,
• R I4 11 r est
on 1-25 No benefit to bus riders, � �� s
�
• G. for post-shatng with' crtt gdflt of Sri on • "
RID p , northern*trment of I-25. �.1 =
• Improved WPM times. • Focus red investment on west - d .` S F 2 ,
s de of*WS arse. ,s tea ((Attila
it
• No mkt to LOS on northern ,
segment of 1-25
°Other MIS Studies
12
Non-IH FNONI RANI:!
IlrAr;'i•'Ir14 rAT IOU At T!Nr.AI 1W S
It A:.IL Y ,ruDY
Package 1-25E: Rail on 1-25 ` -_.
' Remonul Mobihly
aAI ` I IIII)r.weIIIeI11U
This package featured a "hybrid" rail alignment combining i us 2g7
Hs g5
elements of the Interior and 1-25 rail lines in the central LARiw.P � ; 4,
— -
portion of the study area along with the North Metro HOV �`� .,.
lanes. The package's total cost was $881 million. -_ '• • ;H.
\ Rai I from Denver —
..' to fort Collins
Loveland.and r
Greeley _- Re•;•onel 8u:
Benefke Drawbacks ym- Se.,is
• Travel tiro iidv+hta s. • No improvement to LOS on s I-25 1'ti; s
• Rail service to elf miler Oceo ietion canters. 1-2:5 north of$H-7. ( .
• Beet rklirsliip,of as IOW options. • No ben It to bus riders. `( .1 ,/
• Fotasalt xW On L113 cortldbr. OfOOtillee,or velipboitits on _ ,,....
North Metro NOV hoe
• Oda tulli.Na•fir •etserirKi with AID I-25 rnglr t o $Kt7 _ aa;
Crum 70th Ave..- SH 7". '�'
• Most ttit�lldaFllf;QritiDn. � ft '
• ftriaClllityi litlbxemsnts south of 5N-7, }• �
• RA I> $Trf TowFnrf saa. 4 _
e. ti ., .i
'1 hher MIS Simi':c
.Y. b . Front'tango 7lrenplortatiun Study Seeks Input .'hrl M
INNOONCIIIINNNOf^ma...m..�.. O - 2 3
:..11..Fop"r i--yE r.wrr��r�i•M . Wntlle � ?,
ll M,r.l u...w.
-` DESIGN DETAILS IN PLACE --
-- INSIDE . .
rte^ ..........� _ r,Mock. _..-
! .......
.... Lars GET MOVING! .a
w - c __ -
�.- Project Newsletters(lef. Open
i +:fi Houses and Workshops(above), were
Y key elements ofthe public process for
this project.
13
Recommended
NORTH FRONT RANEE
Vision Plan TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY
..yY
_I Phase IB: Rail from
Fort C oils s -
an 3 Collinsreele) t
and Fort ollins iinl, q at
;__,;-. '",( 7-.\\---,_,,...•.!.
L4 .!M `
=fir
g
1PRR_ p
— • hl D `I ' v
\ Phase IA Rail from
-
.UenvutotlS3d -91 Alternative Rail Ili I p
- •
- Routes to Greeley i Its III
Regional Bus '._
Scrsw _ _ 7 *_.
Combination _
General Purnuse- - -�' ' US 87 12>.US 85 - - is
' �
1 HOV Bus l ants - // < � -
� �
Gum SI-I-71 to SH-66 1 Reeional MobilitF iI
+ i Imnrooements � .. ... '._'�l�4. .'p..
,' 1, � ii 9 US 287.I-2? US 8? ._ ..,,I "+�
North Metro I IOV Bus t'
Lanes from 7Dth Ave to SI I-7 �' l
.� ' Ili I ii
f�ti II":;-7n---7r=. Rail, HOV hOCAL
es in 1-25 cor
of � LL,�� i V �I I Pa� , m �
'�" a - 5 �-7t]t Nt iFdl{f,` ..I�" .a. -
Potential rasseneei Rail Station Lz ate,:
0 Ali ti..Passennel Rail Station _. - -- � •.
After reviewing the benefits and drawbacks of the three packages of improvements, the
study's Policy and Oversight Committee developed a recommended Vision Plan for the
NFRTAFS study area that combines the best elements of the packages and fulfills as many of
the guiding characteristics mentioned earlier as possible. The Vision Plan includes several
major components:
• A revised "hybrid" rail alignment focused in the I-25 right-of-way, generally a single-track
alignment with passing tracks where needed, using self-propelled Diesel Multiple Unit
"regional rail" commuter rail technology, with branches to Greeley and Fort Collins, and
using the UPRR Boulder Branch south of its intersection with 1-25 to enter DUT (total cost
of $652 million);
• Combination general purpose-HOV/bus lanes on 1-25 from SH-7 to SH-66 ($245 million);
• The North Metro HOV lanes from 70th Ave. to SH-7 ($125 million);
• Inter-regional bus service ($25 million); and
• Regional Transportation Management mobility improvements, including miscellaneous
roadway and Intelligent Transportation System improvements on 1-25, US 287, and US 85
($15 million).
14
NOHT . FHCN' RANGE
IhANSPLLFrT A GTiVE9
A FtA D L`Y CiTuor
Estimate of elements were intended as lower
priorities to be considered after all
Probable Costs Vision Plan improvements are
Overall, Phase 1A of the implemented or under way. They
recommended Vision Plan has a were included to also take
combined capital cost of $798 advantage of potential coordination
million. The entire Vision Plan has and cost-sharing opportunities that
an estimated capital cost of may be presented by the RTD US
$1 .062 billion. When the "hold 36 Corridor MIS, which is
harmless" list of previously considering its own passenger rail
committed projects is added, the service from Denver to Boulder. In
Vision Plan has a cost of $1 .194 this future phase, passenger rail
billion. In addition, the study's service is proposed from downtown
Policy and Oversight Committee Denver to Longmont by way of
endorsed longer-range future Boulder and the BNSF line at a cost
phases that include passenger rail of $227 million, with another
service on the west side of the extension from Longmont to Fort
study area. These longer-range Collins at a cost of $113 million.
Iteementenden Vision Plan Estieete of Probable Costs by flue and Comment
Pes.wca r nt ernNNM con tr ballot doihm)
PHASE Rail 'OUT re 8O WCR 8 IUPRR)
Rail on,l.25 rmslj'RCS E Ti WS 34(new rradci
Total PRA*to
o P f uisO W from SH-7 to SW813 $245
N i
North lk $1 E,Inter4egi SOS W, , r.
tE lT
TOTAL FRAl S'54*Nq iW +twat .
I-26HiDW hlr t 7
Hasvmny Rtl'. �'
U81Ei hrosn w
rv•
radii
TOTAL� lam+
FUTURE
paA from
Roll irOm lx0tWASI,t,0 eollins - •MPS
TOTAL FUTURE MAi .340
;.;
15
NORrry FC)NT RLNGF
rV,AI.`.F't rra TAT It At IF NN/.NVF9
The Vision Plan's study area;
• Coordination with existing and
Major Components planned RTD bus service in the
Include: Boulder/Longmont/Brighton
areas; and
■ A capital cost of approximately
Inter-Regional Bus Service $25 million (including vehicles
and park-and-ride lots).
This component of the Vision Plan
would use a network of over-the-
road coaches, standard buses, and Inter-Regional Bus Service
small buses to provide local and N I l I ‘ U
s ,"�'
express service to most Fort Col li • ' i — %r
communities in the NFRTAFS
study area. It was designed as a • - • t I
stand-alone component but also • •. 'iu of i„„'
__ _
will provide connections to the LARINrR �
HOV/bus lane system and the _ ' •
L ve. ��
passenger rail component. • `r-TM
o_ hnstown • ,al n
ern,.
•. c• �i
The component's key features Berthou Bert • W -• �, 24 Vv'- ' I1
include: Ui]ciest
• Express bus service focused on vl'..,
US 287, 1-25, and US 85; - •—Ig •°ettlatteviIie
• Feeder bus routes along the [ioocmmrte •
study area's major east-west id
corridors;
• Timed transfers at key pick-up a •
a.
points to allow convenient and I •
Bo _I , ,
B
efficient access to all parts of 1� ...,Ni 1 , • • „._
MUTE' 1
the network; mra.sa"aw °°"' t A Df�;lS
• Service at 20-minute headways ,j
�C'�� �m B i �sth'R'-be
during peak periods, and one- E` l' . / 2
hour headways during off-peak r r/
•
A 1
hours; Key iii: —
• Supplemental inter-regional , _ i
� Express Sell ice �...
vanpool service similar to that I. 1, n" �,'—_ -,-''
— Feeder Net ork -
operated by DRCOG : r
(RideArrangers) and the — Enhanced RTD t, .' "r ,' r �0:
NFRT & AQPC (SmartTrips); Connections 3--J �' ARARA LCE
• Use of both existing and new o Timed Transfer . -%°?r,I -\\ ,-,
park-and-ride lots located at Points/Stations
strategic locations around the
16
NC HL.. f)VCNL RANGE
fHA•JsF'. IWO ON TE r_s
n nsemn Anuor
Combination General Purpose-High • A maximum of 47,000 daily Tnnsponzuon/Gmwth
Occupancy Vehicle (HOVI/Bus bus riders, carpoolers, and Group endorses
Lanes vanpoolers using the facility road expansion,
north of SH-7; and commuter rail
This component of the Vision Plan • An estimated capital cost of
would add one lane in each $245 million. hz :,~'w .
direction on 1-25 between SH-7
and SH-66 (a distance of In addition, the Vision Plan r-b :t
approximately 14 miles) that assumes the construction of a '
would be available only for buses similar buffer-separated HOV/bus
and high-occupancy vehicles (such lane facility between SH-7 and
as carpools and vanpools with two 70th Ave. (under consideration by
or more persons) during peak the RTD North Metro MIS), at a
periods, reverting to general cost of $125 million, resulting in a .."
purpose lanes during off-peak total estimated probable cost for
periods. Its key features include: the entire facility from 70th Ave.
• Separation from other lanes by to SH-66 of $370 million.
a 4 foot painted buffer;
• Designation for buses, high-
occupancy vehicles (with two
or more persons), and vanpools
during peak periods;
• Availability to general traffic
during off-peak periods;
• Use by buses and other transit
vehicles as part of the inter-
regional bus network;
• A 2020 peak period travel time ,
for bus riders and car-poolers
between downtown Fort
Collins and downtown Denver
of 129 minutes (compared to irO4.. Pi;" �-.11$01/444;
N
single-occupant auto travel N �� y,.. a� Z
times of 146 minutes when rw r.;
this project is built and the no-
build single-occupant vehicle �a , �».
travel time of 175 minutes); yI '•�
..n
IV _Lme l l'.:Lae l'f'.. .u nd I I0'Tva I LmelLd I Y I B•Lme I.SXb .P AeA I_5,.6I I Hme _Lore) I:'Imel l_^SNb f RO BiIIa IIL'a dI re l '_Lm.I IIY.rIa
YYto Id d Ii G ,€ST!I1tL I s Gmatll�cLaY, I II l e .ad
17
NORTH Ikoe, HANGS
Ih<vsront rn I Li V�Y
Passenger Rail Service where necessary to meet
operational requirements (right- ,! ,1 1 I -w
The passenger rail component of of-way on 1-25 to be preserved
the recommended Vision Plan to allow double-track
would provide passenger rail construction at all locations);
•
service from downtown Fort • A 2020 peak period travel time
Collins to Denver Union Terminal between downtown Fort
(with a branch to Greeley), Collins and downtown Denver
primarily in the 1-25 right-of-way. of 83 minutes (compared to
Its key features include: the no-build time for single-
• Total trackage distance of occupant autos of 175
approximately 88 miles; minutes); and
`
• Passenger stations at key • Daily estimated ridership of t
Keep spotlight on Colorado's
interchanges and regional 10,300. need for commuter rall projects
transferpoints; , €" =trAt.'1,-=-ft*Zr
• Use of the UPRR right-of-way The Vision Plan rail network is e ;
to enter downtown Fort Collins proposed to be built in two
from I-25 (transition point just phases, with Phase 1A to
north of US 34), use of the construct the initial rail segment
Great Western and UPRR right- from DUT to roughly US 34 (a
of-way to enter downtown distance of approximately 47
Greeley from 1-25 (transition miles) at a cost of $388 million.
point at US 34 or SH-60, with Phase 1B would construct the final
the exact route to be segments from US 34 to
determined by future studies), downtown Fort Collins and
and use of the UPRR Boulder downtown Greeley (a total track
Branch to enter Denver Union distance of approximately 38
Terminal from 1-25 (transition miles) at a cost of 5264 million.
point ,just north of WCR 8 east
of Erie); The maximum operating speed on
• A supplemental inter-regional the Vision Plan rail alignment is 79
bus network as described MPH, with an average speed over a
earlier; the entire corridor of
• Service at 30-minute headways approximately 45 MPH. Travel
Y
during peak periods and one- time between downtown Fort
hour headways off-peak; Collins and downtown Denver is `M
• Use of self-propelled Diesel estimated at 83 minutes. Travel
Multiple Unit (DMU) commuter time includes approximately two
rail vehicles; minutes for each station stop and
• Emphasis on single-track includes deceleration/acceleration
construction, with double-track times.
18
NORM FRONT RANGE
h+nns�ovrA l'GN ..l re 1NAT,VES
Fr?5 3 L—' OTUDT
Estimated Travel Times(in minutes)Between Rail Stations for Vision Plan Rail Alignment
Ft Calera N Hammy Rd Greeley US.34 SH-119 120011E-470 DUT
Ft:ColNne N: .N/A 8 • 18 38 68 83
Hasmcny Rd 8 WA • 10 28. 50 75
Greeley C • N/A 36
US 34 18 10 36 WA 18 40 85
SH•119 36 - .28 54 18 N/A 22. 47
12r/5-470'' 58 50 76 40 22 MIA . 25
OUT 83 75 101 85 47 25 N/A
* requires transfer at US 34
*e exact station location is not yet determined but is assumed for travel time computation purposes to be located approximately
at 120" Ave.
Major Performance Characteristics
The table below summarizes the major performance characteristics of the Vision Plan.
Total
BusIHOV Rail Regional Bus Inot Incl.TMI
Maximum Capacily 23000 33000 7200 56000
Daily Users 71000 IC290 2000 01290
NFR Users 42600 8040 1500 50640
%of total 60% 78% 75% 62%
Peak Users 52540 7315 1000 60155
%of total 74% 74% 50% 74%
Peak NFR Users 31240 6483 750 37723
%of total 44% 63% 38% 46%
New Users 10050 10290 1650 20940
%of total 15% 130% 83% 26%
Travel Time(FtC.OUT) 120 93 180 NA
Capital Costs $37000x.003 9652000 MO $25000000 51,047000000
Length of Facility 27 87 NA NA
Capital cost/mi(avg.) 813 703 704 87494253 NA NA
Annual 0&M $8.100000 838 000000 513000000 859,100000
Annualized Costs(avg) 837700000 $90,160000 515000000 $142,660,000
Annualized users
Factor 275 302 275 NA
Number 19525000 3107560 550000 23182580
NFR only 1171503 2428080 412500 14555580
Peak only 14448500 2239809 275000 17023119
New only 2928750 3107580 453750 6490080
Annual Costs/Annual Users $193 $:9.01 92727 8616
Annual CosWannual peak $261 $:49.21 854.55 $8.39
users
Annual Costs/annual NFR 8322 53713 53636 4981
users
Annual Costs/Incremental 91287 829.01 83306 92201
users
19
Implementation
•
Scenarios NORTH LTERFtONT AANOS
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
FtASIBILrTY STUDY
I I �, a
. J
I
The recommended Vision Plan is a long-range framework for the development of major
transportation investments in the north front range of Colorado. A number of activities need
to occur if the projects recommended in the Vision Plan are to be implemented. One activity
needed is the development of a funding plan. Also, several short-range and long-range
activities need to occur to ensure implementation of the plan.
It is likely that no single public or private entity will be in a position to fund the entire project.
The most realistic financing arrangement is one whereby a number of public and private
resources are pledged by a variety of participants over a series of years and perhaps a
segment at a time. However, it is important to point out that few public sources of funding
will be available from any source unless and until one or more components of the NFRTAFS
Vision Plan are incorporated into fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plans.
No funding decisions have yet been made by any entity involved in this study to implement
any portion of the Vision Plan, and it is recognized that there are many unmet needs in the
region and the state. For example, the NFRTAFS study corridor is one of seven corridors
affecting the Denver metro area that are currently under study. Funds have not been identified
for any of those projects, and each would potentially compete for federal, state, and local
dollars after the "funded" East and West Corridor projects in the DRCOG region, which are
assumed to be implemented with federal "new starts" funding after 2010.
20
NOR'H IRON RANGE
IknN':ii"va IAIIGN HI IF RNAHV E5
FFAsnLu-Y .ruoy
Potential sources of funds for • Increasing the motor fuel Transportation Equity Act
NFRTAFS Vision Plan components tax or indexing it to for the 2 I st Century
include: inflation; INTON..
• Imposing a state sales tax f 7
Federal: on fuel; and k l', . $
• Section 5307 Urbanized Area • Other State Grant t,_ 3
Formula Grants; Programs.
• Section 5309 Capital
Investment Grants and Loans Local/Regional:
("New Starts"); IN Rural/Regional Transit n ..M• ,...�.„�
• Section 5310 Elderly and Authority;
Disabled Grant Program/ ■ Dedicated Transportation Sales
Section 5311; Taxes;
• Flexible Funding Programs • County or Municipal General
(including the Surface Revenues.
Transportation Program and the
Congestion Mitigation Air Private:
Quality Program). A number of private financing
options are potentially available to
State: help pay for portions of the Vision
IN 7th Pot: Strategic Corridor Plan, including:
Investment Program document ■ Joint development projects
(also known as the "7t" Pot"), (particularly at passenger
which has designated a total of facilities such as rail stations
$383 million for improvements and bus park-and-ride lots);
in the 1-25 corridor between IN Private donations;
Fort Collins and Denver. If the ■ Land donations;
State Transportation • Development "linkage" fees;
Commission chose to do so, ■ Business improvement
some of that amount could districts;
potentially be available as local ■ Special improvement districts;
matching funds for Federal ■ Tax increment financing
Transit Administration Grants; districts;
• Highway Users Trust Fund • Utility easement leasing in
(HUTF); facility rights-of-way; and
• General Fund Appropriations. • Railroad contributions or
transfers.
• Other State Taxes, including:
• Increasing the state vehicle m;o "1
registration fee;
• Increasing the motor vehicle
ad valorem tax;
21
Short-Term and Long-Term
Action Plans NORTH FRONT RANGE
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
Ft.SIBILT' STUdr
—
.p- •
is tl .n. i W` 1Ini}di
trl ; 4
1411/21
.. �` � r.4 � .,n� ', y tit a"i WI ^'itWr
•
•
A i' '
Overall, the most likely scenario for funding the Vision
Plan should contain the following elements:
• a CDOT share within the $282 million dollar range
available for 7th pot funding in the corridor for use as
potential local match for FTA grants if the CDOT
Transportation Commission chose to do so;
IN the maximum possible RTD share on overlapping projects;
■ the maximum possible federal share at a 60% (or higher)
level for all transit components; and
• the maximum possible "other" contribution by local
governments and the private sector.
It is extremely important to reiterate that no funding decisions
have yet been made by any entity involved in this study to
implement any portion of the Vision Plan. Therefore, if the
Vision Plan's components are to be implemented, local,
regional, state, and federal decision-makers will need to take
specific and definite action in support of those components.
There are a number of actions that regional decision-makers
can take, both short-term and long-term, to help facilitate the
implementation of the overall Vision Plan.
22
NORTH FRONT RANGE
FRANS,-RTAT ON A.. NATIVES
FLA5 2 L�'Y l3TUDY
Recommended short-term actions ■ The two MPOs involved in this
(1-5 years): project should move toward
including the recommended
• CDOT should modify its Vision Plan into their own `te
"'
ongoing design for highway "preferred" or vision plans
widening between SH-7 and (such as the DRCOG 2020 f-
SH-66 to add four feet of Metro Vision Plan). This would a
pavement to accommodate be a first step in moving °
HOV/bus lanes. toward eventually including as —420
■ CDOT also should modify its many Vision Plan components
ongoing design for highway as possible in fiscally
widening between SH-7 and constrained Regional
SH-66 to ensure a 30-foot Transportation Plans.
envelope for passenger rail ■ With the completion of this
service within the 1-25 right-of- study and the expiration of the
way between the railroad original Memorandum of
bridge north of WCR-8 and SH- Understanding (MOU)
66 (where passenger rail governing the study, the Policy
service is called for by the and Oversight Committee that
Vision Plan). The current oversaw the project has
design, as outlined in the transitioned to a Funding and
Environmental Assessment for Implementation Committee.
this stretch of highway, calls This group, working with
for a 24-foot typical envelope former Project Management
between the facility's frontage Team members from the four
roads and main lanes. sponsoring agencies, can take
• CDOT, possibly working in a number of actions to help
conjunction with RTD and local implement the Vision Plan and
governments, should take its components:
steps to preserve the UPRR • The new Committee should
Boulder Branch for future continue to monitor the
passenger rail use. progress of the RTD Major
• TransFort, COLT, and The Bus, Investment Studies to
the public transit providers in ensure ongoing
Fort Collins, Loveland, and coordination and to
Greeley respectively, should consider modification of
immediately begin discussions the Vision Plan to better
between themselves and with mesh with any RTD MIS
RTD to implement an inter- recommendations. Mill!regional bus system as a first • The new Committee should i •
step toward providing added monitor any new
mobility in the NFRTAFS study developments related to the
area. revised travel model being
23
NORTH F!RON- RANGE
T)1ANs.GNIANON t17 I RVA1 VE5
F CAGG pit(FY .srJOY
produced by DRCOG for the avenues for exploring land •
Denver metro region in the use alternatives should be a
spring of 2000. explored as well.
• If budgetary resources are • The new Committee should
available, the new begin discussions with the �y
Committee should work state Transportation
with the Project Commission on potential
Management Team and the actions the Commission
four sponsoring agencies of could take in support of the
this study to offer to Vision Plan, including
provide local jurisdictions in endorsing design changes
the NFRTAFS study area to the 1-25 corridor to
with an analysis of accommodate HOV/bus
alternative land use lanes, preserving right-of-
scenarios using the inter- way for a passenger rail
regional travel model line, and preserving the
developed for this project. UPRR Boulder Branch.
This could include • The new Committee and
modifying projected 2020 other local and regional
population and employment decision-makers could work
densities along the Vision with the area's state
Plan's recommended travel legislative delegation to
corridors to determine develop a strategy for
impacts on the number of implementing all or part of
users of the Plan's the Vision Plan's
components. It also could recommendations.
include recommendations • The new Committee and
on land use policies and other local and regional
trends to help improve the decision-makers could
cost-effectiveness of the potentially begin developing
Plan's components.. The I- a strategy for securing
25 corridor study currently future Congressional
being undertaken by the earmarks for the potential
City of Fort Collins and federal share of the Vision
other entities in the Plan. According to the
northern part of the financial scenarios shown
NFRTAFS study area may earlier, the Federal
represent one vehicle for government could
reviewing potential land use potentially pay for more
changes along the corridor than $460 million of the
that can be integrated into $798 million proposed for
the inter-regional travel Phase 1A of the Vision
model. Other possible Plan, and for more than
24
NOSE I IMONT HANCE
MANN,. RlAT TI RM1ATIV ES
14 A-..Y1 Y _Iiluv
$600 million out of the Recommended longer-term
entire $1 .2 billion Vision actions:
Plan. This study already
has a $500,000 earmark in ■ The additional laneage on I- 25,,
TEA-21 ; the area's 25's southern segment
Congressional delegation (between SH-7 and SH-66)
could be encouraged to could be opened as peak
expand that earmark and period HOV/bus lanes as called
work toward ensuring the for in this study. Current
Vision Plan's funding under CDOT plans (after the
the Federal Transit statewide TRANS vote in
Administration's new starts 1999) call for widening on 1-25
program. Obviously, such to occur from SH-7 to WCR-8
earmarks will not be viable by 2009, from WCR-8 to SH-
unless and until Vision Plan 52 by 2010, from SH-52 to
components are included in SH-119 by 2012, and from
fiscally constrained SH-119 to SH-66 by 2013.
Regional Transportation ■ Pending availability of funds,
Plans. But raising the the passenger rail component
awareness of Congress on of Phase 1A from DUT to 1-25
the importance of this Plan (where the UPRR Boulder
to the region is an Branch intersects the highway
important first step. north of WCR-8 and east of
• Finally, the new Committee Erie) could be opened as an
and Project Management important first step in the
Team could begin taking project, since that portion is
the steps needed to take entirely within existing railroad
this project to its next level right-of-way. That segment
of analysis. This includes could be constructed and
the possibility of sponsoring opened in conjunction with
Preliminary Engineering and RTD's North Metro project if
an Environmental the rail line is included in that
Assessment or an study's Locally Preferred
Environmental Impact Alternative, though no funds
Statement to refine the are currently designated in the
recommendations of the DRCOG fiscally constrained
Vision Plan in a more Regional Transportation Plan
precise manner. for any improvements in this
corridor. However, if the
North Metro MIS does not
include it as a recommended
project, the entire rail segment
could be built as a stand-alone
25
Nov'H fNoNI ,RANGE
MM3•o91AIION x u rnnv[s
lFn.. .i v n,iur
NFRTAFS component pending of the former Policy and Oversight Area citizens cite need for
better bus service in region
availability of funds. Committee hope that the ran
Regardless of how the project recommendations contained in this , Ai `
rrOot is funded, a major intermodal report will help the north front "'"
m
center should be constructed at range move toward accomplishing m :74
` b sm
or near the l-25/UPRR that vision. f., =1:5,
intersection as an interim
terminus for the alignment. tea
• After construction of the initial
rail line, the 2nd phase could be
constructed on 1-25 from north
of WCR-8 to US 34. Another
major regional intermodal
center should be constructed at
1-25 and US 34 to serve as an
interim terminus for the facility.
• The 3rd and 4th phases of the
rail line could then be
constructed from US 34 to
downtown Fort Collins and
downtown Greeley,
respectively, completing the
construction of the Vision Plan
recommendations.
This study is an important first
step toward developing mobility
solutions for the citizens of
northern Colorado. The study's
completion does not guarantee
implementation of its '
recommendations. The only
guarantee for implementation
comes when a region and its
decision-makers and citizens share
a common vision and work toward
a common purpose aimed at
helping to resolve future mobility
issues before they become
irresolvable problems. The
consultant team, Project
Management Team, and members
26
Hello